You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 02:01:23 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Not another lame lefty thread  (Read 10575 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MethosTopic starter

Not another lame lefty thread
« on: September 05, 2008, 01:05:40 AM »
Given the proliferation of absolute lefty non-sense on this part of the board, to compensate I decided to start a thread dedicated solely to not being another lame lefty thread.

To open with Obama sucks. He hasn't seen a vapid, meaningless platitude he didn't like, and a platform of liking sunshine and puppies is about as deep as his resume.

Secondly, capitalism and a free economy are a good thing. All other systems of economic systems of organization create less wealth across all classes and/or are unsustainable over the long term.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2008, 01:08:08 AM by Methos »

Offline Cherri Tart

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2008, 01:57:41 AM »
i would like to point out, just for the sake of fairness, that in listening to Mr Obama's speech at the DNC, he actually outlined many of his idea and presented them to the public at large.  Pardon me for being undeducated, but they sounded like he'd actually thought them through and had actually plans on implementing them once put into office.  If you'd like, i'd be happy to post a copy of that speech or PM it to you so you can read it.  Seeing as how this is meant for people other then myself, i'll refrain from posting here in the future, but I just needed to point out the facts as I see them.

Respectfully yours,
cherri.

Online Vekseid

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2008, 05:33:41 AM »
Obama's health care plan is quite detailed, and addresses a lot of issues - both well-known and not - about the modern healthcare system. Addressing ballooning malpractice insurance costs (especially with OB/GYN), doctors being paid by the number of patients cared for rather than quality of said care (a friend of mine had a doctor visit that consisted of a jab in the back and one sentence), etc.

I have to wonder, sometimes, if I'm too tolerant nonsense that pops up in general, by people who don't bother researching things. This is a role playing forum, however, so I try not to be too heavy handed.

Given the proliferation of absolute lefty non-sense on this part of the board, to compensate I decided to start a thread dedicated solely to not being another lame lefty thread.

And I'm sure you'll be happy to point out exactly where and why these people are wrong?

Quote
To open with Obama sucks. He hasn't seen a vapid, meaningless platitude he didn't like, and a platform of liking sunshine and puppies is about as deep as his resume.

Put up a real argument, or drop it. Address specific points. Tear apart his health care plan. Whatever. But this is just trolling.

Quote
Secondly, capitalism and a free economy are a good thing. All other systems of economic systems of organization create less wealth across all classes and/or are unsustainable over the long term.

Are you claiming that the right wing has promoted capitalism or a free market economy?

The free market requires several things that are absent from many facets of the current American economy.

1: The absence of fraud. Not just in the legal sense, but also in the moral sense. Frequently in the American economy, one or both parties to a trade does not fully reveal proper information about their product or service, even initiating lawsuits in order to suppress such information. More recently, news agencies face the threat of a loss of revenue when reporting negative information about a high-profile client.
2: The above may also be terms as both parties to a trade being fully informed and mentally capable of making such decisions. This goes a great deal further than truth in advertising, it also means a proper education, which many Americans lack.
3: The free market implies that one party is not inherently advantaged over another, whether by means of monopoly or government intervention. That is, one party should not be coerced - via financial or whatever means - into doing business with another specific party.
4: Capitalism and the free market in their own right do not prohibit the existence of social programs. The reasoning for this ought to be patently obvious - people naturally want to survive. If someone does not have the means or knowledge to acquire a need lawfully they will do so unlawfully.

There are not any truly free markets in the United States. Food comes close - and if a number of lobbies fail, it may return to that, but at the moment the corn lobby is busy driving up diabetes and obesity in America with its corn syrup via sugar tariffs. Always, at some point, in almost every trade in America, at one step or another the government or some informing party plays a hand. Whether it is to withhold information, provide subsidies, or indefinite copyright extensions.

But the right-wing has almost entirely been about making these matters worse.

...of all the examples I could list, of the vast abuses of power that have occurred under the republican watch in this country, I'm just going to put out one.

Because it represents the republican party in such a nutshell.

Slavery.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2008, 08:16:40 AM »
Look all I know is that Obama thinks the European Union is a country. Not even Bush made a goof like that.

Offline Storiwyr

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2008, 08:33:57 AM »
Look all I know is that Obama thinks the European Union is a country. Not even Bush made a goof like that.

"Amigo! Amigo!" --George W. Bush, calling out to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in Spanish at the G-8 Summit, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008

"Throughout our history, the words of the Declaration have inspired immigrants from around the world to set sail to our shores. These immigrants have helped transform 13 small colonies into a great and growing nation of more than 300 people." --George W. Bush, Charlottesville, Va., July 4, 2008

"Should the Iranian regime-do they have the sovereign right to have civilian nuclear power? So, like, if I were you, that's what I'd ask me. And the answer is, yes, they do." --George W. Bush, talking to reporters in Washington, D.C., July 2, 2008

"Your eminence, you're looking good." --George W. Bush to Pope Benedict XVI, using the title for Catholic cardinals, rather than addressing him as "your holiness," Rome, June 13, 2008

"I heard somebody say, 'Where's (Nelson) Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." --George W. Bush, on the former South African president, who is still very much alive, Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2007

"Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your introduction. Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit." --George W. Bush, addressing Australian Prime Minister John Howard at the APEC Summit, Sept. 7, 207

"As John Howard accurately noted when he went to thank the Austrian troops there last year..." --George W. Bush, referring to Australian troops as "Austrian troops," APEC Business Summit, Sept. 7, 2007

.....


Sorry, but I really, REALLY beg to differ on that statement. Bush has made a million really embarrassing, very public and easily avoidable statements that have made our entire country look idiotic.

Offline Storiwyr

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2008, 08:37:44 AM »
Look all I know is that Obama thinks the European Union is a country. Not even Bush made a goof like that.

I'm also trying to figure out where the hell you got this information. I've been spending the last half hour looking for anything similar to this at all. I see only places where you could have twisted his words, and no actual statement to that effect. I'd be very interested in any textual and reputable backup you have for this statement so I can actually credit it with consideration.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2008, 08:38:46 AM by Storiwyr »

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2008, 08:38:12 AM »
That's all well and good. You can call the Pope your eminence, its not exactly right. But you can call him Mr. Pope. I'm sure he can forgive you.

But you didn't prove me wrong. I read all those and he still didn't mistake a continent for a country.

He confused. Countries and numbers but not a continent.

Offline Storiwyr

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2008, 08:40:12 AM »
That's all well and good. You can call the Pope your eminence, its not exactly right. But you can call him Mr. Pope. I'm sure he can forgive you.

But you didn't prove me wrong. I read all those and he still didn't mistake a continent for a country.

He confused. Countries and numbers but not a continent.

I'm sorry, but that defense is so pathetic I can't even begin to justify it with a serious and well-crafted answer. Clearly you're not interested in facts or truth, so I'm not going to waste my time.

OH! A continent for a country! That's >SO< much worse than screwing up your OWN nation's history, addressing an important religious leader incorrectly, getting the WRONG LANGUAGE for the country you're in, or claiming that a very much alive and important figure is dead.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2008, 08:43:11 AM by Storiwyr »

Offline MethosTopic starter

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2008, 08:53:01 AM »

Put up a real argument, or drop it. Address specific points. Tear apart his health care plan. Whatever. But this is just trolling.

I'm just curious how this differs from you putting up a quote of Tom Ridge tripping over his own tongue to snear at it. I really don't see the value in that particular thread aside from your personal desire to equate Bush with McCain despite substantial political differences between the two. There was no argument made there. It was simply proferred for purely partisan reasons.

Now if you haven't figured it out from the title the purpose of this thread is two fold 1) to point out I think most of the threads in this section of the forum are ridiculously biased 2) to mock that.

Offline Storiwyr

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2008, 08:59:39 AM »
I'm just curious how this differs from you putting up a quote of Tom Ridge tripping over his own tongue to snear at it. I really don't see the value in that particular thread aside from your personal desire to equate Bush with McCain despite substantial political differences between the two. There was no argument made there. It was simply proferred for purely partisan reasons.

Now if you haven't figured it out from the title the purpose of this thread is two fold 1) to point out I think most of the threads in this section of the forum are ridiculously biased 2) to mock that.

He provided a video and made absolutely no comment about the video to indicate how he felt about it.

That's a fair site different from statements like this: To open with Obama sucks. He hasn't seen a vapid, meaningless platitude he didn't like, and a platform of liking sunshine and puppies is about as deep as his resume.

Where's your evidence for this? Where's even an amusing quote from Obama to back up this statement?

I also fail to see how your reasoning for posting this thread holds up, when you say you posted it because the other threads on the forum are: 1) to point out I think most of the threads in this section of the forum are ridiculously biased 2) to mock that. It strikes me as playground logic ... "HE STARTED IT." Doesn't smack of maturity or reasonable argument. Many of the threads on this forum--biased, yes, because if you have a strong viewpoint, it's unavoidable--actually contain factual backup, news media articles, quotes from candidates, etc. This thread has no real information in the initial post. It's by far the most biased and ridiculous thing I've seen on this forum yet.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2008, 09:02:07 AM »
I'm sorry, but that defense is so pathetic I can't even begin to justify it with a serious and well-crafted answer. Clearly you're not interested in facts or truth, so I'm not going to waste my time.

OH! A continent for a country! That's >SO< much worse than screwing up your OWN nation's history, addressing an important religious leader incorrectly, getting the WRONG LANGUAGE for the country you're in, or claiming that a very much alive and important figure is dead.
If we put you're life under a microscope you fuck up to. Just because he president doesn't mean he's not human.

Offline Valerian

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2008, 09:05:05 AM »
Everyone stop and take a breath, please.

Inkidu, perhaps you could post your source for Obama's confusion about the EU?  If we could get to some facts and veer away from the edge of personal attacks, this can still be a worthwhile thread.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2008, 09:07:35 AM »
Everyone stop and take a breath, please.

Inkidu, perhaps you could post your source for Obama's confusion about the EU?  If we could get to some facts and veer away from the edge of personal attacks, this can still be a worthwhile thread.
I know I've been looking for it! I saw it on T.V.
Someone was asking Obama, who was outlining his policy on re-establishing ties with other countries, and someone asked him what countries he was going to work on and he said the EU.
I know its out there.

Offline Sabby

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2008, 09:10:17 AM »
This thread has no real information in the initial post. It's by far the most biased and ridiculous thing I've seen on this forum yet.

Pretty much.

Offline MethosTopic starter

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2008, 09:23:06 AM »
He provided a video and made absolutely no comment about the video to indicate how he felt about it.

That's a fair site different from statements like this: To open with Obama sucks. He hasn't seen a vapid, meaningless platitude he didn't like, and a platform of liking sunshine and puppies is about as deep as his resume.

Where's your evidence for this? Where's even an amusing quote from Obama to back up this statement?

I also fail to see how your reasoning for posting this thread holds up, when you say you posted it because the other threads on the forum are: 1) to point out I think most of the threads in this section of the forum are ridiculously biased 2) to mock that. It strikes me as playground logic ... "HE STARTED IT." Doesn't smack of maturity or reasonable argument. Many of the threads on this forum--biased, yes, because if you have a strong viewpoint, it's unavoidable--actually contain factual backup, news media articles, quotes from candidates, etc. This thread has no real information in the initial post. It's by far the most biased and ridiculous thing I've seen on this forum yet.

You see I view there as being no real particular difference in making the statement myself and fiding a surrogate in video form to make the statement for me. However, if you REALLY insist by the power of YOUTUBE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EIrcpMTAac&eurl=http://barackobamasucks.net/

Offline Storiwyr

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2008, 09:51:21 AM »
If we put you're life under a microscope you fuck up to. Just because he president doesn't mean he's not human.

Another reason it's not worth arguing with you.

I do make mistakes. I can document them for you.

However, you're the one who brought out a 'mistake' to laugh at someone for in the first place.

I am, as I said, no longer wasting my time, since you'd rather jump down my throat than provide evidence of your statement.

Offline Sherona

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2008, 09:52:38 AM »
Locking this thread so people can calm down a bit.



Unlocked. Be nice. ~T

« Last Edit: September 05, 2008, 03:25:58 PM by Trieste »

Offline calamity

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2008, 11:32:20 AM »
I was nervous as I read the thread this stemmed from, hoping that someone had addressed this.  It was a perfectly reasonable reply.

And, you know, if you'd like to know what a real blunder is, try forgetting an entire country that rests between two others.  Here, John POW McCain discusses the work we need to do on the Iraq-Pakistan border:

[youtube=425,344][/youtube]

For reference:



Here's the thing.  I mix up geography all the time.  Most people I know mix up geography all the time.  But the president should have a fucking immaculate grasp on geography.  He is, after all, considered the leader of the free world.  Of course, he's going to be human.  But you know what?  My expectations are still higher than those I have for my buddies when we're discussing Middle Eastern politics.  They aren't making any of the decisions, after all.  And neither am I.

But, please remember.  There is a huge difference between referring to Europe as the EU (which is genuinely acceptable - did anyone not know what he meant; had anyone not heard the reference made that way before?) and legitimately forgetting geography.  Did he ever say, "Golly gee, iddn't the EU that one big continent up above Africa?  lolz?"

Edit: I merged this post over from this thread because it had nothing to do with the definition of the EU and everything to do with the thread where this conversation began. ~T
« Last Edit: September 05, 2008, 03:47:04 PM by Trieste »

Offline Schwarzepard

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #18 on: September 05, 2008, 11:04:08 PM »

Put up a real argument, or drop it. Address specific points. Tear apart his health care plan. Whatever. But this is just trolling.


I say the same about this:


Quote
Because it represents the republican party in such a nutshell.

Slavery.


Online Vekseid

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #19 on: September 06, 2008, 01:37:35 AM »
I say the same about this:

This is unlocked now? Okays.

Did you read the article?

The Republican party was created on the promise of ending slavery. Where's the congressional investigation? Where's the outrage? The founding reason -for- the party was to put an end to that. And yet, a contractor for a war that has been driven by them since its inception gets caught doing it, and we hear next to nothing. Parties in control of the information most Americans receive from the main stream media have their own agenda. Newsworthy items get swept under the rug for vacuous stories about Hilton and Spears.

McCain -did- declare he would strike out against corruption while in office. Which is encouraging, but it really seemed like he was riding Obama's coattails for a lot of his speech, though not once did Palin or McCain mention the middle class.

I'm just curious how this differs from you putting up a quote of Tom Ridge tripping over his own tongue to snear at it. I really don't see the value in that particular thread aside from your personal desire to equate Bush with McCain despite substantial political differences between the two. There was no argument made there. It was simply proferred for purely partisan reasons.

For one, it's its own thread, its own tone and its own purpose. Trolling is always a fishy subject and I apologize, but this:

[youtube=425,344][/youtube]

Still makes me smirk. As does the 'stumped without a teleprompter' clip.

Point the short? I always consider facts and statements to be fair game. My goal in life is not to be right, but to learn.

Quote
Now if you haven't figured it out from the title the purpose of this thread is two fold 1) to point out I think most of the threads in this section of the forum are ridiculously biased 2) to mock that.

1) Well you succeeded admirably there
2) You still need to work on that.

Now if you want to say - Obama's human too, look at all this idiocy, and present, that's fine. Do that. Point out every last actual slipup and gaffe if you want, there are plenty. FISA capitulation, moving from 'change' to 'hope', whatever. There's quite a lot to pick from there.



My primary concern for the 2008 election season is the elimination of corruption and restoring a transparent government. In this regard, both Obama and Biden have a significantly cleaner record than McCain or Palin from my vantage point.

To me, everything else is tertiary, at best. An honest and transparent government are required first, everything else comes later.

Thus, I don't particularly care about Obama's ludicrous tax plan, while his FISA capitulation galled me. Some make the comment that he would have been spitting in Pelosi's face with that - I'm certainly less than pleased with her - and that may be true, but I don't have to be happy about it.

The thing is, though, it's the current administration that asked for it, and the current republican party, under threat of mass filibuster, drove it and created the very do-nothing congress that Palin herself just mocked.


Offline RubySlippers

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2008, 09:59:49 AM »
How is Obama going to pay for all his promises and I will direct that same question to anyone else running, we have a HUGE Federal debt and constantly have no balanced budget for 23 out of the last 25 years in short- there is no money to go throwing around at the levels as desired as far as I can see.

As for Health Care ok he has lots of ideas but affordibility of co-pays and deductibles can still make health care out of reach, if they can't afford these either. I have insurance now thankfully and I have to forgo care due to the costs I do have to pay and those are fairly low and I have to avoid expensive care when I can. I don't see that changing for me.

Offline Schwarzepard

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2008, 12:46:49 PM »
This is unlocked now? Okays.

Did you read the article?

The Republican party was created on the promise of ending slavery. Where's the congressional investigation? Where's the outrage? The founding reason -for- the party was to put an end to that. And yet, a contractor for a war that has been driven by them since its inception gets caught doing it, and we hear next to nothing. Parties in control of the information most Americans receive from the main stream media have their own agenda. Newsworthy items get swept under the rug for vacuous stories about Hilton and Spears.



I absolutely read the article.  Only after reading it thoroughly did I conclude your post was worthy of what you said to Methos.

The article is totally irrelevant to your statement that slavery defines the Republican party in a nutshell.  It didn't support your statement in any way.

The company sued was Jordanian.  KBR wasn't even named in the lawsuit.  Even if, as the article states, that doesn't mean KBR wasn't involved, it sure as hell doesn't mean, prove, or even suggest that KBR was involved.  That requires further investigation, which the lawyer who filed the case is doing.

I'd like to hear more about the specifics of who did what to whom after the line about the 'middlemen' (human traffickers?) that the victims' families paid so the victims could get connected to the Jordanian company.  Were these 'middlemen' responsible for hiring or transporting the victims?  Were other 'middlemen'?  Did they lie to the victims with the knowledge of company officials who could have done something or at least reported it?   

Here's why there weren't Congressional investigations:

Congress is a legislative body not an international law enforcement agency.  In this case, all they could do is issue subpoenas to the accused foreign nationals who would promptly ignore them. 

The article states 'The killings were recorded and broadcast internationally through the news media' in 2005, which caused the lawyer to file the suit and work on it for free for 3 years.  That seems pretty outraged to me.  The missing outrage is the outrage against the failures of the governments and law enforcement agencies of Jordan and Nepal, and of course the human traffickers themselves.

How you wrangled the statements in the article into a conclusion that the Republican party is defined by slavery is more twisted than the love child of a 3-way between a pretzel, a moebius strip, and M.C. Escher.

KBR has been a contractor in public works projects and WW2 and Vietnam, wars started and prosecuted by Democrats.  If the Republican party is defined by slavery because they hired KBR, then the Democratic party must also be defined by slavery since they hired KBR for even larger projects.

We agree that the media and those that control it have an agenda.  We just disagree on what that agenda is.

Online Vekseid

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2008, 03:43:24 PM »
The company sued was Jordanian.  KBR wasn't even named in the lawsuit.  Even if, as the article states, that doesn't mean KBR wasn't involved, it sure as hell doesn't mean, prove, or even suggest that KBR was involved.  That requires further investigation, which the lawyer who filed the case is doing.

The issue is that it's happening, under our (supposed) jurisdiction. A group hired by KBR was found to be involved in human trafficking, but -their- hands may be clean, so they're completely off the hook? KBR has no responsibility for the people that do their hiring? What sort of sense does that make?

Quote
Here's why there weren't Congressional investigations:

Congress is a legislative body not an international law enforcement agency.  In this case, all they could do is issue subpoenas to the accused foreign nationals who would promptly ignore them. 

And not go over KBR with a fine-toothed comb, because KBR isn't responsible for who it hires?

The US actually has a pretty good record on cracking down on human trafficking, in part due to congressional action. But the point was not solely about KBR, it's one of thousands of injustices committed under the watch of this administration.

Quote
KBR has been a contractor in public works projects and WW2 and Vietnam, wars started and prosecuted by Democrats.  If the Republican party is defined by slavery because they hired KBR, then the Democratic party must also be defined by slavery since they hired KBR for even larger projects.

...the US did not start the Vietnam war, but you are absolutely missing the point on that one.

Quote
We agree that the media and those that control it have an agenda.  We just disagree on what that agenda is.

Make money and continue making money, and in the case of ABC and NBC, guard the reputation of their parent corporations. This means not pissing off the people who advertise with them, not losing access to the government's press office...

How is Obama going to pay for all his promises and I will direct that same question to anyone else running, we have a HUGE Federal debt and constantly have no balanced budget for 23 out of the last 25 years in short- there is no money to go throwing around at the levels as desired as far as I can see.

As for Health Care ok he has lots of ideas but affordibility of co-pays and deductibles can still make health care out of reach, if they can't afford these either. I have insurance now thankfully and I have to forgo care due to the costs I do have to pay and those are fairly low and I have to avoid expensive care when I can. I don't see that changing for me.

Which is why I'm pretty sure Obama's tax plan won't materialize. At least not as is. On the same token, McCain would have no control over a democratic congress. If Obama does get elected and the democrats gain a filibuster-proof majority in 2008 or 2010, I certainly hope they don't get as spendhappy as the 2002-2006 congress.

Health care is such a fustercluck right now and I trust it's personal enough for Obama that it will get straightened out. There's a lot that can reasonably be fixed and expected to lower costs in the first place.

Offline Schwarzepard

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #23 on: September 06, 2008, 09:30:47 PM »
The issue is that it's happening, under our (supposed) jurisdiction. A group hired by KBR was found to be involved in human trafficking, but -their- hands may be clean, so they're completely off the hook? KBR has no responsibility for the people that do their hiring? What sort of sense does that make?

Perfect sense.  The Jordanian company that hired the Nepalis and then was taking them to another job site against their will when they were killed is responsible.  That's why they were named in the case and that's why the judge ruled against them.  There was no evidence against KBR.  Their hands are clean until proven dirty and that means KBR is off the hook. 

What you're describing is guilt by association.

If you were to hire me to operate a coal mine and I engaged in human trafficking to get workers for that mine, I would be the criminal not you.

Also it states in the article that the case was about getting insurance money for the victims' families, not about human trafficking (in direct contradiction of the article's title).  Even the Jordanian company was not convicted of human trafficking.  It wasn't even charged with human trafficking.  Strangely, the article is silent on the actual individuals who trafficked the victims.  It doesn't even say if the traffickers were employees of the Jordanian company or if they were yet more subcontractors, or even professional criminals paid by the employees of Jordanian company to traffick the victims. 

Despite all the times it mentioned KBR, the article revealed no facts implicating KBR.  Instead it just created insinuations with statements like 
"...other Nepali men working in Iraq were managed by KBR employees who wore KBR uniforms."

Quote
And not go over KBR with a fine-toothed comb, because KBR isn't responsible for who it hires?

Exactly.  The article states that KBR's contracts do not make it responsible for crimes committed by the subcontractors it hires.  KBR, like Congress, is not a cop.  It cannot police the subcontractors it hires, the same way Congress can't even police its own members.  The article, your reference, states that the U.S. is cracking down on human trafficking within Iraq.
 
Quote
The US actually has a pretty good record on cracking down on human trafficking, in part due to congressional action. But the point was not solely about KBR, it's one of thousands of injustices committed under the watch of this administration.

...the US did not start the Vietnam war, but you are absolutely missing the point on that one.

I retract my statement that U.S. Democrats started the Vietnam War and WW2. 
Democratic U.S. presidents brought the U.S. into WW2 in response to Japanese aggression and entered the Vietnam War / 2nd Indochina War in response to communist aggression.  They waged war and hired KBR just like Republican presidents.


I'm not missing the point.  The point is that you just have a severe dislike of the Republican Party. 

My point is that your statement that slavery defines the GOP is false and it's the same kind of statement that you just gave Methos a hard time about.

On another topic, are you on the level about not being right but learning instead?  This is a serious question, totally unconnected to the current discussion.

Online Vekseid

Re: Not another lame lefty thread
« Reply #24 on: September 06, 2008, 10:14:13 PM »
Perfect sense.  The Jordanian company that hired the Nepalis and then was taking them to another job site against their will when they were killed is responsible.  That's why they were named in the case and that's why the judge ruled against them.  There was no evidence against KBR.  Their hands are clean until proven dirty and that means KBR is off the hook.

What you're describing is guilt by association.

If you were to hire me to operate a coal mine and I engaged in human trafficking to get workers for that mine, I would be the criminal not you.

Are you seriously suggesting this?

No, I mean it. We have laws in the United States to prosecute this sort of activity, so it's not like my opinion is just a sole voice in the crowd here.

Quote
Also it states in the article that the case was about getting insurance money for the victims' families, not about human trafficking (in direct contradiction of the article's title).  Even the Jordanian company was not convicted of human trafficking.  It wasn't even charged with human trafficking.  Strangely, the article is silent on the actual individuals who trafficked the victims.  It doesn't even say if the traffickers were employees of the Jordanian company or if they were yet more subcontractors, or even professional criminals paid by the employees of Jordanian company to traffick the victims. 

Err, it's pretty clear on that to me - they were misled. That's how human trafficking generally works. They don't kidnap people.

Quote
Despite all the times it mentioned KBR, the article revealed no facts implicating KBR.  Instead it just created insinuations with statements like 
"...other Nepali men working in Iraq were managed by KBR employees who wore KBR uniforms."

Which suggests it ought to be looked into, in my opinion.

Quote
Exactly.  The article states that KBR's contracts do not make it responsible for crimes committed by the subcontractors it hires.

If I were arguing the technical legalities, this would not be a debate at all. Likewise, employment clauses in contracts were recently found to be unenforceable. The presence or lack of something in a contract does not mean it can be forced or ignored. And even if it is, it does not make it 'right'.

Quote
KBR, like Congress, is not a cop.  It cannot police the subcontractors it hires, the same way Congress can't even police its own members.  The article, your reference, states that the U.S. is cracking down on human trafficking within Iraq.

People have oversight responsibility for who they hire. We're talking about people's lives here, not how well painted road stripes are. And Congress does have arresting authority, it's just never been used - never even talked about being used until a few months ago.

And ultimately, it stinks of the same scheme used to employ illegal immigrants in the United States.
 
Quote
I retract my statement that U.S. Democrats started the Vietnam War and WW2. 
Democratic U.S. presidents brought the U.S. into WW2 in response to Japanese aggression and entered the Vietnam War / 2nd Indochina War in response to communist aggression.  They waged war and hired KBR just like Republican presidents.

A better response would have been to say that Kennedy was responsible for most of the escalation of Vietnam. But this point is simply entirely extraneous - you're acting as if present actions and guilt stretch back into past ones, or should if my argument holds, which makes absolutely no sense.

Quote
I'm not missing the point.  The point is that you just have a severe dislike of the Republican Party. 

I thought both parties were equally horrible until 2007. The Republicans for instigating our modern crisis and the Democrats for letting it happen.  I don't particularly care for most modern democrats either, but at least there's a movement in the party to develop transparency in government, something that the entire Republican elected body has staunchly worked against.

Quote
My point is that your statement that slavery defines the GOP is false and it's the same kind of statement that you just gave Methos a hard time about.

It's what I see the policies the republican party leading to - attempts to misinform the public, conceal the truth and trap people into working in neverending debt.

Perhaps it was far too facetious. I'll admit that. And certainly every elected democrat who did not stand against it shares blame - Obama included.

Quote
On another topic, are you on the level about not being right but learning instead?  This is a serious question, totally unconnected to the current discussion.

I do concede debates on occasion, if that's what your asking.  Usually what happens is some sort of middle ground is reached.