(04-07-2009 02:11 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Now, I'm going to have to disagree strongly with the soft cancellation of the F-22, though I am open to persuasion. Just what exactly are we going to use as our primary interceptor 10 years down the road? It's not like our potential adversaries are standing still. The F-14/-16/-18 are only going to take it so far with extending the capabilities of the airframe, and the F-117 is not what I view as a primary interceptor. Even the F-35 is more ground strike than a true interceptor, if it ever does meet its planned potential.

I'm not saying that the F-22 program has been well run. But we're goiing to just stop under 200? And leave our partners (other countries) holding the bag on this one, avoiding the potential efficiencies of greater numbers ordered? I'm sure this was sorted out with them in advance, but this feels like a case of being short-sighted. With the Russians looking at establishing bases in the Western Hemisphere and risks elsewhere, we cannot run from the need to control the sky and use technological superiority to sometimes overcome being overwhelmed by numbers (should that scenario unfortunately arise).

Maybe there's something super-secret out there that will blow the doors off the F-22 and be operational in the next decade. Given how recent airframe programs have gone, I wouldn't be optimistic, but I sure hope so. Otherwise, I believe our military edge in air superiority is going to slowly erode, and our ability to project and protect force is going to be hampered.

From some neighbors that work at Lockheed Martin over in Marietta, they say the F-22 is truly 25 years ahead of anything on the drawing boards... thus explaining why we dont sell it to Japan, Israel, NATO... anyone that uses F-15's. Too much US classified technology has leaked to the "bad guys" from Japan, Israel, UK. etc.

The F-22 started as the "ATF" program back in the mid 80's.. so you have 20 years of R&D expenses and modifications on the supercruise engines, the avionics, LPI radar, stealth airframe etc. The original plan was to have a 1:1 replacement for the F-15 which was a 700+ aircraft program.

After 1991, the "threat" declined with the fall of the Soviet Union. At the time the F-22 was in a "fly off" with the Northrup F-23. The F-22 won.

Meanwhile the F-15 still was good enough to take out anything in the air. Then the Air Force changed the design to have it be the "F/A-22" and have a ground attack capability, and they retired the F-117's. It can carry JDAMS internally. That was a major redesign. The F-117 never had an air to air capability. It was strictly air to ground with Laser guided bombs or JDAMS.

As the order for F-22 dropped from 700 to 400 to 300 to 275 and now 170+, the costs per unit of course increase.

The B-2 costs $1.9 billion per plane because the original plan was to buy 135 of them and we only bought 21.

Unclassified reports say in dogfights a F-22 can post a 9-1 kill ratio over a F-15. It might be higher than that, but the F-22 runs out of missiles.

After the F-22 the next USAF Air Superiority Fighter will be unmanned..

(04-07-2009 07:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 03:38 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 03:05 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  It is not even clear that the president's supporters actually believe they will succeed -- or, for that matter, that they care one way or the other.

I find your final statement astonishing and insulting. Enjoy your thread.

I find it neither astonishing nor insulting.
I've found little indication that they either believe it will succeed or care whether it does or not.
If you have indications that they do either one, please share.

Oh, good grief.

The fact that you don't think it's insulting is indicative of why so few have been coming here to disagree with you guys. Why should I think I'd be able to carry on a civil discussion with someone whose premise is that I don't care what happens to my country's economy? Why would you think Obama supporters would be pleased to be taunted and called, in essence, chicken-s**ts for not showing up on your thread?

The Obama critiques here too often turn into attacks on the supposed motivations of Obama's supporters.

I'll now leave you to your fun. Besides, biting my tongue every time Sarah Palin is mentioned has become too much of a strain.

(04-07-2009 08:52 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 07:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 03:38 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 03:05 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  It is not even clear that the president's supporters actually believe they will succeed -- or, for that matter, that they care one way or the other.

I find your final statement astonishing and insulting. Enjoy your thread.

I find it neither astonishing nor insulting.
I've found little indication that they either believe it will succeed or care whether it does or not.
If you have indications that they do either one, please share.

Oh, good grief.
The fact that you don't think it's insulting is indicative of why so few have been coming here to disagree with you guys. Why should I think I'd be able to carry on a civil discussion with someone whose premise is that I don't care what happens to my country's economy? Why would you think Obama supporters would be pleased to be taunted and called, in essence, chicken-s**ts for not showing up on your thread?
The Obama critiques here too often turn into attacks on the supposed motivations of Obama's supporters.
I'll now leave you to your fun. Besides, biting my tongue every time Sarah Palin is mentioned has become too much of a strain.

In other words, you are not able to provide any indications that they do care. So you take a shot at the messenger. I'm sorry you took my comments personally, as I thought it was pretty clear that they were specifically directed toward those in Washington, DC.

I'm sorry, but I simply do not believe that Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank or Rahm Emanuel give a care what happens to the economy, as long as they stay in power, and I simply don't have enough to go on to make a judgement about Barack Obama either way. I would like to hope that at some point he will realize that this isn't going to work and shift gears, but I don't think so for any of the rest.

Despite your attempts to characterize it as such, this is not a partisan argument. I would say precisely the same thing about Dick Cheney or Tom DeLay or Donald Rumsfeld, for example. And as far as Shrub, I think it's more likely than not that he cared, but that case is only slightly more likely than the case for Obama. And Shrub had eight years. Basically, I think he was either too dumb or too lazy to do what needed to be done--and I lean toward lazy.

This is why I favor limited government. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The more power you concentrate in the federal government, the more corruption you are going to get. Democrat or republican, it makes no difference, as far as I can tell. I am much less afraid of concentrating economic power in the private sector than I am afraid of concentrating economic power in the government. I am aware of no reason to believe that economic greed is more pernicious, or more harmful, than political greed.

Eh, I cut back on participating here because I got tired of the hostility that sometimes creeps up from under the surface, intended or not. It's certainly not because I'm less supportive of Obama. I come to the Parliament to be around fellow friends of Rice athletics (and so that this sports dummy might actually learn a thing or two about the games I love to watch). Not to be on one side of a room full of conservatives arguing with liberals.

Occasionally I come back to the Quad to catch up, but like tonight, I often regret it.

While I understand why the OT posts were relegated from the main board to the Quad, I generally feel like it's had the effect of polarizing the discussions -- mostly it seems like it's just the extremists (probably I'm one of 'em) who meander over to this area of the Parliament. So I'm on a 10-step program to lay off this bad habit. Obviously (since I'm posting now) I'm still in the denial phase. But I'm trying.

Cue the "can't we all just get along" wisecracks.

(04-07-2009 02:57 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  And if an American company doesn't want the government making decisions about its leadership, it can look elsewhere for a bailout.

That's an interesting statement, and one that I think I generally agree with.

What makes it interesting is where we choose to apply it.

Does it apply to countries that we either (a) protect, (b) have forgiven debts (obviously a past situation or © to whom we give tremendous amount of foreign aid?

We help others outside our borders, without any DIRECT positive benefits to our own population or society (during the Cold War it was to combat Communist influence), and we are imperialist dogs, and if we try to exert influence we are bad, overstepping our bounds.

We help corporations, which whether we like it or not, are comprised primarily of our own citizens (lots of them, through 401K's and other programes, in addition to direct investors - - I am not rich by political standards, but I not only have a 401K and mutual funds, but I directly own stock in a number of corporations). So when it comes to our own people, when the government provides economic assistance, we have the right to dictate.

I don't disagree with what you posted, and this is more a philosophical point, not intended as a conservative-liberal debate . . . .

But isn't that a double standard?

(04-07-2009 03:38 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 03:05 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 02:57 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  I get it: y'all think his economic policies are crap. I don't, and I don't think anyone can yet say they have failed.

It's not a question of whether the administration's policies have ALREADY failed. The question, stated in the thread topic, is whether anyone genuinely believes they will succeed. Apparently, not many do.

Fair enough on your original question, but that's not how the thread developed.

Quote:It is not even clear that the president's supporters actually believe they will succeed -- or, for that matter, that they care one way or the other.

I find your final statement astonishing and insulting. Enjoy your thread.

He may have worded it in a way you didn't like.

I think his point is this. There have been a number of people post here as to why they think certain administration decisions on the economy are likely to either "fail" or "not produce their intended results, or produce bad results."

The call to thread was to ask if anyone felt the Administration's economic plan would work. That can be answered affirmatively either two ways: with an explanation of why they think it will work; or with no explanation, which could imply simple faith and trust that the Administration knows enough and that an explanation isn't necessary.

(I said could imply. Lack of explanation of a belief doesn't necessarily imply blind faith. A lot of philosophical beliefs I have, including those on religion, are things I can discuss with reason, but generally require enough discussion and explanation that they either can't be addressed in a forum like this, or would likely not result in anything that would have an audience here. So that could be the case with those who are convinced, and have a reasoned basis, that the Administration's policies will work, I suppose)

In any event, I think the second part of his statement follows from the first, at least for those Administration supporters for whom the implication is true (i.e., they simply accept their belief that the Administration knows what they're doing, and don't need to be convinced with theory, facts or other reasoning about the policies)

To wit, for that group of people, it just doesn't matter WHY the Administation is doing what they're doing, they just have faith in the Administration. In that sense, it doesn't matter whether it ultimately works or not, since their faith trumps anything else. What's important to them is they support the Administration (and for another group, that they DON'T support the prior - - and yes there obviously are groups on both sides of that fence that this describes)

(Again, I'm obviously not stating that ALL supporters of the Administration's policies fall into this category, but SOME do).

The lack of a response on this thread that explains WHY the president's policies will succeed is what prompts statements like the one you objected to. If there were at least a few people stating WHY we are going in the right direction with the budget, bailouts, etc, that kind of statement would have less traction.

I understand the point. There are things I take on faith with a belief that ultimately things will work out for the good, even if bad things happen in the mean time.

But absent the opportunity to explain that belief in discussions that last more than 30 seconds, people are not going to necessarily understand that faith.

No one has attempted to explain their faith in the Administration's actions on the economy, with anything more substantative than "they are smart, and they're doing their best."

I believe that too, but it's not a convincing argument as to why someone should believe their budgetary policies are sound.

(04-07-2009 10:54 PM)erice Wrote:  Eh, I cut back on participating here because I got tired of the hostility that sometimes creeps up from under the surface, intended or not. It's certainly not because I'm less supportive of Obama. I come to the Parliament to be around fellow friends of Rice athletics (and so that this sports dummy might actually learn a thing or two about the games I love to watch). Not to be on one side of a room full of conservatives arguing with liberals.

Occasionally I come back to the Quad to catch up, but like tonight, I often regret it.

While I understand why the OT posts were relegated from the main board to the Quad, I generally feel like it's had the effect of polarizing the discussions -- mostly it seems like it's just the extremists (probably I'm one of 'em) who meander over to this area of the Parliament. So I'm on a 10-step program to lay off this bad habit. Obviously (since I'm posting now) I'm still in the denial phase. But I'm trying.

Cue the "can't we all just get along" wisecracks.

I'm not sure it's fair to label the posters here extremists. I think they have strong opinions, and are interested in discussing them (one way or the other).

It's also about Myers-Briggs personality types to some degree as well. Some people don't like conflict at all. Some people thrive on it. To some people (both sides), what they believe is more important than getting along. For some people, getting along with people, or being liked, or however it manifests itself, is more important than what they believe to be true.

That's not an indictment of either group. It's simply a simplified explanation of the T's versus the F's on a Myers Briggs Scale.

I am a T, but tend to the middle. I think that I'm less strident as a result, but still opinionated. Undoubtedly people who are far to the F side could find me strident regardless of how I view myself. Some people (both sides) tend score far to the side of the T's.

I would expect Obama supporters who were strong F's would feel very uncomfortable with this thread. (i.e. offended)

It seems to be dominated by the conservative T's.

That doesn't mean there are no liberal T's. I'm not sure why they are not posting on this thread. The only thing I can figure is that, possibly, they really don't believe the Administrations budgets and policies are going to work. Which is why the thread was brought up in the first place.

(04-07-2009 10:54 PM)erice Wrote:  Eh, I cut back on participating here because I got tired of the hostility that sometimes creeps up from under the surface, intended or not. It's certainly not because I'm less supportive of Obama. I come to the Parliament to be around fellow friends of Rice athletics (and so that this sports dummy might actually learn a thing or two about the games I love to watch). Not to be on one side of a room full of conservatives arguing with liberals.

Occasionally I come back to the Quad to catch up, but like tonight, I often regret it.

While I understand why the OT posts were relegated from the main board to the Quad, I generally feel like it's had the effect of polarizing the discussions -- mostly it seems like it's just the extremists (probably I'm one of 'em) who meander over to this area of the Parliament. So I'm on a 10-step program to lay off this bad habit. Obviously (since I'm posting now) I'm still in the denial phase. But I'm trying.

Cue the "can't we all just get along" wisecracks.

While your viewpoints may often be extreme to one side, you are able to articulate them with reason and without venom, and you are able to listen to other viewpoints. If you go, the left will have lost one its best advocates.

For the most part, though, it seems to me the lefties who were/are here dish(ed) out as good as they receive(d), but they just can't take it as well, so they run off. Those who can't stand the heat are leaving the kitchen. It appears to me that for the most part, they want to say what they think, but are insulted when others say and think differently. So far, the right has shown Obama much more respect than the left showed Bush, McCain, Cheyney, and Palin.

I think part of the problem is what the Obama people have to defend. He campaigned on change, but where is it? He promised troop withdrawals, no lobbyists, tax increases only for those making over $250K, etc. Tough to defend the about-faces there and on other promises, or to defend the appointments that had problems, etc. Hopes/expectations were high, probably unrealistically so, so defending the reality might be seen as a tough assignment, one better avoided. More fun talking with people who agree with you. It is much easier to chip away at the Administration than to defend it, as we all learned in the past 8 years, and now it is tough to change the gears.

I don't think we should all just get along, if that means just nodding agreement all the time. Discourse that expresses disagreement is different from disagreeable discourse.

I am sorry the left here has decided to quit. It was fun while it lasted.

(04-07-2009 08:52 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  I'll now leave you to your fun. Besides, biting my tongue every time Sarah Palin is mentioned has become too much of a strain.

Don't bite your tongue - say what you think. Just don't expect everyone else to sit back silently. Be prepared to defend what you say. I will do the same. Fair enough?

(04-07-2009 10:54 PM)erice Wrote:  Eh, I cut back on participating here because I got tired of the hostility that sometimes creeps up from under the surface, intended or not. It's certainly not because I'm less supportive of Obama. I come to the Parliament to be around fellow friends of Rice athletics (and so that this sports dummy might actually learn a thing or two about the games I love to watch). Not to be on one side of a room full of conservatives arguing with liberals.
Occasionally I come back to the Quad to catch up, but like tonight, I often regret it.
While I understand why the OT posts were relegated from the main board to the Quad, I generally feel like it's had the effect of polarizing the discussions -- mostly it seems like it's just the extremists (probably I'm one of 'em) who meander over to this area of the Parliament. So I'm on a 10-step program to lay off this bad habit. Obviously (since I'm posting now) I'm still in the denial phase. But I'm trying.
Cue the "can't we all just get along" wisecracks.

In other words, you don't like posts that say negative things about the messiah.
But you can't really come up with anything positive to say about him.
So, let's shoot the messenger.

Let's go back to the original thread topic.
Do you really think any of this "change" is going to produce a net improvement in the lives of Americans? If so, what? And how? And why?

I believe that the impact of the Obama "stimulus plan" will be 20 to 50 million unemployed Americans and 20% to 50% inflation. I believe that the impact of the Obama "energy plan" will be that we import more oil in 2015 than we do today. Those would be "changes" to be sure, but I have a hard time seeing them as good changes.

I have previously posted my reasoning here and/or in the spin room. If you foresee a different impact, feel free to post your reasoning and analysis.

I'm (unfortunately) with you on the inflation figure, though I'm sure they will try to manipulate it lower. Not sure on the unemployment figure, though we have hit 25% unemployment before. Actually, the scary thing implied in the much higher inflation figure is the amount of social unrest, disorder, and just plain crime that will come with it. Those without the ability to soften the blow of rapid inflation will look for other ways to try to supplement their meager (or nonexistent) incomes.

I need to think this one through more, but the outlines are there to be seen. It's not 100% certainty, but history says its a road that almost has to be traveled.

(04-08-2009 05:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In other words, you don't like posts that say negative things about the messiah.

Incorrect. It's mocking responses like this that I don't like. Your reference to Obama as the "messiah" isn't an attack on him, it's directed at me personally. It may surprise you to learn that I'm not so easily befuddled by slick talk and big words that I think Obama is infallible (Or what else did you mean by that?). Comments like that don't invite civil debate (nor do sarcastic thread titles like "Does anyone genuinely believe..." which may have more to do with the lack of response from Obama supporters than anything), they're basically just cheap shots.

So I'd rather stick to the main forum where we can all agree that Wayne Graham is, in fact, the messiah (except when he's not calling enough steals).

(I know, I know, so what the hell am I still doing here??)

(04-08-2009 08:07 AM)erice Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 05:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In other words, you don't like posts that say negative things about the messiah.

Incorrect. It's mocking responses like this that I don't like. Your reference to Obama as the "messiah" isn't an attack on him, it's directed at me personally. It may surprise you to learn that I'm not so easily befuddled by slick talk and big words that I think Obama is infallible (Or what else did you mean by that?). Comments like that don't invite civil debate (nor do sarcastic thread titles like "Does anyone genuinely believe..." which may have more to do with the lack of response from Obama supporters than anything), they're basically just cheap shots.

So I'd rather stick to the main forum where we can all agree that Wayne Graham is, in fact, the messiah (except when he's not calling enough steals).

(I know, I know, so what the hell am I still doing here??)

I just want to agree with what erice has been saying. I haven't quit posting on political topics here because "I can't come up with substantive arguments" or "can't stand the heat", I just decided it wasn't enjoyable or productive. The initial appeal was that we all have the good sense to be Rice Owls fans, maybe that would lead to a more civil and constructive debate than you typically see online. I don't think that's turned out to be the case. (Though it certainly could have been a lot worse too.) I'm sure there's blame on both sides, but in the end that's irrelevant. Do I think I *could* respond to all the posts and continue the argument? Sure. But I probably wouldn't change any minds and I'd have to take time off work to do it. So just not worth it to me.

(04-07-2009 05:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, I guess you could say it was a voluntary choice by GM. Just like I "voluntarily" appeared for my draft physical(the alternative was prison) and just like last year I "voluntarily" sold some of my land to the government for 70% of its value (the alternative was to have it forcibly taken under eminent domain and be "awarded" an arbitrary and probably lesser sum). Oh, yez, the choices we make "freely"!!

The truth is somewhere in between, though you're right in some ways. It appears that the resignation was as much a PR move for all involved. As this reporter on the car industry noted, Wagoner was replaced with guys in his corner and with a vested interest in the previous approach. There was a bit of quid pro quo going on, where Wagoner negotiated at least something for themselves, though the reality of the loans needed is still far off.

At the end of the day, I don't see GM going into bankruptcy - at least, not right now. The current threats of bankruptcy are tools to be used in current negotiations with current creditors and workers. But somehow, I don't see Obama and team allowing that to go through. The damage could be significant. And that said, I'm of the camp that a bankruptcy-forced restructuring is probably what is needed. However, the political class will pay for it too much, particularly as they become more enmeshed in appearing to try to stop it.

(04-07-2009 05:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for the bank, i don't think he wants to or has to wait until it fails. I think he wants to be able to declare it in danger of failing and therefore takes it over as a preventative measure. I guess we can wait and see, but if we don't like what we see then it will be too late. The toothpaste will be out of the tube.

I think you're right on this part. However, I don't seem to have as much on your other assertions that banks are being prevented from paying back early. In fact, I seem to recall (but haven't done a detailed search) of some regional banks doing just that, once additional restrictioins were being placed on banks who took money. And from what I know (and from my friend, who is a CFO at a regional bank), you have to apply for the TARP funds. Nobody was forced to take it, at least in the initial go-round in 2008.

(04-07-2009 04:43 PM)texd Wrote:  My understanding is that he wants the authority for the feds to step in and close down a failed non-bank financial entity, bailing out the clients (similar to what happens now when an FDIC bank fails).

I don't recall what Obama's exact promise was on Iraq with respect to troops other than ending the war. I for one never expected we'd take every boot off the ground. We've still got 30,000 troops in South Korea more than a half century after the truce there.

As far as GM, they did make that choice. It was an economic answer to this question: What do we need more, several billion more dollars or our current CEO?

(04-07-2009 03:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 02:57 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  jeezis, people, it's been 11 weeks and everybody wants to arm for the apocalypse. I'm seeing the leader I expected. I'm not disillusioned, not surprised, not "embarrassed." Just not interested in this thread. I get it: y'all think his economic policies are crap. I don't, and I don't think anyone can yet say they have failed.

And if an American company doesn't want the government making decisions about its leadership, it can look elsewhere for a bailout.

I am sure i will be corrected if wrong, but my understanding is that Geithner wants the authority to enforce his policies on banks that have taken no money. I also hear that some banks that did not want the money was forced to take it, and that some banks have tried to return the money and not been allowed. I thought getting the taxpayer's money back was a priority.

[/quote]

(04-08-2009 08:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 08:07 AM)erice Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 05:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In other words, you don't like posts that say negative things about the messiah.

Incorrect. It's mocking responses like this that I don't like. Your reference to Obama as the "messiah" isn't an attack on him, it's directed at me personally. It may surprise you to learn that I'm not so easily befuddled by slick talk and big words that I think Obama is infallible (Or what else did you mean by that?). Comments like that don't invite civil debate (nor do sarcastic thread titles like "Does anyone genuinely believe..." which may have more to do with the lack of response from Obama supporters than anything), they're basically just cheap shots.

So I'd rather stick to the main forum where we can all agree that Wayne Graham is, in fact, the messiah (except when he's not calling enough steals).

(I know, I know, so what the hell am I still doing here??)

I just want to agree with what erice has been saying. I haven't quit posting on political topics here because "I can't come up with substantive arguments" or "can't stand the heat", I just decided it wasn't enjoyable or productive. The initial appeal was that we all have the good sense to be Rice Owls fans, maybe that would lead to a more civil and constructive debate than you typically see online. I don't think that's turned out to be the case. (Though it certainly could have been a lot worse too.) I'm sure there's blame on both sides, but in the end that's irrelevant. Do I think I *could* respond to all the posts and continue the argument? Sure. But I probably wouldn't change any minds and I'd half to take time off work to do it. So just not worth it to me.

Political discussions are always tough. When we entered Iraq, there were very few voices raised in objection. Most were in agreement, including Congress.

When things don't turn out 100% like a movie ending, the rush to the other side to condemn is often quick and incredibly loud.

The old hindisght . . . I KNEW this was a mistake.

I think that this thread is discussing a political issue that is important, and is trying to do so in advance of the outcome.

That makes it a minefield.

There are people who feel strongly we are making mistakes. Some are strident no doubt. But when the direction (in Washington) seems to be a foregone conclusion, those who are scared or concerned about that direction are looking for an outlet. (i.e., think of the anti-war advocates early, early on in this decade)

They are also looking for someone to explain why they might be wrong.

That's why discussion is helpful. You may not swing someone to your 'side' or even just get them to 'buy-in' to your reasoning. But if you shine a little light on the other side, it might provide a little hope for some who are at least willing to listen to other viewpoints.

And yes, some people just like debates. But again, if you saw things going on in Washington beyond your control, and you honestly thought it was a mistake . . . . you would need an outlet. Here it is.

(04-08-2009 08:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 08:07 AM)erice Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 05:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In other words, you don't like posts that say negative things about the messiah.

Incorrect. It's mocking responses like this that I don't like. Your reference to Obama as the "messiah" isn't an attack on him, it's directed at me personally. It may surprise you to learn that I'm not so easily befuddled by slick talk and big words that I think Obama is infallible (Or what else did you mean by that?). Comments like that don't invite civil debate (nor do sarcastic thread titles like "Does anyone genuinely believe..." which may have more to do with the lack of response from Obama supporters than anything), they're basically just cheap shots.
So I'd rather stick to the main forum where we can all agree that Wayne Graham is, in fact, the messiah (except when he's not calling enough steals).
(I know, I know, so what the hell am I still doing here??)

I just want to agree with what erice has been saying. I haven't quit posting on political topics here because "I can't come up with substantive arguments" or "can't stand the heat", I just decided it wasn't enjoyable or productive. The initial appeal was that we all have the good sense to be Rice Owls fans, maybe that would lead to a more civil and constructive debate than you typically see online. I don't think that's turned out to be the case. (Though it certainly could have been a lot worse too.) I'm sure there's blame on both sides, but in the end that's irrelevant. Do I think I *could* respond to all the posts and continue the argument? Sure. But I probably wouldn't change any minds and I'd have to take time off work to do it. So just not worth it to me.

I'm sorry, but this seems like all to convenient an excuse to me. Before I'm going to give you credit for being able to make substantive arguments, you're going to have to make some substantive arguments.

I have asked Obama supporters repeatedly to engage in substantive conversations--here, in the spin room, and in the Memphis political forum. I would like to like Obama, and I think he brings much good to the table, but I simply believe there is way too much in his platform that will be absolutely disastrous. I've tried to engage in discussion on that basis, but when I approach it that way, the responses turn all to quickly to personal attacks.

If my comments came off as too shrill, I apologize. It probably reflects in large measure my frustration at several months of trying to engage but being unsuccessful (most of those conversations being ones in which, to be fair, you did not personally participate; political discussion tends to be much more objective and fact-based than when you let certain others join in the fray).

The original question raised by this thread was whether anyone thought this stuff was going to work. I don't. I'd like to engage at a fairly high intellectual level with someone who thinks it will. If you do not wish to engage in such conversation, either here or privately, then you are probably the party with whom I wish to have a discussion.

I do want to clarify one thing. To the extent my comments could be taken as a personal attack, that was intended to be directed at the current occupants of the presidency, the vice-presidency, the speaker and majority leaders of the congress (and their immediate predecessors, for what that's worth). If my comments were taken personally by anyone else, that was not my intent, and the fault is probably mine for not being more clear in my posts. That, plus the fact that the nature of this medium is such that any conversation on here is subject to being given different interpretation from that intended by the author. Sorry if I offended anyone. My quarrel lies with the idiots in Washington (and their immediate predecessors), not fellow Owls.

I am still looking for an answer to my question. Does anybody think this is going to do more good than harm? If so what, where, when, how, and why? Do you expect that the impacts of the "stimulus plan" or "energy plan" will be different from my expectations? Those are suitable topics for discussion. And I promise you that I, and others further to the right than I am, are quite ready to debate and discuss them with more charity afforded to the incumbent president than those on the left extended to his predecessor (whom I also disliked) in prior discussions.

(04-08-2009 08:51 AM)gsloth Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 05:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, I guess you could say it was a voluntary choice by GM. Just like I "voluntarily" appeared for my draft physical(the alternative was prison) and just like last year I "voluntarily" sold some of my land to the government for 70% of its value (the alternative was to have it forcibly taken under eminent domain and be "awarded" an arbitrary and probably lesser sum). Oh, yez, the choices we make "freely"!!

The truth is somewhere in between, though you're right in some ways. It appears that the resignation was as much a PR move for all involved. As this reporter on the car industry noted, Wagoner was replaced with guys in his corner and with a vested interest in the previous approach. There was a bit of quid pro quo going on, where Wagoner negotiated at least something for themselves, though the reality of the loans needed is still far off.

At the end of the day, I don't see GM going into bankruptcy - at least, not right now. The current threats of bankruptcy are tools to be used in current negotiations with current creditors and workers. But somehow, I don't see Obama and team allowing that to go through. The damage could be significant. And that said, I'm of the camp that a bankruptcy-forced restructuring is probably what is needed. However, the political class will pay for it too much, particularly as they become more enmeshed in appearing to try to stop it.

(04-07-2009 05:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for the bank, i don't think he wants to or has to wait until it fails. I think he wants to be able to declare it in danger of failing and therefore takes it over as a preventative measure. I guess we can wait and see, but if we don't like what we see then it will be too late. The toothpaste will be out of the tube.

I think you're right on this part. However, I don't seem to have as much on your other assertions that banks are being prevented from paying back early. In fact, I seem to recall (but haven't done a detailed search) of some regional banks doing just that, once additional restrictioins were being placed on banks who took money. And from what I know (and from my friend, who is a CFO at a regional bank), you have to apply for the TARP funds. Nobody was forced to take it, at least in the initial go-round in 2008.

(04-07-2009 04:43 PM)texd Wrote:  My understanding is that he wants the authority for the feds to step in and close down a failed non-bank financial entity, bailing out the clients (similar to what happens now when an FDIC bank fails).

I don't recall what Obama's exact promise was on Iraq with respect to troops other than ending the war. I for one never expected we'd take every boot off the ground. We've still got 30,000 troops in South Korea more than a half century after the truce there.

As far as GM, they did make that choice. It was an economic answer to this question: What do we need more, several billion more dollars or our current CEO?

(04-07-2009 03:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 02:57 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  jeezis, people, it's been 11 weeks and everybody wants to arm for the apocalypse. I'm seeing the leader I expected. I'm not disillusioned, not surprised, not "embarrassed." Just not interested in this thread. I get it: y'all think his economic policies are crap. I don't, and I don't think anyone can yet say they have failed.

And if an American company doesn't want the government making decisions about its leadership, it can look elsewhere for a bailout.

I am sure i will be corrected if wrong, but my understanding is that Geithner wants the authority to enforce his policies on banks that have taken no money. I also hear that some banks that did not want the money was forced to take it, and that some banks have tried to return the money and not been allowed. I thought getting the taxpayer's money back was a priority.

[/quote]

In my first post on this subject, i said correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

(04-08-2009 08:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 08:07 AM)erice Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 05:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In other words, you don't like posts that say negative things about the messiah.

Incorrect. It's mocking responses like this that I don't like. Your reference to Obama as the "messiah" isn't an attack on him, it's directed at me personally. It may surprise you to learn that I'm not so easily befuddled by slick talk and big words that I think Obama is infallible (Or what else did you mean by that?). Comments like that don't invite civil debate (nor do sarcastic thread titles like "Does anyone genuinely believe..." which may have more to do with the lack of response from Obama supporters than anything), they're basically just cheap shots.

So I'd rather stick to the main forum where we can all agree that Wayne Graham is, in fact, the messiah (except when he's not calling enough steals).

(I know, I know, so what the hell am I still doing here??)

I just want to agree with what erice has been saying. I haven't quit posting on political topics here because "I can't come up with substantive arguments" or "can't stand the heat", I just decided it wasn't enjoyable or productive. The initial appeal was that we all have the good sense to be Rice Owls fans, maybe that would lead to a more civil and constructive debate than you typically see online. I don't think that's turned out to be the case. (Though it certainly could have been a lot worse too.) I'm sure there's blame on both sides, but in the end that's irrelevant. Do I think I *could* respond to all the posts and continue the argument? Sure. But I probably wouldn't change any minds and I'd have to take time off work to do it. So just not worth it to me.

Why would you have to take time off from work? Have you no time on your own?

I think we have different ideas about productiness. It is not converts. It is hearing other points of view, other explanations, other predictions and using them to modify one's own stance or to reinforce it. Call it hybridization. That is why I seek out venues such as roundtable discussions, point/counterpoint shows, and talk show hosts who tend to invite people of different viewpoints and engage them in debate. That is what we had here. No longer. No importa, they say. Sometimes my views get changed, ususally over a period of time. Logic means a lot to me. Show me the logic behind a policy or a law and i will most likely support it. If I don't see the logic, at least do me the courtesy of hearing why I think it fails. Don't just turn your back.

I guess if one doesn't want to hear differing points of view, one needs to avoid places where they are discussed.

I don't want all of my political input to come from the far right, but if the left chooses to withdraw, what then? Apparently it is not worth it to the left to try and show the correctness of their views and policies.

Regardless of the reasons, it is the left that is leaving the field of debate in the hands of the victors, the right. It smacks of sour grapes to hear the the reasons for leaving. "We could have presented our case, but it just wasn't worth it".

Yeah, I've gotten offended by some of the things said here and by some of the innuendo thrown my way. Sure haven't liked some of the half-truths, lies, and distortions cast about regarding me, people like me, and people I like and respect. Pot, kettle, except the pot is going away because the kettle was a big meanie.

Bye, bye, left. See ya on the main board, and we can discuss sports. If I disagree with you regarding a pitching change or the QB choice, please don't go away.

(04-08-2009 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why would you have to take time off from work? Have you no time on your own?

Ha, I didn't really mean that literally, but I do have a 2 and a 4 year old, my wife works a couple nights a week and Saturdays where I'm the sole care provider, so time to myself is in pretty limited supply these days. :)

Given that, I really do have to pick and choose where I spend it. I don't disagree about hearing different views - my original post probably was not as clear as it could have been - I'm just saying that for me personally, participating in lengthy discussions of politics on *this* particular website is not how I choose to allot limited free time.

Nothing personal against any of my fellow Owls. :)

(04-08-2009 01:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why would you have to take time off from work? Have you no time on your own?

Ha, I didn't really mean that literally, but I do have a 2 and a 4 year old, my wife works a couple nights a week and Saturdays where I'm the sole care provider, so time to myself is in pretty limited supply these days. :)

Given that, I really do have to pick and choose where I spend it. I don't disagree about hearing different views - my original post probably was not as clear as it could have been - I'm just saying that for me personally, participating in lengthy discussions of politics on *this* particular website is not how I choose to allot limited free time.

Nothing personal against any of my fellow Owls. :)

That's a nice time to be a dad. Enjoy them. I remember when mine were that age - 1971. Back then (well, the mid-60s) I was far left. Change a different choice or opportunity here or there, I could have been one of William Ayers' followers. Glad I wasn't, now. There but for the grace of God go I. The road not taken.

Maybe in 35 years you will find yourself on the right. If so, I hope it is because you moved right, not because the nation moved left while you were stationary.