Correction. The administration originally refused to sign the treaty, and then changed their position to "under review", saying that it would take a long time for the review. No matter how you slice it, as of now, the administration is refusing to sign the treaty. The fact that we haven't used landmines since 1991 is amongst the most compelling evidence that we should sign the treaty.
I guess this is what happens when you set your Google alerts to notify you on a second-by-second basis of any new Obama criticism.
There is no need for personal sniping and trolling. Let's stick to substantive discussion. I hope you'll join me in elevating the respect and discussion in this forum. Request #3.
Joe, do you agree or disagree with Obama's refusal to sign the treaty? If you disagree, then we shouldn't waste the forum's time arguing about matters that are not substantive.
There is no need for personal sniping. Let's stick to substantive discussion. I hope you'll join me in elevating the respect and discussion in this forum. Request #3.
It may seem so. But if you look at my posts over the past several days, you will see that I have made a genuine effort to elevate the content of my posts. And you will also see that I have been clear that I was amongst the worst offenders. It isn't ironic. It's progress. And it's good for this forum. If I can do it, I am sure Joe can.
Correction. The administration originally refused to sign the treaty, and then changed their position to "under review",
So, your criticism is that they first made a decision you don't like, but now they might reconsider and change their minds and do what you want instead? And all the while they weren't actually engaging in any coduct you don't like - you just want them to sign a paper saying they won't do sonething they're already not doing? And they might still sign that paper? Those bastards!
Yes, I agree with you, Kilarney. This was a most excellent criticism. You really showed Obama this time.
Wiki: LandminesI'm pretty sure last I checked the reason we haven't signed the landmine treaty is because of our troops in South Korea guarding the border. The South Korean miltary still uses landmines to defend the border.
People need to stop viewing the refusal of the US to sign a specific treaty as a repudiation of the idea behind that treaty. As with Kyoto, it seems to me that many of the people criticizing this move do not even know the specifics of the treaty. Land mines are bad, so we should ban their use, right? Well, let's take a look at the logistics. Is every country in the world, including those we are at war with, going to sign this treaty? Are land mines really significantly different than any other kind of bomb? Does this treaty make an illusory distinction between land mines and other explosives while hobbling our ability to effectively use a technology that our enemies will continue to use? If the enemy continues to use them (and other explosives), will the toll on civilians really drop significantly from this treaty? Will the good of banning landmines outweigh the negative consequences of giving them up (South Korea)? I'm pretty sure that if I were the pentagon, I wouldn't sign a treaty like that either. (For those who like to nit-pick tangents: yes, I realize the Pentagon is not one person.)
Similarly, Kyoto wouldn't have actually been effective at reducing global emissions because it gave countries like India free reign to pollute as much as they wanted while posing restrictions on "developed" countries that would have further hurt our ability to compete with the unrestricted member countries. The decision not to sign it was a good one. The requirements were basically unattainable.
Does that mean the US hates the planet? No...it means they evaluated the specific terms of the treaty and decided that they weren't going to be effective or beneficial for the US, even in terms of global emissions reduction, which is their job. Likewise, the refusal to sign this land mine ban doesn't mean the US supports the killing or maiming of thousands of civilians. It means the benefits of the treaty have not been deemed to outweigh the drawbacks for the US.
A specific treaty with specific terms is NOT the same as a a general idea, and viewing it as such is more than illusory...it is just plain dumb.
Joe, do you agree or disagree with Obama's refusal to sign the treaty? If you disagree, then we shouldn't waste the forum's time arguing about matters that are not substantive.
Joe, do you agree or disagree with Obama's refusal to sign the treaty? If you disagree, then we shouldn't waste the forum's time arguing about matters that are not substantive.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
1) You can both disagree with something, but for different reasons. In that case, discussion would still be relevant.
2) Why does someone have to state that they agree or disagree to discuss a matter? I can hold a perfectly reasonable and probing discussion of an issue with someone that I agree with. Examining the issue further is not a bad thing just because you already agree with someone. People can hold opinions based on faulty premises. The discussion itself is much more important than a simple statement of agreement. If it wasn't, all these threads would be filled with posts simply saying, "I agree" or "I disagree."
3) If someone raises valid points about a topic, why does their agreement or disagreement with the subject matter? It doesn't. It's completely irrelevant. I, for one, don't even know if I agree with the decision about the land mine treaty, because I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. How can anyone form an educated opinion without reading the proposed treaty?
4) Continually badgering someone to state their subjective position rather than the facts they know or the points they wish to make is substantially immaterial to the discussion. If someone hasn't posted an opinion, it is hardly logical to ask them to back up their opinion on the matter. Many people have simply posted concerns, which are not the same thing as opinions.
Kilarney, just from reading here I honestly don't think that Joe is taking you at all seriously anymore. I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish by obsessively posting at him, or with your little countdown there. Just sayin'.
The criticism du jour was that the administration refused to sign a paper saying that they won't do something the U.S. hasn't done since 1991, but then they said they would reconsider and they might sign the paper anyway. The first post of the criticism du jour said that Obama should be ashamed of something the U.S. hasn't done since 1991.
So, yeah, it's kind of hard to take that seriously.
I approve of the treaty. No matter who the president is. If we aren't using landmines, then lets just sign the darn thing. More than 150 countries have signed the treaty. Some major ones haven't (Russia, China, India), but we should lead by example. I'm not naive enough to think that a treaty is the end-all solution, but it is a good start. The fact that we haven't used landmines since 1991 is the best evidence that we should sign the treaty right away. The argument that we don't need to sign the treaty because we don't use landmines, while perhaps well intentioned, is quite myopic. It is important that we sign the treaty so that other non-signatory nations will have greater pressure to sign the treaty.
I believe that Joe misunderstood my point. We should be happy that we haven't used landmines since 1991, but ashamed that Obama is not signing the treaty at this time. We've had over 12 years to think about the issue. Enough is enough.
Joe, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's refusal to sign the treaty at this juncture?
Wouldn't it make more sense to say use the term "goal" rather than "deadline" for withdrawl from Afghanistan? It's clear that's what it is. If the troops are going to stay, I understand that we need some flexibility. I'm sure most people understand that war does not provide for nicely packaged deadlines. I'll give Obama credit for having the "deadline" prior to the next presidential election.
Wouldn't it make more sense to say use the term "goal" rather than "deadline" for withdrawl from Afghanistan?It's clear that's what it is.If the troops are going to stay, I understand that we need some flexibility. I'm sure most people understand that war does not provide for nicely packaged deadlines. I'll give Obama credit for having the "deadline" prior to the next presidential election.
Yea, I figured a Goal was a better word, but I think he was pressured into using the word deadline. Due to the fact that he faced strong opposition from his own party. Again though, as much as people are critial I voted for Obama due to this emphasis on focusing on afghanistan and while I'm unsure what we can accomplish there, the people need more help there then in Iraq.
I do take Bush to task. Why would you think I wouldn't? The fact that no landmines were used during the Bush years is all the more reason why Bush and/or Obama should have signed the treaty. The reason I posted this is because I had higher expectations for Obama.
I have no illusions you wouldn't think twice to do so if he did something wrong in your eyes. That's why I asked and why I repeat the question - Why didn't you? Expectations are irrelevant - It is so clearly the right thing to do that the correct path is obvious, no matter one's opinion of either Bush or Obama, that not to do so is clearly wrong and should be criticized.
You're not someone who shrinks from directing criticism on anyone who you think deserves it - as much as it pisses me off sometimes, it's admirable, in my book - so, thus my asking why you didn't, I'm actually genuinely surprised.
This is the first time it came up in the media while I've been discussing politics here. My political discussions on this forum started (or at least really took off) with the most recent presidential election. As stated earlier, I also had higher expectations for Obama. The fact that Bush did not sign it was not surprising. The fact that Obama didn't was genuinely surprising.
For some of my criticism of Bush at the time, see the thread on torture. I've also consistently criticized Bush about the war in Iraq, even from the beginning when the war was popular.
Joe, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's refusal to sign the landmine treaty at this juncture?
This is the first time it came up in the media while I've been discussing politics here. My political discussions on this forum started (or at least really took off) with the most recent presidential election. As stated earlier, I also had higher expectations for Obama. The fact that Bush did not sign it was not surprising. The fact that Obama didn't was genuinely surprising.
Fair play then. Thank you for clearing it up for me.
For some of my criticism of Bush at the time, see the thread on torture. I've also consistently criticized Bush about the war in Iraq, even from the beginning when the war was popular.
I recall it - like I said, I have no doubt you would without thinking twice about the act of it, if in your opinion he'd done something wrong.
The simple truth is that no president is going to do everything well. I've never understood why people are afraid to criticize their own party's elected official. This is how elected officials improve, and how the party's agenda stays on track. Who are they most likely to listen to, their own party or the other party?
Look at healthcare. There was an effective grass-roots movement against the public option. Because of this, the best public option signed into law, if there is a public option, will be watered down and cover few Americans. It will cost more than private insurance, defeating the entire purpose. The Democratic base seems to have rolled over and accepted this - believing that something is better than nothing. This may be technically true, but something good is MUCH better than something ineffective. With a Democrat majority and a Democrat president, now is the time for Democrats to force their elected representatives to act, and act well. The blue-dogs shouldn't be rewarded for acquiescing to a watered down and ineffective bill. They should be punished by the party for not adhering to the party's principles. Withhold all pork (and anything else on their agenda), and make it known that you will, unless they support a strong bill. It would take real party unity, but it would work.
Those in favor of the public option should have stepped up the grass roots effort. I remember several months ago when people were criticizing the "teabaggers'" tactics. I stated that criticizing the tactics was a waste of time, because however sleazy their tactics were, they were extremely effective. The proper response was to hit back with facts as part of an equally effective grass roots movement. But that would have necessitated criticizing any watered-down Democratic plan. Nobody seemed to want to take that risk.
Look at the passion over the Vietnam War. It was a significant factor leading to the end of the war. Look how subdued the passion is over the health care bill in comparison. The health care bill will impact millions more Americans than the Vietnam war ever did - so how do you justify so much less passion?
Both parties are guilty of this. For example, the Republicans look like complete fools for their continued support of Sarah Palin. She may be conservative, but she will never be an effective leader. Anyone who thinks so is a fool. And yet there are almost no Republicans that will admit she's a joke - even if they think it and getting rid of her would help the party.
Politics is a dirty business by nature. Both parties will do stupid things. But more stupid things will happen until and unless the members of the parties stop accepting this garbage and speak out when their party does something stupid. I don't agree with much of what Keith Olbermann says, but he's a great example of someone who is not afraid to criticize a fellow liberal that screws up. Look at what he said just recently about Obama's Afghanistan decision. I'm sure it was not easy for him to say what he did, but he had the guts to do so. Both parties should have more people like him.
For some of my criticism of Bush at the time, see the thread on torture. I've also consistently criticized Bush about the war in Iraq, even from the beginning when the war was popular.
I recall it - like I said, I have no doubt you would without thinking twice about the act of it, if in your opinion he'd done something wrong.
I've looked through that thread, and I've looked for other criticisms of GWB by Kilarney, but, oddly enough, they are VERY hard to find. I guess it somehow balances out that he has a criticism of Obama every day of the week and twice on Sunday, usually in the form of an article from some non-biased source like the Heritage Foundation. Oh well, I guess some people have a different standard for hypocrisy.
I've got a lot I could say about you, but you know what... I'm going to continue to practice what I preach and not take the bait.
Why do you insist on dragging down a really good discussion because of some personal vendetta that you just can't let go of? I've already stated that my involvement in political discussion on this forum really took off with the latest presidential election. It stands to reason that there would be many more comments from me concerning Obama. Sorry, but it's a matter of simple logic.
In addition, can't people understand that I had different expectations for Obama? It stings much more when you believed he would be different than Bush. Bush was Bush. He was consistently conservative, and quite predictable. There was no point in belaboring the fact. But did I ever think that Obama would step up our war efforts and refuse to sign a landmine treaty? Absolutely not. Just as I would have been surprised (and commented) if Bush supported gay marriage, I am surprised that Obama has adopted some traditionally conservative positions. Yup. I was shocked that a president who has spoken out against torture would refuse to sign a treaty banning a device of war that has killed or maimed countless thousands of innocent civilians. People tend to speak up when we're shocked. I'm not a robot, I'm human and the emotions that go along with being human.
But this is all repetitive and a sad distraction. I just don't understand why you feel the need to make everything personal. I've consistently refrained, and I trust that you care enough about this forum to refrain as well. This forum thread shines when we stick to substantive discussion.
To get matters back to substantive issues, since you're quick to respond when offering criticism of me, how about you respond to my substantive question that's been awaiting an answer for a couple of days: Do you approve or disapprove of Obama's refusal to sign the landmine treaty at this juncture?
Join me on the high road and tell us what your position is on this matter. I'd welcome any other substantive comments from you.
Can't people understand that I had different expectations for Obama? It stings much more when you believed he would be different than Bush. Bush was Bush.
As stated earlier, I also had higher expectations for Obama. The fact that Bush did not sign it was not surprising.
Different expectations for one politician than the other? Isn't that a double standard? Isn't that . . . moving the goalposts? I guess hypocrisy is easier when you have a double standard.
Yet another personal attack devoid of substantive discussion of the topic at hand. To make matters worse, you missed my point entirely.
Yes. I have higher expectations of Obama. I'm so proud of that. Don't you? How could you possibly criticize that? You don't have greater expectations of Obama as compared to Bush? Seriously? If expectations must be exactly the same, why do we even bother to vote? How absurd! Yet that's the standard you hold me to? How patently unfair to me!
Doesn't this absurdity show you just how much your personal vendetta detracts from otherwise intelligent discussion on this forum?
You seem to be desperate for any form of personal attack against me, however illogical and/or absurd it may be. Do you honestly expect that both presidents represent my beliefs equally and any criticism must be split 50/50? I would love for Obama to do well (and have stated that earlier). Because of this, I'm much more likely to speak out when he disappoints. The sting is greater, and thus my reaction is greater. And even if I did have a beef against Obama, who cares? Attack the message, not the messenger. You were the very person who said that an ad hominem attack is the best evidence that you've lost the argument. Why wouldn't you want to follow your own standards? Why let a vendetta lessen yourself?
This is the perfect example of why we need to stick to substantive matters. The facts are what matter, not me personally. I'm honored that you believe I am worth all sorts of attention, but I humbly submit that the substantive issues are much more important than me.
So to get the train back on a substantive track, I'll ask you yet again: Do you approve or disapprove of Obama's refusal to sign the landmine treaty at this time? Or... Do you believe that Obama has, or has not, engaged in patronage?
Show the forum that you are willing to respond to a substantive query, and not eschew substantive matters in preference of sniping and trolling. I'm sure you're a decent guy who can improve this forum, not detract from it. Start by responding to one of my substantive, judgment free, questions.
Comments
Joe, do you agree or disagree with Obama's refusal to sign the treaty? If you disagree, then we shouldn't waste the forum's time arguing about matters that are not substantive.
Yes, I agree with you, Kilarney. This was a most excellent criticism. You really showed Obama this time.
Similarly, Kyoto wouldn't have actually been effective at reducing global emissions because it gave countries like India free reign to pollute as much as they wanted while posing restrictions on "developed" countries that would have further hurt our ability to compete with the unrestricted member countries. The decision not to sign it was a good one. The requirements were basically unattainable.
Does that mean the US hates the planet? No...it means they evaluated the specific terms of the treaty and decided that they weren't going to be effective or beneficial for the US, even in terms of global emissions reduction, which is their job. Likewise, the refusal to sign this land mine ban doesn't mean the US supports the killing or maiming of thousands of civilians. It means the benefits of the treaty have not been deemed to outweigh the drawbacks for the US.
A specific treaty with specific terms is NOT the same as a a general idea, and viewing it as such is more than illusory...it is just plain dumb.
@Cremlian: I'll bet someone can easily find an article from The Heritage Foundation that shows Obama was responsible for the Korean War.
1) You can both disagree with something, but for different reasons. In that case, discussion would still be relevant.
2) Why does someone have to state that they agree or disagree to discuss a matter? I can hold a perfectly reasonable and probing discussion of an issue with someone that I agree with. Examining the issue further is not a bad thing just because you already agree with someone. People can hold opinions based on faulty premises. The discussion itself is much more important than a simple statement of agreement. If it wasn't, all these threads would be filled with posts simply saying, "I agree" or "I disagree."
3) If someone raises valid points about a topic, why does their agreement or disagreement with the subject matter? It doesn't. It's completely irrelevant. I, for one, don't even know if I agree with the decision about the land mine treaty, because I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. How can anyone form an educated opinion without reading the proposed treaty?
4) Continually badgering someone to state their subjective position rather than the facts they know or the points they wish to make is substantially immaterial to the discussion. If someone hasn't posted an opinion, it is hardly logical to ask them to back up their opinion on the matter. Many people have simply posted concerns, which are not the same thing as opinions.
I agree, that he's not taking me seriously. Too bad. He's better than that.
So, yeah, it's kind of hard to take that seriously.
I believe that Joe misunderstood my point. We should be happy that we haven't used landmines since 1991, but ashamed that Obama is not signing the treaty at this time. We've had over 12 years to think about the issue. Enough is enough.
Joe, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's refusal to sign the treaty at this juncture?
Sorry, I just found that too funny to not post in this thread.
That really is just too funny.
Expectations are irrelevant - It is so clearly the right thing to do that the correct path is obvious, no matter one's opinion of either Bush or Obama, that not to do so is clearly wrong and should be criticized.
You're not someone who shrinks from directing criticism on anyone who you think deserves it - as much as it pisses me off sometimes, it's admirable, in my book - so, thus my asking why you didn't, I'm actually genuinely surprised.
For some of my criticism of Bush at the time, see the thread on torture. I've also consistently criticized Bush about the war in Iraq, even from the beginning when the war was popular.
Joe, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's refusal to sign the landmine treaty at this juncture?
Look at healthcare. There was an effective grass-roots movement against the public option. Because of this, the best public option signed into law, if there is a public option, will be watered down and cover few Americans. It will cost more than private insurance, defeating the entire purpose. The Democratic base seems to have rolled over and accepted this - believing that something is better than nothing. This may be technically true, but something good is MUCH better than something ineffective. With a Democrat majority and a Democrat president, now is the time for Democrats to force their elected representatives to act, and act well. The blue-dogs shouldn't be rewarded for acquiescing to a watered down and ineffective bill. They should be punished by the party for not adhering to the party's principles. Withhold all pork (and anything else on their agenda), and make it known that you will, unless they support a strong bill. It would take real party unity, but it would work.
Those in favor of the public option should have stepped up the grass roots effort. I remember several months ago when people were criticizing the "teabaggers'" tactics. I stated that criticizing the tactics was a waste of time, because however sleazy their tactics were, they were extremely effective. The proper response was to hit back with facts as part of an equally effective grass roots movement. But that would have necessitated criticizing any watered-down Democratic plan. Nobody seemed to want to take that risk.
Look at the passion over the Vietnam War. It was a significant factor leading to the end of the war. Look how subdued the passion is over the health care bill in comparison. The health care bill will impact millions more Americans than the Vietnam war ever did - so how do you justify so much less passion?
Both parties are guilty of this. For example, the Republicans look like complete fools for their continued support of Sarah Palin. She may be conservative, but she will never be an effective leader. Anyone who thinks so is a fool. And yet there are almost no Republicans that will admit she's a joke - even if they think it and getting rid of her would help the party.
Politics is a dirty business by nature. Both parties will do stupid things. But more stupid things will happen until and unless the members of the parties stop accepting this garbage and speak out when their party does something stupid. I don't agree with much of what Keith Olbermann says, but he's a great example of someone who is not afraid to criticize a fellow liberal that screws up. Look at what he said just recently about Obama's Afghanistan decision. I'm sure it was not easy for him to say what he did, but he had the guts to do so. Both parties should have more people like him.
I've got a lot I could say about you, but you know what... I'm going to continue to practice what I preach and not take the bait.
Why do you insist on dragging down a really good discussion because of some personal vendetta that you just can't let go of? I've already stated that my involvement in political discussion on this forum really took off with the latest presidential election. It stands to reason that there would be many more comments from me concerning Obama. Sorry, but it's a matter of simple logic.
In addition, can't people understand that I had different expectations for Obama? It stings much more when you believed he would be different than Bush. Bush was Bush. He was consistently conservative, and quite predictable. There was no point in belaboring the fact. But did I ever think that Obama would step up our war efforts and refuse to sign a landmine treaty? Absolutely not. Just as I would have been surprised (and commented) if Bush supported gay marriage, I am surprised that Obama has adopted some traditionally conservative positions. Yup. I was shocked that a president who has spoken out against torture would refuse to sign a treaty banning a device of war that has killed or maimed countless thousands of innocent civilians. People tend to speak up when we're shocked. I'm not a robot, I'm human and the emotions that go along with being human.
But this is all repetitive and a sad distraction. I just don't understand why you feel the need to make everything personal. I've consistently refrained, and I trust that you care enough about this forum to refrain as well. This forum thread shines when we stick to substantive discussion.
To get matters back to substantive issues, since you're quick to respond when offering criticism of me, how about you respond to my substantive question that's been awaiting an answer for a couple of days:
Do you approve or disapprove of Obama's refusal to sign the landmine treaty at this juncture?
Join me on the high road and tell us what your position is on this matter. I'd welcome any other substantive comments from you.
Yes. I have higher expectations of Obama. I'm so proud of that. Don't you? How could you possibly criticize that? You don't have greater expectations of Obama as compared to Bush? Seriously? If expectations must be exactly the same, why do we even bother to vote? How absurd! Yet that's the standard you hold me to? How patently unfair to me!
Doesn't this absurdity show you just how much your personal vendetta detracts from otherwise intelligent discussion on this forum?
You seem to be desperate for any form of personal attack against me, however illogical and/or absurd it may be. Do you honestly expect that both presidents represent my beliefs equally and any criticism must be split 50/50? I would love for Obama to do well (and have stated that earlier). Because of this, I'm much more likely to speak out when he disappoints. The sting is greater, and thus my reaction is greater. And even if I did have a beef against Obama, who cares? Attack the message, not the messenger. You were the very person who said that an ad hominem attack is the best evidence that you've lost the argument. Why wouldn't you want to follow your own standards? Why let a vendetta lessen yourself?
This is the perfect example of why we need to stick to substantive matters. The facts are what matter, not me personally. I'm honored that you believe I am worth all sorts of attention, but I humbly submit that the substantive issues are much more important than me.
So to get the train back on a substantive track, I'll ask you yet again:
Do you approve or disapprove of Obama's refusal to sign the landmine treaty at this time?
Or...
Do you believe that Obama has, or has not, engaged in patronage?
Show the forum that you are willing to respond to a substantive query, and not eschew substantive matters in preference of sniping and trolling. I'm sure you're a decent guy who can improve this forum, not detract from it. Start by responding to one of my substantive, judgment free, questions.