"The other one he got was Kadafi"

No he didn't. Who 'got' him were the insurgents. He had no 'kill' order on this.

"No he didn't. Who 'got' him were the insurgents. He had no 'kill' order on this."

True enough

Obama supported insurgents that killed Kadafi

And what happened was not good, should have been tried in a court,...

It's better for the local people to "get him" than have the U.S. military do it

But regardless of all that, Kadafi is now gone, and it happened during Obama's watch, not during all the "tough guy's" watch

Obama doesn't get any credit for kadafi. We were just about to sell him military equipment right before the overthrow. Doesn't sound like he got him at all. Sounds like he was helping him.

Why do folk feel the need to go around the world 'getting' folk?

Edited by MikefaeDundee on 10/09/2012 12:25:17 MDT.

Cause they are wanting and planning to get us?

That should surely mean Wall Street is next.

"You are suggesting the govt help offset the cost. I'm saying lower the cost. Lower the cost by eliminating all the extra courses that are not applicable to the degree and just focus on the requirements. This would easily reduce the cost by 1 yr or 25%. This saves the student and taxpayer. The college loses the revenue, but they can offset by admitting more students since it doesn't take as long."

Or maybe a combination?

I got my education for free, though this is no longer the case in this country. But it was a three year degree, initially (to batchelor degree). The only courses I HAD to take were ones relevant to my degree. The life education came from other sources, and I don't see this as a university's role. I also took lots of other courses in the US, as part of my AA at a community college (again free, at least at the time). I don't feel those AA courses made me in any way a better person! In fact, I fond them pretty pathetic, but maybe that depends on the college in the US (you get what you pay for???).

Funny thing was, when I moved to NZ, the NZ university wouldn't recognise any of my US courses, even the non-fluffy ones. Said they didn't know what the courses covered, so couldn't cross-credit them.

Anyway, even now our government subsidises tertiary education, and we are not exactly a wealthy country. We also have a multi-partisan government, even though we are a very small country. At least that way I can vote for who I think will do the best job, without the vote 'counting for nothing'. Seems to me a contry the size of America has plenty of room for other parties to have a say. I find it pretty sad that between Obama and Romney the polls show they have 95% of the vote!

"But the point of the charts is that the super wealthy and big corporations aren't paying their fair share."

From the WSJ

In the 1980s, the top 5% averaged 22.6% of income and paid 28.5% of taxes.

In the 1990s, the top 5% averaged 25.3% of income and paid 34.3% of taxes

In the 2000s, the top 5% averaged 28.4% of the income and paid 40.3% of the taxes.


Again, what's fair?




"Get rid of the tax cuts that were never paid for"

This mentality drives me nuts. How do you PAY for a tax cut? This is the kind of thinking that put us in the mess we're in. If revenues decline (it doesn't always BTW), you cut spending. It's our money Jerry. They work for us. When did this concept become foreign to so many in this counrty.

Fred, what's fair is for everyone to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, and maybe give lower income people a break and pay less - a lot of the reason they get paid less has to do with past discrimination and if you give people a hand up, a lot of times they can be a lot more successful.

When you earn income, it depends on an infrastructure - military, police, an educated workforce to work at the factory that made that profit,... Taxes on that income pay for this. If you don't pay taxes you're a free-loader - lazy - entitled - etc.

"Why do folk feel the need to go around the world 'getting' folk?"

It's an American thing, Mike. When you lose your moral authority, the only way to persuade people to see things your way, AKA "kiss the ring" is to threaten to "get" them. Occasionally, we have to follow thru. It works. For a while. Then some uppity WOG comes along with a few old artillery shells and some garage door openers, and things start to unravel. To the tune of a trillion dollars up front, and 3 trillion down the road, if you can believe Stiglitz & co. I have the distinct impression that we are feeling a little less inclined to go around "getting" people these days. A few thousand dead and many more thousands maimed in body and soul will do that to a country given enough time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg_rf2d894k

We're in the process of acquiring the national experience to write our own version of this timeless classic. Stay tuned and keep the faith, Mike. We'll get there eventually. Or die trying. :(

To me a more interesting question is why NATO backed the Libyan rebels, but won't do anything in Syria? Surely Assad needs to be "got" too...

Maybe we have the right to "get" people that plot to crash airplanes in Scotland or into the World Trade Center. Only "get" should be some sort of legal proceeding, not assasination. They tried to take Osama Bin Laden alive. Kadafi was an unintended consequence, but the result is better than those "tough guy" politicians that are just all talk - like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/... And Romney has many of the same advisors and talks the same too.

Bush is all talk. Really.

Brad

Your statement is ambiguous, Brad. I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing.

Bush didn't get Osama Bin Laden. He said we were going into Iraq for some good reason but that was B.S. He said we were going into Afganistan to get Bin Laden, but after occupying the country he sort of lost interest. He said his economic policies were to make the economy better but it was the opposite...

Any conservative is best off just not talking about Bush.

I think Bush is a very tough guy and has the guts to make the hard decisions. Obama is not capable of making these hard decisions because he is too busy apologizing. Do you really think we get Biden Laden without Bush efforts to push him out of Afgan. Remember Obama said we need to embrace Muslims. How has that worked our?

Do I agree with all his policies no. But I would take Bush over Obama any day.

Brad

Honestly Jerry this is the crap that pushes me over the edge. Take credit when things work out in your favor like kill Biden Laden and give no acknowledgment to prior adiminstration . But when you can't fix the economy with your policies you blame it on Bush.

Pathetic.

Brad

Edited by wufpackfn on 10/09/2012 20:05:06 MDT.

I think we're both playing the same game taking credit/blame as necesary to forward our agenda : )

Bad economy - crashed before Obama so sort of hard to blame him

Bin Ladin - Bush didn't do it during his 8 years. Since it was 3 years after Bush it's harder to give him credit.

One thing I'll give Bush credit for is the initial Afganistan effort. The CIA had a plan in place to use Afgans. Cheney and Rumsfeld were pushing military solution. Bush chose the CIA plan. Was very effective. Afgans on the ground with U.S. air support. But then Cheney and Rumsfeld undermined the CIA and took over and basically shifted to Iraq without an Afgan exit plan. Excellent Frontline episode about this.

Back to what I said - I recommend you not mention Bush, he's not very popular

Why does no one seem to mind that OBL was assassinated instead of being brought back to trial? Didn't people want to see the evidence against him presented in a court of law? Please explain how killing someone without a trial and dumping body in ocean squares with American values? He didn't fight back and besides, I would think seal team six members wouldn't have minded taking a bullet in order to bring him back.

When you are at war you don't have to give the guy a trial.

Nobody in the towers got a trial so Bin laden can rot.

If you say it is ok to 'get' folk without trial, then surely you are defending the right of Muslims to 'get' Westerners, if the Muslims feel they are being attacked?
Unless the rule of law applies to everyone, then you end up with anarchy.
Of course anarchy in the Middle East suits the agenda of some.

@Tom.
It isn't just an American thing. Every Empire has made the same mistakes, but history just keeps on repeating itself.

Edited by MikefaeDundee on 10/10/2012 00:25:11 MDT.