Happy Face

Aye, Obama has been praised to the hilt acoross the board for his foreign policy which has been entirely unhindered. Also his war on whistle blowing. He got a meaningful healthcare bill through where Bill (& Hilary) Clinton failed to. Perhaps he learned lessons from their attempts and played up to the right "interests". Trump will be able to do a lot that the liberals hate. If Trump were to get in and only continue what Obama did abroad the fury from the "liberal" media would be as harsh as it was for Bush.

I supported him for ages on the public and moderator board. It was eventually giving up on him that left me riddled with guilt and redoubled my resolve to defend the fuck heads that least deserve it. Think Tom had/has time for him as well. EDIT: Ironically, he hounded me on Twitter for months about banning him so I ended up blocking him on there. We liberals don't like it when those we defend bring harm to our own door.

Not specifically, think he was particularly supportive of a ban long before it happened though. Unsurprisingly, from the freedom hating rights suppressor.

Getting Leazes banned went to his head. He'll be after windows without stained glass next. This is why we have to defend the freedoms of our worst enemies.

It's only the oppressively ruled states we support, until they oppose our interests. We suppress any democracies in the region other than Israel as it's dangerous to have a democracy acting in it's own interests rather than a dictator acting in his and ours. If we're seriously discussing whether the western mission in the Middle East is one of bringing freedom to oppressed people then we're dancing around in the fairy land invention of the western propaganda machine in complete disregard of the evidence in front of us.

You'll agree the use of it under Assad was an entirely political tool though? Warping religion to convince youths to provide the only weapon that could defeat the US.

I'm going to split the last couple of pages into another relevant topic because It's nowt to do with Clinton V Trump.

Did you watch the latest Adam Curtis show? He actually does think the US (Kissinger) was involved in the genesis of the style of suicide bombings the middle east has exported. He says Kissinger stabbing Assad in the back led to a successful suicide bombing campaign to drive out the US out and it's only grown since. Syrian President Hafez al-Assad nurturing a bold plan to unite the Arab world, only to be thwarted by the Machiavellian, divisive scheming of Henry Kissinger, leading inexorably to the invention of suicide bombing, Isis, the chaos in modern Syria and, somehow, Brexit. http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/gloriously-compulsive-and-maddening-adam-curtiss-hypernormalisation-reviewed/

Not really, As the Pentagon outlined 12 years ago, it is what we do (the people we elect) that drives resentment... 2.3 What is the Problem? Who Are We Dealing With? The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective, because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists. But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended. American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies. • Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states. • Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved. • Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination. • Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support. • What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam. • Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic — namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is — for Americans — really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game. This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves. http://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/commun.pdf

That's not the motive, that's the aim. A motive leads to action to achieve an aim. What is the motive?

You know that the ISIS leaders and propaganda makers aren't the ones blowing up themselves up though.

I'm surprised that the FA would say they don't think it's a political emblem when a huge part of what the British Legion do is to lobby government and they're so vocally proud of what they have achieved politically... The Legion works tirelessly to promote the interests of the Armed Forces community through high profile lobbying of government and other policymakers. Throughout our history our voice has helped to ensure that the nation provides a fairer deal for its Service personnel, veterans and their families, and this was most famously demonstrated when the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant were written into law in 2011. Other campaign successes include saving the post of Chief Coroner from the Public Bodies Bill in 2010/11 and installing the new Chief Coroner in his post in 2012; defending funding for Disabled Facilities Grants; and ensuring that Armed Forces injury compensation payments are ignored when calculating entitlement for Universal Credit. https://www.britishlegion.org.uk/media/2259/legion-submission-enquiry-on-transparency-of-lobbying-bill.pdf The FA position seems less well thought out than that of FIFA. Personally I'd love to see poppies and Palestinian flags and Argentina's Falklands flags all over games. It does set a precedent and heighten tensions somewhat if we happen to have a fixture against Ireland rather than Scotland one November.

That's written by people who don't actually blow themselves up in western cities though. The Pentagon have looked at those actual cases, the suicide videos, the testimonies of unsuccessful attackers and their conclusion was that those people don't hate our freedom or our religion or our excess. They hate their family being bombed and being poor. You won't defeat the ideaology by withdrawing, but to a large degree you'll stop gifting the enemy their ammo to attack us.

So are you as unconcerned about a Trump victory as Parky, Chez, given the limits on presidential power that have so stifled Obama? I understand that controlling both houses vests greater power obviously, and there are different permutations that come into play, but the examples provided by Parky include those when Democrats controlled both houses and were still stifled. Personally I think that Trump would be vested with great power, as I believe Obama was. The fact that presidential power is being diminished by more partisan politics won't mitigate that, and only did for Obama to a marginally greater extent that it did his predecessors.

Spot on. Strongly denounce any country or branch of religion that would punish a woman for what she chooses to wear. Remain a shining example of freedom, loud and proud about the fact that people in this country can wear whatever they want.

Of course we accept it. We are a free society. We are not people who restrict the rights of people to wear certain clothes whether it's a burka, a balaclava or a full motorcycle helmet with Bunny rabbit ears. It's no more our place to force a woman to stop wearing clothes than it is for us to force her to leave her husband if he beats her. As frustrating as it might be she gets to make her choices and you only punish someone when crimes are committed. First they went for her burka and I cheered because i'm scared of Muslims. Then they came for my balaclava which was really annoying because it keeps my ears and cheeks nice and warm when I'm skiing in Scotland.

Ironically, it's strongest proponents will be the most delighted by western secular societies banning it and stoking up the "war on Islam" sentiment too.

Did all 6 Happy Valley's this week. Loved the first 5. Really gripping believable stuff about petty criminals that get in over their heads. Nothing sensational about them and each crime always seemed like a huge thing for each of the perpetrators to choose to do, usually with well explained motives and little other option for them once they made the decision to be part of it. The last episode though... 5 stars all told mind.

Remarkable. Like saying Farage would be no worse than Brown

Where? Quotes if possible.

I don't think that Obama wants to be the black president that took America's guns off them. That's not to say I necessarily think he could have pushed it through even if he really wanted. He had as little chance as any previous president, but will be well aware of the backlash that would generate. A white woman republican president will have to do that one.

On day one of the Obamacare negotiations the democrats agreed single payer and drug price limits would be off the table didn't they? It was hardly a battle that got close to vote but defeated by obstructionism.

It's somewhat true, to a small degree. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics Obama has certainly enacted fewer laws than in previous administrations, but that follows a downward trend that goes back to the 70s. Less than half the number of laws enacted in the 1977 Congress (804) were enacted in the first Bush Congrress of 2001 (383) for example. Obama's first 2 years saw more laws enacted than Bush's too (385). More legislation failed in the 97/98, 99/00, 05/06 and 07/09 congress than in three quarters of those under Obama. Pure numbers bore people though, if there were a multitude of examples of high profile changes that Obama was prevented from implementing they could be reeled off. There's not though. If anything the presidents are the ones with all the power. They get to veto bills that could become law. Bill Clinton used that power more than any other president (36 times). Obama has used it as many times as Bush (12) before his presidency ends.

I know Obama likes to quote that number, but it means nothing on it's own. How many bills are blocked in a normal presidency?