Is Obama Waging Psychological Warfare?

[Space Commander Travis]

I wonder how Mr. O came to be this sinister machiavellian mastermind.

[Guest]

I wonder how Mr. O came to be this sinister machiavellian mastermind.

Projection

Br Cornelius

[Space Commander Travis]

The Constitution fetishists here don't seem to realise we aren't living in 1786 and that the document has fallen out of date.

If it were perfect it would be set in stone like the ten commandments and there wouldn't be any necessary Amendments.

Its akin to a form of religious fanaticism.

Br Cornelius

I agree very much. I think it is very much a religious text, which always seems ironic when i see people arguing so passionately about how important it is to seperate Church from State. And that's before we even get on to asking (something to, as it's a religous text, you're never allowed to do) whether it is still workable as a basis for government in circumstances today, which are very different in just about every respect. Really, that's why when I see Govts. and Administrations accused of either tearing up or riding roughshod over the Constitution, really I can't help thinking that that's what they'd have to do in order for Government to be remotely effective. Clinging to the Constiution and the Founding Fathers and all that really seems very similar to hardline Religious folk believing that the Old Testament tells us everythign we need to know about how to live today.

[Yamato]

I wonder how Mr. O came to be this sinister machiavellian mastermind.

By kowtowing to the neocon Republicans in virtually every policy decision he's made since taking office. Leo Strauss was teaching Machiavelli. Literally.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/leo_strauss%27_philosophy_of_deception

[Yamato]

These are simply assumptions. Why would they be the way you say they would be. A state in charge of its own currency is just as capable of ruining its economy as any national government.

There is nothing inevitable about a national government debasing its currency - other than the fact that money lent into existence will always debase - that is as true for the states as it is for the nation. There are many of your states which are currently in a state of bankrupcy.

You really haven't addressed the fundamental flaws is a small government position.

Who would set your climate change strategy - its been difficult enough getting the nations to agree on a policy - without making it more complex. Climate change is just one of many examples of issues which can only be actioned by international treaty by states with strong regulatory powers. How about Nuclear proliferation, how about CFC's. These are complex and big issues not best dealt with by thousands of small representitives from thousands of tiny states.

You living in the past.

Br Cornelius

I don't know of any flaws in the Constitutional position. If you want to have a protracted discussion about Climate Change or monetary policy again, make a new topic and invite me with a PM. I'll be there. Meanwhile, you can't answer my questions after asking you twice. I'm not going to ask you three times.

[Guest]

I don't know of any flaws in the Constitutional position. If you want to have a protracted discussion about Climate Change or monetary policy again, make a new topic and invite me with a PM. I'll be there. Meanwhile, you can't answer my questions after asking you twice. I'm not going to ask you three times.

Yamoto - you are not a constitutionalist - you go far beyond that - you are a small government Libertarian fanatic and I have pointed out that your position has fundamental flaws.

If you think this was a discussion of the Constitution then you have missed the point.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

Yamoto - you are not a constitutionalist - you go far beyond that - you are a small government Libertarian fanatic and I have pointed out that your position has fundamental flaws.

If you think this was a discussion of the Constitution then you have missed the point.

Br Cornelius

Cornolius, I don't care what you think about me personally. This discussion didn't have screw to do with Climate Change or monetary policy either, so eat your own cooking before serving it to me. And when you have something to present from my archives in order to accurately represent my true position, you bring it. And if it's not relevant here, bring it where it is relevant. Invite me to the discussion with a PM so I'm sure not to miss it.

[Guest]

I point out the obvious weaknesses in your anti-government stance by using relevant examples.

Yours is an extreme prism to view the world.

Br Cornelius

[MiskatonicGrad]

I agree very much. I think it is very much a religious text, which always seems ironic when i see people arguing so passionately about how important it is to seperate Church from State. And that's before we even get on to asking (something to, as it's a religous text, you're never allowed to do) whether it is still workable as a basis for government in circumstances today, which are very different in just about every respect. Really, that's why when I see Govts. and Administrations accused of either tearing up or riding roughshod over the Constitution, really I can't help thinking that that's what they'd have to do in order for Government to be remotely effective. Clinging to the Constiution and the Founding Fathers and all that really seems very similar to hardline Religious folk believing that the Old Testament tells us everythign we need to know about how to live today.

But doesn't this statement just try to point out how ignorant the constitution is by you saying how little you understand it or the Bible? separation of church and state I would really like to know how this became a constitutional issue. Just because Jefferson mentioned it in a letter? he didn't even write the constitution people. yes it is workable as a basis for government or we wouldn't have a government today or any other country that uses our constitution as a basis for theirs. Since the constitution was laid out in rather broad terms and was open to modification yes it is very workable. doesn't this come down to your definition of what an effective government is? which I'm going to assume our opinions differ. Have you read the old testament with maybe a study guide or commentaries to help you understand what it says? because remember it was written under circumstances that were much different from today.

[Guest]

By the way, here in Ireland, we have a written constitution. It is constantly been subjected to amendments through consultative constitutional bodies, my daughter has just spent much of the last year involved in meeting ministers etc to discuss lowering the voting age. These constitutional bodies then formulate possible amendments to the constitution which are then put to a national referendum in which every citizen can vote. This produces significant amendments to the constitution about every decade - which keeps it relevant to the current needs of the nation.

It is the duty of the President to ensure that all legislation enacted is in conformity with the letter of the constitution. A significant amount of the case load of the Supreme court is involved in deciding the constitutionality of any given case - which again points to the fact that that the constitution is nothing more than a guidance document to govern the correct administration of the law and is very much subject to interpretation.

Br Cornelius

Edited July 15, 2013 by Guest

[Yamato]

I point out the obvious weaknesses in your anti-government stance by using relevant examples.

Yours is an extreme prism to view the world.

Br Cornelius

Yeah civil liberties are so extreme. For you it's like extreme sports, riding on a bus without a helmet.

You haven't pointed out anything about how the US can't defend itself. I don't see how the US under our rule of law is broken compared to other countries regarding "climate change". We have the power to enter global treaties and I am not trying to take that power away from our country, but I don't see the inherent "weakness" that we have that other countries don't.

[Guest]

Yeah civil liberties are so extreme. For you it's like extreme sports, riding on a bus without a helmet.

You haven't pointed out anything about how the US can't defend itself. I don't see how the US under our rule of law is broken compared to other countries regarding "climate change". We have the power to enter global treaties and I am not trying to take that power away from our country, but I don't see the inherent "weakness" that we have that other countries don't.

Because Yamoto - your government isn't dominated by a bunch of extremist Libertarians. It has been the position of the Tea partiers which has left the country on the verge of collapse and logjam for the last 7years. Your position has a poor record in administration. It is your Constitution which has allowed them to do this.

Br Cornelius

Edited July 15, 2013 by Guest

[Yamato]

By the way, here in Ireland, we have a written constitution. It is constantly been subjected to amendments through consultative constitutional bodies, my daughter has just spent much of the last year involved in meeting ministers etc to discuss lowering the voting age. These constitutional bodies then formulate possible amendments to the constitution which are then put to a national referendum in which every citizen can vote. This produces significant amendments to the constitution about every decade - which keeps it relevant to the current needs of the nation.

It is the duty of the President to ensure that all legislation enacted is in conformity with the letter of the constitution. A significant amount of the case load of the Supreme court is involved in deciding the constitutionality of any given case - which again points to the fact that that the constitution is nothing more than a guidance document to govern the correct administration of the law and is very much subject to interpretation.

Br Cornelius

OMG UM's biggest soapbox of the collectivist Union is in Ireland!? The irony's so thick I can cut it with a claideamh.

Now show me "the significant amendments" to your Constitution on Climate Change then since you brought that one particular nugget up as a bone of contention for the US not being able to deal with the world on the State level.

Because Yamoto - your government isn't dominated by a bunch of extremist Libertarians. It has been the position of the Tea partiers which has left the country on the verge of collapse and logjam for the last 7years. Your position has a poor record in administration. It is your Constitution which has allowed them to do this.

Br Cornelius

Cornolius, you're contradicting yourself again. If our government was appropriately constrained by the Constitution, nearly all of the nonsense that comes down the pipe wouldn't exist in the first place. You show me the list of the logjam and then show me the authority in Article 1 of the Constitution and then when you get done with that exhaustive exercise you can get away with this clueless accusation.

[Guest]

OMG UM's biggest soapbox of the collectivist Union is in Ireland!? The irony's so thick I can cut it with a claideamh.

Now show me "the significant amendments" to your Constitution on Climate Change then since you brought that one particular nugget up as a bone of contention for the US not being able to deal with the world on the State level.

Yamoto - I pointed out that your philosophy could not adequately deal with international treaties - I said nothing of your present government or institutions. It requires strong national governments to introduce treaty obligations and the powers to bring them into effect. No small government or government of the individual states can achieve that. Don't twist my words and meaning. Most treaties are now negotiated at US Federal or EU level and it suits my country to allow that and to follow through with appropriate European legislation and enforcement bodies.

I think your irony radar is off somewhat. Your president is so hamstrung by your checks and balances that he can not introduce any of the legislation he was elected to introduce - that is the definition of a dysfunctional government, and its all courtesy of you founding fathers who you believe could do no wrong.

Cornolius, you're contradicting yourself again. If our government was appropriately constrained by the Constitution, nearly all of the nonsense that comes down the pipe wouldn't exist in the first place. You show me the list of the logjam and then show me the authority in Article 1 of the Constitution and then when you get done with that exhaustive exercise you can get away with this clueless accusation.

The constitution is not designed to stop appropriate legislation from been enacted - and when it is a vehicle for the blocking of appropriate legislation it is at fault.

Br Cornelius

Edited July 15, 2013 by Guest

[Yamato]

Yamoto - I pointed out that your philosophy could not adequately deal with international treaties - I said nothing of your present government or institutions. It requires strong national governments to introduce treaty obligations and the powers to bring them into effect. No small government or government of the individual states can achieve that. Don't twist my words and meaning. Most treaties are now negotiated at US Federal or EU level and it suits my country to allow that and to follow through with appropriate European legislation and enforcement bodies.

I think your irony radar is off somewhat. Your president is so hamstrung by your checks and balances that he can not introduce any of the legislation he was elected to introduce - that is the definition of a dysfunctional government, and its all courtesy of you founding fathers who you believe could do no wrong.

The constitution is not designed to stop appropriate legislation from been enacted - and when it is a vehicle for the blocking of appropriate legislation it is at fault.

Br Cornelius

My "philosophy" is to follow the current rule of law, nothing more nothing less. As this obviously isn't acceptable to you, and you can't rub two words together in support of the Constitution, your philosophy is outlaw.

Spending exponentially greater amounts of debt isn't appropriate. If you think that not getting this unconstitutional gruel out is the problem you're bereft of fiscal sanity.

You sir are in desperate need of a mirror. You're from Ireland and you have berated posters on the US boards for years about global warming?! Talk about the pot calling the kettle! I've been to Ireland and the first thing you notice when you go to Ireland is that there aren't any trees because you've cut them all down. Trees, responsible for producing oxygen from carbon dioxide, the most abundant gas in the atmosphere responsible for the global warming fright. The globe has 30% forest cover on average and what have you got left? 1%. Most of the trees you've got left aren't even wild, they're from plantations. Someone needs to get off their keyboards and out of their air conditioning and go plant some trees. If you had been planting trees for the past four years instead of snipping at other people bereft of any sense of self responsibility (oh I know somehow your degree immunizes you) maybe it wouldn't be so warm in Ireland right now. Revealing where you're from was a bad idea and I'm really glad I asked now. Your superiority complex with your own government hasn't produced anything significant on Climate Change now has it? Hasn't even planted any trees. What a total failure on that issue. Most major cities in the US have more trees than the rural hills of Ireland, and I'm not exaggerating.

[Space Commander Travis]

If you had been planting trees for the past four years instead of snipping at other people bereft of any sense of self responsibility (oh I know somehow your degree immunizes you) maybe it wouldn't be so warm in Ireland right now. Revealing where you're from was a bad idea and I'm really glad I asked now. Your superiority complex with your own government hasn't produced anything significant on Climate Change now has it? Hasn't even planted any trees. What a total failure on that issue. Most major cities in the US have more trees than the rural hills of Ireland, and I'm not exaggerating.

yes, Ireland is famous for its semi-desert climate.

(what a peculiar line of argument).

[Beckys_Mom]

You sir are in desperate need of a mirror. You're from Ireland and you have berated posters on the US boards for years about global warming?! Talk about the pot calling the kettle! I've been to Ireland and the first thing you notice when you go to Ireland is that there aren't any trees because you've cut them all down.

Where in Ireland where you?

Edited July 15, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[Yamato]

Where in Ireland where you?

Belfast to Dublin. I have relatives in both.

[Yamato]

yes, Ireland is famous for its semi-desert climate.

(what a peculiar line of argument).

What a dishonest line of argument. A lack of woodland cover doesn't mean a desert.

But that's some Grade A hypocrisy to be leveling the amount of criticism on foreigners he has over the years about climate change and now we find out he's from Ireland. Just wow.

[Space Commander Travis]

What a dishonest line of argument. A lack of woodland cover doesn't mean a desert.

But that's some Grade A hypocrisy to be leveling the amount of criticism on foreigners he has over the years about climate change and now we find out he's from Ireland. Just wow.

Dishnonest and hypocrisy? . Why on earth does being from Ireland disqualify one from being concened about Climate change? Are you saying that one should only express concern about Climate change if one is from America?

[Yamato]

Dishnonest and hypocrisy? . Why on earth does being from Ireland disqualify one from being concened about Climate change? Are you saying that one should only express concern about Climate change if one is from America?

Expressing concern isn't what I said but if I had said that, that would be fine. An honest reading of his many tirades about global warming usually take the form of shoveling blame for the carbon buildup in the atmosphere on others, and simultaneously tooting his own horn while he's in Ireland is not only hypocrisy, it's conceited. Here he is raging against our Constitution once again while bragging about his own in this thread and not only have his referendums not produced any meaningful legislation to fight climate change, they haven't even planted any trees yet.

This is probably the worst case of pot calling kettle I've seen all year so yes, he should get called out for it.

[Guest]

As usual Yamoto you have picked up the wrong ball and ran with it

The point was not about climate change - it was about the ability of small government and small states to negotiate international treaties and enforce them. Try getting a climate bill or a human rights bill through 30 state legislatures to see what I mean.

Ireland does have issues with climate mitigation, and you are indeed partly right that as a consequence of the famine and the lead up to the famine the nation was largely denuded of tree cover (down to 1%). Taking into account forestry lands thats now up to 15%. We could do a lot better, but history should be accounted for.

And please explain to me, before you quietly move on, what is to stop a state running up debts and debasing its state currency. Please explain why there are a number of states and cities in America which have done so already. What is so fundamentally better about small ??

Br Cornelius

Edited July 16, 2013 by Guest

[Space Commander Travis]

Expressing concern isn't what I said but if I had said that, that would be fine. An honest reading of his many tirades about global warming usually take the form of shoveling blame for the carbon buildup in the atmosphere on others, and simultaneously tooting his own horn while he's in Ireland is not only hypocrisy, it's conceited. Here he is raging against our Constitution once again while bragging about his own in this thread and not only have his referendums not produced any meaningful legislation to fight climate change, they haven't even planted any trees yet.

This is probably the worst case of pot calling kettle I've seen all year so yes, he should get called out for it.

i don't see why on earth it should be, when you look at a list of the countries that are primarily responsible for Carbon emissions and all that sort of thing, I dare say ireland would be pretty low down compared to the US. So why is it hypocrisy to criticise the US on those grounds? It would surely just be hypocritical if Ireland was responsible for more emissions than most other countries, which I doubt is the case.

* According to Wiki the Pedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions, Ireland is down in 60-something place, with 0.15% of world Emissions, while the US is second behind China, with 18%. So I'm not sur eif it's hypocritical to criticise the US on that score.

[Guest]

Irelands per capita emissions are 37th (10 tonnes) in the world compared to Americans 12th (18tonnes per year). So the average American emits nearly twice the average Irish person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Per capita is the relevant figure here.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

i don't see why on earth it should be, when you look at a list of the countries that are primarily responsible for Carbon emissions and all that sort of thing, I dare say ireland would be pretty low down compared to the US. So why is it hypocrisy to criticise the US on those grounds? It would surely just be hypocritical if Ireland was responsible for more emissions than most other countries, which I doubt is the case.

* According to Wiki the Pedia http://en.wikipedia....oxide_emissions, Ireland is down in 60-something place, with 0.15% of world Emissions, while the US is second behind China, with 18%. So I'm not sur eif it's hypocritical to criticise the US on that score.

First of all, the US is 50 states united as one. To add another layer of hypocrisy to your defense of Corn's position, he's the one that's always pushing unionized/centralized power like he's already guilty of doing with me earlier in this thread. The states can't handle it individually, they need gigantic mountains of debt to be paid back God-knows-when-with-interest because without Washington DC running the show, the states would be powerless to do the right thing. If the world was united under one global government that Corn is so endeared to, it would be the biggest contributor to carbon emissions of all. So again it's having your cake and eating it too.

If your logic is reason to condemn the US, it's also a reason to condemn the EU. But where do you find him condemning the EU? He champions it. It's hypocrisy bro. There's no other way to look at it. His criticism reserved wholly for the US is obviously more political than it is honest. It's more hypocritical than it is accurate.

But nature isn't beholden to how we draw borderlines down at the bureau and that's why I brought trees up. Trees are eminently relevant to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and he should take that degree he's always bragging about and factor in the carbon dioxide other countries are taking out of the atmosphere for once. Ireland is near dead last on that count. If you truly care about climate change at all, it shouldn't be this difficult to agree with me that they should learn how to plant a tree.