4 ms·

i disagree. for one thing, he's in his 2nd term, there is no 'war of inches' to lose. when he has a political agenda, nothing stops him from shoving it throug

by autokad 12y ago

i disagree. for one thing, he's in his 2nd term, there is no 'war of inches' to lose. when he has a political agenda, nothing stops him from shoving it through no matter what. for stuff he cares two licks about but knows his voters care about, he just retorts 'the republicans wont let me'.

McDoku 12y ago
Would it not be irresponsible to poison the political landscape for the next candidate?
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  He already has; odds are that he has sunk any chances of a Democratic presidential victory in 2016. A significant portion of the base that rallied for his presidency two terms in a row are disillusioned with the government they got.
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  I thought Nobel prize winners should be willing to make sacrifices for the common good.
  - McDoku 12y ago
    That statement cuts both ways... If it is a choice between good and evil, the obvious moral choice is good. It is only a moral decision when it is between two evils. Determining the lesser and potentially sacrificing for the common good. This the primary responsibly of any leader responsible for strategic decision making. As you said, this means making sacrifices for the common good.
    - MCRed 12y ago
      No, good and evil are clear choices. Irradiating the flying public, taking pornographic pictures or molesting children are all evil, and Obama could have stopped that. Domestic spying, Obama could have stopped it. Hell closing guantanamo, he didn't even do that. And that's a straight up operation in violation of the constitution top to bottom. We may have the choice between two evils at election time, but no politician is forced to choose evil.
      - McDoku 12y ago
        Okay here is an example. Enigma machine in WW2. Do you let a city get bombed and lose 10k lives or reveal that you have broken a code and lose the war? How do you act and why?
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        McDoku 12y ago
        I'd argue it would not be an 'easy' decision. Numbers could be a criteria, but either way this is where moral philosophy really comes into play. I am disturbed at times how black and white many people see these decision. Greater good is a perspective and it like anything else is we do...uncertain.
      - mijoharas 12y ago
        > Irradiating the flying public, taking pornographic pictures or molesting children are all evil, and Obama could have stopped that. Sorry, what are you talking about?
        Kliment 12y ago
        I'd venture a guess it's the TSA, with the backscatter machines (radiation), millimeter wave machines (pornographic pictures - not really but definitely privacy-invading) and groping people inappropriately, including children all having been or still being policy during the Obama administration's operation, and the president having direct control over the TSA.

by autokad 12y ago

McDoku 12y ago

Would it not be irresponsible to poison the political landscape for the next candidate?

thaumaturgy 12y ago
He already has; odds are that he has sunk any chances of a Democratic presidential victory in 2016. A significant portion of the base that rallied for his presidency two terms in a row are disillusioned with the government they got.
JetSpiegel 12y ago
I thought Nobel prize winners should be willing to make sacrifices for the common good.
- McDoku 12y ago
  That statement cuts both ways... If it is a choice between good and evil, the obvious moral choice is good. It is only a moral decision when it is between two evils. Determining the lesser and potentially sacrificing for the common good. This the primary responsibly of any leader responsible for strategic decision making. As you said, this means making sacrifices for the common good.
  - MCRed 12y ago
    No, good and evil are clear choices. Irradiating the flying public, taking pornographic pictures or molesting children are all evil, and Obama could have stopped that. Domestic spying, Obama could have stopped it. Hell closing guantanamo, he didn't even do that. And that's a straight up operation in violation of the constitution top to bottom. We may have the choice between two evils at election time, but no politician is forced to choose evil.
    - McDoku 12y ago
      Okay here is an example. Enigma machine in WW2. Do you let a city get bombed and lose 10k lives or reveal that you have broken a code and lose the war? How do you act and why?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        McDoku 12y ago
        I'd argue it would not be an 'easy' decision. Numbers could be a criteria, but either way this is where moral philosophy really comes into play. I am disturbed at times how black and white many people see these decision. Greater good is a perspective and it like anything else is we do...uncertain.
    - mijoharas 12y ago
      > Irradiating the flying public, taking pornographic pictures or molesting children are all evil, and Obama could have stopped that. Sorry, what are you talking about?
      - Kliment 12y ago
        I'd venture a guess it's the TSA, with the backscatter machines (radiation), millimeter wave machines (pornographic pictures - not really but definitely privacy-invading) and groping people inappropriately, including children all having been or still being policy during the Obama administration's operation, and the president having direct control over the TSA.