↑ ↓
 

Podcast for 8-15-2011

Started by MrBogosity, August 14, 2011, 04:19:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions
August 14, 2011, 04:19:05 PM
[bogosity-podcast]https://bogosity.podbean.com/mf/web/hm5c2t/BogosityPodcast-8-15-2011.mp3[/bogosity-podcast]

News of the Bogus:
Biggest Bogon Emitter: Most politicians and the news media
Idiot Extraordinaire: Michael Egnor http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/08/engineeringism.html
This Week's Quote: “As a novelist, I tell stories and people give me money. Then financial planners tell me stories and I give them money.” —Martin Cruz Smith
August 14, 2011, 05:20:09 PM #1
QuoteThe outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less
reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new
fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

I'm waiting to see how the Obama drones are going to spin this to make it look like it is entirely the Tea Party's fault.

I said in fail quotes about how my aunt believes that a debt ceiling means how much of our debt we're going to pay off and not how much money government is allowed to borrow, and of course she blames the tea party for everything that ever happened in the history of the universe. I'm waiting to see how she spins this around.
August 15, 2011, 01:29:30 PM #2
Good stuff as always Shane
August 19, 2011, 07:46:24 PM #3
I posted the war article from reason on another forum and said that the decline of protests stems primarily from political party favoring. Got this response:

Quote from: bertjor;959013Yes, but the only political favoring here is found in the article itself, and it boggles my mind how anyone can publish this in the first place.

First, this is what the article stated:

630 American soldiers died in the Afghanistan operation in the years 2001 through 2008, when Mr. Bush was president, while 1097 American soldiers have died in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Even if you allocate the 30 or so American soldiers killed in January 2009 entirely to Mr. Bush, who was president until the January 20 inauguration, it is quite a record.

Yet, despite this article being somewhat opinionated, the author conveniently forgot to mention that it was the Afghan war that took prominence during the Obama administration (you know, the country where the actual terrorist were), as opposed to the Bush administration that conveniently forgot about it, and started a new one in Iraq (where there were no weapons of mass destruction, no connections to Al Qaeda). This is further supplemented by the level of financing

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf (page 3).

At least Obama has something to show for it, like killing Osama...

Second:

Include Iraq, and the comparison tells a similar story: about 1,300 Americans killed in operations related to Iraq and Afghanistan combined during the first two and a half or so years we've had of the Obama administration, versus less than 600 American casualties in the first full three years of the George W. Bush administration.

This paragraph is so offensive to the reader's intelligence, the author should be fired. Is he serious? The war in Iraq wasn't from the start of the Bush administration, it was during his third year of administration, and it was during a time when he didn't fund Afghanistan very much. He only mentions the 547 casualties during the first year in the war of Iraq. Do you know the number of casualties the Iraq war had during the first 3 years of that war? 2377. The entire total of the Afghan war is not nearly as close to the first 3 years of Iraq.

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/ByYear.aspx

In turn, the Iraqi casualties in 2009-2011 is 254.

The reality is, there are simple reasons why there were so many war protests during the Bush administration, and that is because it was quickly becoming clear why the Iraqi war was even started, and that there was not a single reason that was true behind the war in Iraq.

The Afghan war, on the other hand, had a purpose. The connections between the taliban and Osama was well defined (albeit, I do think that bush attacked it for different reasons), and it was crowned with the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Furthermore, Lybia was unlike the other wars that US has experienced lately. It didn't go charging in with troops, it offered limited aerial support, and as it progressed, it turned into logistical, with France and Britain taking the brunt.

So, no political party favoring here. The nation has responded to what sounds as a reasonable war strategy, and while there still may be people advocating against the war, it is a fact that there is a feeling of moving forward, that there are actually things getting done, instead of a continued, sustained conflict without any progress.
August 19, 2011, 08:09:53 PM #4
So, in other words, OUR war is good, HIS war is bad (even when our war was his war originally).
August 19, 2011, 08:26:14 PM #5
QuoteOUR war is good, HIS war is bad

Religious crusades to a T
I recently heard that the word heretic is derived from the greek work heriticos which means "able to choose"
The more you know...
August 19, 2011, 10:33:55 PM #6
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 19, 2011, 08:09:53 PM
So, in other words, OUR war is good, HIS war is bad (even when our war was his war originally).

This fuckin' guy....
QuoteIt's more like, Obama's tactics good, Bush's tactics bad. The wars still suck though, and I do think people should be vocal about it, no matter if it goes good or bad.
User actions
Print
Go Up Pages1