Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Warmonger Obama

Warmonger Obama (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 01:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
English isn't hyteckit's first language.
Oh, come one, he's trying so hard. Cut him some slack.

One day, we might call him Alittlefastercheckit.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 02:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I disagree. I think a lot of Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) feel it is the US' responsibility to check tyranny and genocide in Syria... because we're often the only ones who will. But the problem is they have zero confidence that this Administration is competent enough to execute military action or that it is properly weighing all the implications.
Why do you keep on making jabs at "this administration" this way? Do you have any particular complaints with Obama's foreign policy prior to whatever your beef is here? I thought Republicans generally were okay with Obama's foreign policy handling... Or, at least relatively okay, relative to as good as they allow themselves to feel with anything with Obama's name associated with it.

You're saying Obama was damned if he did and damned if he didn't as if our policy for Assad/Syria began the other day with whether or not to seek Congressional approval for an attack. I think Obama has to own the pickle he's in as much as you might be compelled to defend him.
I honestly don't understand what your argument is here. Is it something about how Obama should stick to his guns, and that the possibility of changing his mind is negative or something?

There generally has to be both and as heartless as the US government may appear with such a cold calculation; do you have even a small list of countries with a greater philanthropic output?
Having the greatest philanthropic output goes with the territory of being the wealthiest country with the tremendous population the US has. Asking for a list of countries this way is like asking for a list of toddlers with a right hook comparable to that of a heavyweight boxer.

To be clear, this isn't an international pissing contest, it's a matter of doing what you can. Your humanitarian goals should be attainable and sustainable on a longterm basis. Darfur? Otherwise you're mired in too much global atrocity to maintain the level of prosperity required at home to undertake small problems, let alone big ones like Darfur. One of the primary reasons I'm still opposed to action in Syria in spite of the horrific death tolls; there's absolutely nothing to tell me that our solution is any better than the current problem. Just nothing.
Attainable and sustainable like Iraq and Afghanistan? The US could have stopped that genocide quite easily, but didn't. It would have been difficult to help stabalize the country, but no more difficult than dealing with the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Why did they sit this one out? Follow that money trail...

We can pat ourselves on the back as much as we want calling ourselves a philanthropic country as much as we want, but human beings are generally only philanthropic when they stand to gain. True altruism, especially when it comes to military commitments, is rare if not non-existent.
( Last edited by besson3c; Sep 6, 2013 at 04:09 AM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 10:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
English isn't hyteckit's first language. That doesn't make him any less of an idiot, but it does explain the incoherency of his posts (sometimes).
My English is perfectly fine.

But you are a childish idiotic douche not matter what language I speak and write in.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Did you hit your head? You're making less sense than before.
Which part don't you understand? It's pretty simple really. Even a simpleton like yourself should be able to understand it. But maybe I'm overestimating your intelligence.

I'm guessing you are just pretending to be an idiot, so I would get banned for insulting you back.

I get it. The gang of 6 resorting to childish personal attacks in order to get me ban for retaliating. I get 6 infractions while each one of you get one.

I guess some people never grow up and outgrown their bullying ways.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
My English is perfectly fine.

But you are a childish idiotic douche not matter what language I speak and write in.
I remember several years ago pointing out that some of your posts were nearly incoherent because of how poorly-written they were. You responded by mentioning that English isn't your first language.

If you were lying, shame on you.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 11:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why do you keep on making jabs at "this administration" this way?
Honestly, I don't think there are many Americans left who have much confidence in Obama.

I mean, the guy went on national television and lied through his teeth about the NSA surveillance program. He's been finding distractions to make us forget about the NSA ever since.

Fact is, the conflict in Syria has far fewer implications for the population of the United States than a government project dedicated to watching everything we do. The current White House Administration is hoping we're going to forget that.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2013, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
I remember several years ago pointing out that some of your posts were nearly incoherent because of how poorly-written they were. You responded by mentioning that English isn't your first language.

If you were lying, shame on you.
Logic isn't your best trait is it?

Do you really believe a person can only be fluent in one language?

I multitask often and have over 60 webpages open at once. Posting on forums is a distraction from the work I'm doing. I'm not here to write an English essay. I don't engage in long-winded sentences just to prove my English prowess. I prefer brevity.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2013, 12:14 AM
 
Your grasp of the English language is lacking to the point that your posts are frequently incoherent.

Are you capable of anything besides insults? At least I say other stuff besides personal jabs.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2013, 12:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Which part don't you understand? It's pretty simple really. Even a simpleton like yourself should be able to understand it. But maybe I'm overestimating your intelligence.

I'm guessing you are just pretending to be an idiot, so I would get banned for insulting you back.

I get it. The gang of 6 resorting to childish personal attacks in order to get me ban for retaliating. I get 6 infractions while each one of you get one.

I guess some people never grow up and outgrown their bullying ways.
Now you're just having a tantrum, go walk it off or something.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2013, 01:16 AM
 
He can't.

So much for discourse in the pwl.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2013, 09:12 AM
 
English is my first language, but the macnn infraction interface makes it easy to choose Personal Attack even if I were to speak Mongolian and nothing else. I think both parties earned them here.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2013, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why do you keep on making jabs at "this administration" this way?
Who else should I blame for this Administration's foreign policy? That's kind of the whole; "it's a heavy crown" thing right? He's the CIC and POTUS.

Do you have any particular complaints with Obama's foreign policy prior to whatever your beef is here?
Wait, you don't have any complaints?!? You were in favor of action in Libya? While Congress was on recess? How is Libya doing today? You appreciate how this Administration handled Fast and Furious and Benghazi? Are you happy with the status of Afghanistan and Iraq? Happy with how our "reset" is going with Russia? How is our relationship with China these days? Or North Korea? Come to think of it, why don't you tell me what aspect of this Administrations' foreign policy you shouldn't have a beef with.

Syria is, but another along a lengthy list of dithering, indecision, and curious urgency over nebulous goals and meaningless standards. Obama stood before the country nearly two years ago claiming that movement of chemical weaponry or use of them on innocent civilians would change his political calculus for action against Syria -- that it is a red line. It was clear what that meant and he owned that litmus in spite of predictably attempting to place ownership on Congress and the International community when challenged on his rhetoric. This more recent evidence of the use of chemical weapons constitutes the third, known use of them in Syria since this line was drawn. Why are we acting now? Why did he have the US Secretary of State before the country in a press conference to sell our need for immediate action and the ability to act outside Congressional approval if the CIC himself was going to stand in the rose garden the very next day to proclaim the need for Congressional approval -- after they finish another 9 days of recess? I'll tell you why. Incompetence and lack of communication/solidarity with the most fundamentally important Administration posts in the country for executing military action.

Why does the US lack confidence in this Administration? Answer that with why they should.

I thought Republicans generally were okay with Obama's foreign policy handling... Or, at least relatively okay, relative to as good as they allow themselves to feel with anything with Obama's name associated with it.
Republicans expressed kudos for shooting some pirates in the head while attacking a US vessel and the fact that OBL was snatched up. Otherwise... not so much.

I honestly don't understand what your argument is here. Is it something about how Obama should stick to his guns, and that the possibility of changing his mind is negative or something?
See above...

Otherwise, my complaint is the fact that action is supposedly urgently necessary, but we have no plans to eliminate the chemicals or even a solid plan for diminishing their capability of dispatching the weapons and no goals for success other than to "show Assad he can't use chemical weapons." Period. That's the goal. That's what we've been told. We're going to bomb a desperate and criminal Assad into a less desperate and criminal Assad so we can hand those chemicals and the leadership of that country to _________ -- who again?

Having the greatest philanthropic output goes with the territory of being the wealthiest country with the tremendous population the US has. Asking for a list of countries this way is like asking for a list of toddlers with a right hook comparable to that of a heavyweight boxer.
No. Even the wealthiest country on the planet has limitations and this Administration is testing them at an unprecedented rate.

Attainable and sustainable like Iraq and Afghanistan? The US could have stopped that genocide quite easily, but didn't. It would have been difficult to help stabalize the country, but no more difficult than dealing with the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Why did they sit this one out? Follow that money trail...
And yet you have no beef with this Administrations' foreign policy? Why are you addressing me again?

We can pat ourselves on the back as much as we want calling ourselves a philanthropic country as much as we want, but human beings are generally only philanthropic when they stand to gain. True altruism, especially when it comes to military commitments, is rare if not non-existent.
Is this somehow unique to the US? The fact is, the world is going to come to a head of ideals. You can either take measures to position yourself globally or your foes will. This is the way of things no matter how deeply you choose to bury your head.

If you're so convinced the US couldn't give a rat's ass for human rights atrocity, why do you suppose this Administration is trying so urgently to get action in Syria? There are no aforementioned US interests at stake and there is no geopolitical urgency here. The answer is; because the President stuck his foot in his mouth yet again.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2013, 04:07 PM
 
Fast and Furious and Benghazi were just scandals the right was trying to trace back to Obama to damage him, and are not the sort of foreign policy issues I had in mind anyway in the way that Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. are.

What was the Right's beef with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Russia, N. Korea, and China, and why weren't these issues more prominent in this last presidential election? My perception is that whatever beefs that exist are relatively minor, particularly with Afghanistan and Iraq where there is no significant change in policy other than trying to wind these wars down (does the Right want them to continue?). Minor compared to their beefs with Obama's handling of the economy, that is.

To tell you the truth though, I have *great* difficulty differentiating between legitimate beefs (many of which I may very well share), and just politicking to damage Obama. Like I've been saying, one of the reasons the Right lost this last election, IMHO, is that they are crappy at choosing which battles to wage, and the battles which they do wage often just seem like desperate attempts to alter the political winds.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2013, 04:29 PM
 
There's a reason why memes like these exist:

Thanks, Obama! | Know Your Meme

The Right went to that well too many times, unfortunately. I mean "unfortunately" quite genuinely, because it's not as if I have complete trust in this administration, but we all know what happens to the boy that cried wolf.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2013, 05:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
...we all know what happens to the boy that cried wolf.
Yeah, he got eaten by a wolf. THANKS, OBAMA.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2013, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Fast and Furious and Benghazi were just scandals the right was trying to trace back to Obama to damage him, and are not the sort of foreign policy issues I had in mind anyway in the way that Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. are.
I gotcha. Yeah, these are all just Administration missteps folks are trying to tie back to the Administration because they hate Obama. This is all really old stuff, man. When do you allow Obama to be President of the United States and not some hapless bystander?

What was the Right's beef with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Russia, N. Korea, and China, and why weren't these issues more prominent in this last presidential election?
You've just rattled off 6 different issues and while all of these were a part of the last election -- they can't all be prominent. Hell, folks apparently had a hard enough time keeping up with the economic failures of this Administration to remember that Republicans weren't running the show any more.

My perception is that whatever beefs that exist are relatively minor, particularly with Afghanistan and Iraq where there is no significant change in policy other than trying to wind these wars down (does the Right want them to continue?). Minor compared to their beefs with Obama's handling of the economy, that is.
After the short shrift you gave my last detailed response, is there any particular reason why you'd be interested in a more exhaustive analysis here? You've got a perception, there's really not much else to know is there?

Going forward in order to establish better rapport with you, I'll just preface every criticism of Obama's leadership with; "not that I'm criticizing Obama or anything..."

To tell you the truth though, I have *great* difficulty differentiating between legitimate beefs (many of which I may very well share), and just politicking to damage Obama. Like I've been saying, one of the reasons the Right lost this last election, IMHO, is that they are crappy at choosing which battles to wage, and the battles which they do wage often just seem like desperate attempts to alter the political winds.
So... what you're basically saying here is that you have difficulty making up your own mind on what your beefs are with this Administration. It seems you have to wait to see what it is the Republicans are complaining about so you can decide what beefs not to have. I can see where this would make thinking a lot less cumbersome.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2013, 06:03 PM
 
Time for Obama to return that Nobel Peace Prize.

"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2013, 11:24 PM
 
ebuddy,

We need to take a step back here, because you clearly have some wrong ideas about me. You seem to be coming at this like I'm an Obama warrior of some sort, ala hyteckit or something. I'm not. If you care for my views, I generally think that most, if not all of the problems we have are problems with the overall American situation in politics. IOW, I don't think that any particular president from either party will really alter our course in any sort of significant way.

It is clear that you are interpreting my questioning your objectivity and wanting to single out the Obama administration as my wanting to defend it for the sake of defending it. Just because I disagree with your stance on something doesn't mean that I embrace the Obama administration's stance on that thing, and just because I'm critical of what the Right has been doing doesn't mean that I'm therefore in support of what the Left is doing.

I just feel that the messaging and rhetoric of the Right has been far too obstructionist, far too inclined to blow up things that aren't terribly important, shitty at choosing productive battles to wage, and shitty at finding the right people to provide leadership. This doesn't mean that I don't have a critique of the Left.

I think this whole Left vs. Right thing is completely misdirected though. The Left seems inclined to put some trust in the government to do things, and the Right in the private sector, and in my opinion, they are the same thing at this point - the same basic players with the same basic motivations and ways of thinking. I haven't really been following the news as closely as I have in the past, because at this point I just don't think it makes a difference who is winning the Republicans vs. Democrats football game.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2013, 01:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think this whole Left vs. Right thing is completely misdirected though. The Left seems inclined to put some trust in the government to do things, and the Right in the private sector, and in my opinion, they are the same thing at this point - the same basic players with the same basic motivations and ways of thinking. I haven't really been following the news as closely as I have in the past, because at this point I just don't think it makes a difference who is winning the Republicans vs. Democrats football game.


Both parties have gotten obsessed with a small handful of hot issues, and that's ended up defining their entire political platform. It just creates a stalemate.

The things that matter to the long-term economic and social stability of this country, like reforming Social Security and other welfare programs, are in a solid deadlock. If one side tries to make any real changes, the other side blocks it in Congress.

We desperately need a viable third party. Virginia's gubernatorial election has a legitimate third party candidate (Libertarian), and I really hope he gets elected - not just because I agree with his platform, but because it could have an impact on this bipartisan bullshit most Americans think they have to maintain.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2013, 05:03 AM
 
This stinks so much..

Instead of doing an unbiased investigation on if gas was used, we see American politicians already saying Assad did it and that the evidence is in the making. And this Kerry guy is trying to revise a broken political career out of it by lobbying at EU leaders to fight Assad. Seeing him proclaiming armed support for these so called rebels is like seeing him rally support for Al Quaida ! What. The. Hell.

i have never seen such untrustworthy politics. Yes Bashar Al Assad is a dictator, but at least he has a secular goverment and in his country women have rights.

It makes me mad to see old powerless idiots like Kerry try to move up the political ladder by rallying armed support for the cause of islamic terrorism.
{Animated sigs are not allowed.}
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2013, 09:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
ebuddy,

We need to take a step back here, because you clearly have some wrong ideas about me. You seem to be coming at this like I'm an Obama warrior of some sort, ala hyteckit or something. I'm not. If you care for my views, I generally think that most, if not all of the problems we have are problems with the overall American situation in politics. IOW, I don't think that any particular president from either party will really alter our course in any sort of significant way.

It is clear that you are interpreting my questioning your objectivity and wanting to single out the Obama administration as my wanting to defend it for the sake of defending it. Just because I disagree with your stance on something doesn't mean that I embrace the Obama administration's stance on that thing, and just because I'm critical of what the Right has been doing doesn't mean that I'm therefore in support of what the Left is doing.
The SS United States is a big ship that cannot turn on a dime. I think we get ourselves into trouble when we expect significant course-altering from a governmental post. Simply put, the President of the United States under a limited government model would not be able to alter anything in any significant way. I appreciate the US system of checks and balances because I believe it retards legislative whimsy or lopsided representation. This is why end-arounds on Congressional oversight bother me a great deal and why I'd bring up Fast and Furious with Executive Order to shut down Congressional oversight. Or Benghazi with the mostly blacked-out documents as requested by House Judiciary panel and the apparent obstruction of justice by the Attorney General without consequence. When Obama makes the call to plug a couple of pirates in the head, we see Obama in the situation room. When a diplomatic outpost is attacked and we lose the first ambassador to an attack in decades, we have no clue where the President was, what decisions he was making, or who to hold to account. This behavior continued through the NSA media phone-tapping. I bring up Libya launched while Congress was in recess and the subsequent conditions there. I bring up our pull-out of Iraq with subsequent consequences. Our apparent lack of a policy in Afghanistan, N. Korea, Russia, etc... In short, we've got a wealth of hot messes here and abroad and instead of complaining about the incredible abuses of the public trust, I'm questioned on the integrity of my complaint. To be clear -- I completely understand that, but it's not going to be regarded as a lack of partisanship. Because it isn't. To say otherwise is to deny having a political lean which I'm sure you can imagine is asking a lot of your audience to believe.

My ideas about you are that you are significantly left-of-center on most matters both social and fiscal. I see that you're inclined to defend those who would champion left-of-center policy. Any action by a champion of the left that resembles policies from the highly-criticized right-wing from yesteryear or that is generally deemed a failure (the stuff you'd otherwise have a beef with) will get a pass for fear of hurting that champion's potential for progress on a host of other issues. I really don't think it's any more complicated or nuanced than that. What this means is that while Bush served as POTUS and was held accountable as such, Obama serves as President, but is somehow not responsible for Administration failures. Not because there's any substantive counter-argument for why the President should not be responsible for the actions of his Administration, but because the opposing party just hates him. I perceive that simply because that's what I'm reading over and over again.

I just feel that the messaging and rhetoric of the Right has been far too obstructionist, far too inclined to blow up things that aren't terribly important, shitty at choosing productive battles to wage, and shitty at finding the right people to provide leadership. This doesn't mean that I don't have a critique of the Left.
The problem here is that we'd likely disagree on what matters are or are not terribly important. Obstruction of Justice, failed foreign policy, anemic economic growth, and altering a sixth of the US economy to reform health insurance are among those matters I would consider terribly important. I was critical of Bush for "Bush bucks" and my biggest complaint was his Administration's overall lack of transparency. I don't like that, but I had no idea what was coming. When the Bush Administration was accusing the left of a witch-hunt (basically the same as -- you just hate me), I reminded the audience here that the Bush Administration had better move away from the boiling cauldron of bat wings and eye of newt. I'll be honest, I don't see anything resembling that type of ideological integrity from the left here or in the Fourth Estate (major news media, historically brutal on leadership -- decidedly absent the past several years). I see it from some, just not here. I see complaints of specific issues, but nothing that would hold Obama to account. That's just my perception of course -- take it with a grain of salt.

I think this whole Left vs. Right thing is completely misdirected though. The Left seems inclined to put some trust in the government to do things, and the Right in the private sector, and in my opinion, they are the same thing at this point - the same basic players with the same basic motivations and ways of thinking. I haven't really been following the news as closely as I have in the past, because at this point I just don't think it makes a difference who is winning the Republicans vs. Democrats football game.
I think the entire difference in views here can be wrapped up in the term; BIG. The more you entrust to the government to do things - big things, the more they'll have to lean on BIG business to do it. BIG business is what the left thinks of when they think of the "private sector" and I believe that's a mistake. Tax increases and ridiculously complicated tax codes combined with a complicated regulatory environment all serve the BIG businesses government has become most dependent upon for doing things. How? They eliminate the smaller competition. Only the big can survive in this environment. On the other hand, when you limit what the government can do, you naturally limit the amount of influence BIG money can have on the process. Otherwise, my trust in the private sector is based on the fact that the overwhelming majority of employers and business conducted in the US is still SMALL business and people like you and me making our way. I merely want government out of the way and this is often mistaken by the left as cigar-chomping fat-cat support when it is actually nothing of the sort.

I agree that we've all got a long way to go in understanding one another, but it has to start with being honest with ourselves.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2013, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
We desperately need a viable third party. Virginia's gubernatorial election has a legitimate third party candidate (Libertarian), and I really hope he gets elected - not just because I agree with his platform, but because it could have an impact on this bipartisan bullshit most Americans think they have to maintain.
I keep hearing this from folks, but can you give me one solid example of how more politicians or parties solves anything? Look to the regions of the globe with multiple parties and you'll find they generally fall along two primary rails anyway - Labor or Free Enterprise. They're still human. They're still politicians. They're still decidedly down one path or another. And they're still bought and sold.

All a third party is going to do in the US is ensure the party who aligns with most, but not all of your views will rarely, if ever attain office.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2013, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I keep hearing this from folks, but can you give me one solid example of how more politicians or parties solves anything? Look to the regions of the globe with multiple parties and you'll find they generally fall along two primary rails anyway - Labor or Free Enterprise. They're still human. They're still politicians. They're still decidedly down one path or another. And they're still bought and sold.

All a third party is going to do in the US is ensure the party who aligns with most, but not all of your views will rarely, if ever attain office.

With a third party we could get into having majority and minority rule over various branches of the government or even specific issues, where two parties could join forces on certain issues. By joining forces, in order to preserve some sense of integrity these parties would need to find some middle ground and moderated rhetoric. Issues wouldn't be about one binary extreme or the other. Those binary extremes are needed in this environment to draw contrast and inspire support among a base (which is needed before shifting to the center, which always happens during a general election). Calling Obama another George Bush has hurt him, for example, because his loyal base is not going to keep on supporting him if there is no real point in doing so.

You appreciate having the checks and balances, but these days the checks and balances are all working for the same employees with the same interests. Obama's whole Syria red line thing is a demonstration of his love of power, and his power coming to question by Syria challenging that so-called red line. However, there is no other Democrat or Republican president where this would not be the case. Power and money are the same thing in politics. Until there is some degree of separation, this will continue on regardless of whether there is a D or an R in front of a politician's name.

You've made the case that some money/power is needed to do some stuff in politics, and that is true, but money is a tool that needs to be harnessed for a greater good, not dictating what that greater good is. What is Syria about? Money and power. What is Obamacare about? Money and power. Name an issue that doesn't come back to following that money trail. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about CEOs or politicians, they are the same basic thing.

Regarding your take on me, why is it that you take me to task questioning your objectivity and implication that you are an anti-Obama warrior, while it is cool to call out who and what I am? Yes I'm left of center, and yes you are right of center, but there is a huge difference between this part of who and what we are influencing our default and natural political ideology and beliefs vs. not being able to take a step back and recognize the forest for the trees.

I think you are too wrapped up in the beating down the Obama administration thing and perhaps not recognizing the forest for the trees meaning that if Obama were beaten down tomorrow and replaced, it would just be a matter of time before that replacement gravitated towards basically what both Bush and Obama have been doing. Sure there will be some minor victories in there that might satisfy you, but I don't understand how you can chide liberals for Obama turning out to be another Bush, while applauding the obstructionism and the checks and balances and not asking yourself what would prevent your guy from becoming another Obama or Bush?

Would it satisfy you if your guy was another Obama or Bush providing he had an R before his name? I honestly don't think it would, at least not for very long, because you are smarter than that.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2013, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I keep hearing this from folks, but can you give me one solid example of how more politicians or parties solves anything? Look to the regions of the globe with multiple parties and you'll find they generally fall along two primary rails anyway - Labor or Free Enterprise. They're still human. They're still politicians. They're still decidedly down one path or another. And they're still bought and sold.

All a third party is going to do in the US is ensure the party who aligns with most, but not all of your views will rarely, if ever attain office.
To be frank I think that political parties as a whole are causing more problems than good.

Politicians are elected based on party affiliation, not based on their specific platform points. How many Americans vote a straight ticket (you know, just checking "Republican" or "Democrat" at the top of the ballot) rather than individually selecting candidates based on their actual values and views? This can't be answered, of course, since detailed ballot information like that isn't public (as far as I know, at least).

In Indiana, you have to register with a specific party. You're prohibited by state law from voting for a candidate in the party other than your registered party, particularly during presidential primaries. I couldn't believe it when I moved to Virginia and found out that my voter registration didn't oblige me to vote within a particular party.

That's the kind of thing I take issue with. I also take issue with the fact that qualified candidates are ignored if they don't align with one of the two major political parties in the United States. Robert Sarvis wasn't even allowed to participate in televised debates purely because he wasn't Republican or Democrat. Participation in the debates requires a certain approval rating on statewide polls, and his name was excluded from the polls because of his party affiliation.

Doesn't that seem even a little problematic?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2013, 08:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
To be frank I think that political parties as a whole are causing more problems than good.

Politicians are elected based on party affiliation, not based on their specific platform points. How many Americans vote a straight ticket (you know, just checking "Republican" or "Democrat" at the top of the ballot) rather than individually selecting candidates based on their actual values and views? This can't be answered, of course, since detailed ballot information like that isn't public (as far as I know, at least).

In Indiana, you have to register with a specific party. You're prohibited by state law from voting for a candidate in the party other than your registered party, particularly during presidential primaries. I couldn't believe it when I moved to Virginia and found out that my voter registration didn't oblige me to vote within a particular party.

That's the kind of thing I take issue with. I also take issue with the fact that qualified candidates are ignored if they don't align with one of the two major political parties in the United States. Robert Sarvis wasn't even allowed to participate in televised debates purely because he wasn't Republican or Democrat. Participation in the debates requires a certain approval rating on statewide polls, and his name was excluded from the polls because of his party affiliation.

Doesn't that seem even a little problematic?


It certainly makes things difficult and unique for politicians like Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, Joe Lieberman, etc.

ebuddy, I don't understand why it is that you seem so discontent with politics going back from the present to a number of years in the past (through the Bush years and however long before that), yet you don't seem terribly willing to want to make any major changes? Is your hope that the next president will be a strong Republican leader and that the Democrats will just sort of disappear and become irrelevant? That could happen at some point, but if it did, would we have much of a democracy if there was one party controlling pretty much everything, and what happens when that party becomes complacent and their empire crumbles to hell?

The checks and balances you believe so strongly in involves a strong opposition party, right? Is it healthy for politics to be nothing more than a game of political football where the opposition will do everything in their power to not yield ground, even if it is for the good of the public? I've been bitching about the Republicans being obstructionist, but it could very well be the Democrats being obstructionist too, and actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a Republican wins in 2016 and the Democrats do what the Republicans are doing now (although my money is on Hillary Clinton right now).

There is nothing wrong with a vicious ideological battle, but can you honestly say that these battles are happening because the politicians really care about what is best for the country as a whole? I think one would have to be delusional to think this (I'm not saying you do).
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2013, 09:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It certainly makes things difficult and unique for politicians like Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, Joe Lieberman, etc.
I think these are some prime examples of how the system works. With the exception of Lieberman. I probably take him the most seriously of the three, but I don't think he was ever really gunnin' for the Presidency.

ebuddy, I don't understand why it is that you seem so discontent with politics going back from the present to a number of years in the past (through the Bush years and however long before that), yet you don't seem terribly willing to want to make any major changes? Is your hope that the next president will be a strong Republican leader and that the Democrats will just sort of disappear and become irrelevant? That could happen at some point, but if it did, would we have much of a democracy if there was one party controlling pretty much everything, and what happens when that party becomes complacent and their empire crumbles to hell?
Good questions. Politics are frustrating and I suspect we're all discontent with them, but IMO partisanship is a symptom of a problem not solved by merely adding parties.

Also good points about the unlikelihood of a messiach-unifier of contrarians. I believe a government that does less is less beholden to all this nonsense, but you're right -- movement toward limited government would also not happen over night. While a leader with incredible political capital can leverage popularity with bold moves, he/she can't get too greedy for a legacy. Time becomes disastrous for lofty goals that are ill-achieved or show meager-to-harmful affects. Political capital begins to erode and an eventual lack of confidence begins to develop. I think this is where Obama finds himself today and not just among Republicans which is why the "they just don't like him" narrative sometimes annoys me.

The checks and balances you believe so strongly in involves a strong opposition party, right? Is it healthy for politics to be nothing more than a game of political football where the opposition will do everything in their power to not yield ground, even if it is for the good of the public?
It depends on what we're proposing the government should "do for the good of the public" now. See? It's just this fundamental and the countries with multiple parties still fall down along these general lines. Does our government do more for the public or less? With regard to our system; you could say, for good or bad it weeds out the Steve Ballmers.

I've been bitching about the Republicans being obstructionist, but it could very well be the Democrats being obstructionist too, and actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a Republican wins in 2016 and the Democrats do what the Republicans are doing now (although my money is on Hillary Clinton right now).
Hillary Clinton is definitely one of the most serious prospects. Republicans had better be very careful with her if they hope to have a chance. They cannot get dragged into ad hom or emotional outbursts. They bungle this repeatedly and I'm not necessarily looking forward to the next election. I know Hillary's politics and I'm not interested in this for the country.

There is nothing wrong with a vicious ideological battle, but can you honestly say that these battles are happening because the politicians really care about what is best for the country as a whole? I think one would have to be delusional to think this (I'm not saying you do).
The problem certainly exists where (R)s are acting merely in spite and you're right in citing this behavior from both parties, but those would be deemed low on the scale of voter concerns, generally. On the generally-accepted big stuff, I absolutely believe there are politicians on both sides who truly want what's best for the country as a whole. There are still two fundamental principles at odds and at some point politicians will continuously butt up against those non-negotiable legislative movements. The more of these movements that are attempted, the more opposition they'll encounter and I think that's generally what we see.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2013, 10:30 PM
 
I would say to you, ebuddy, that your dreams of limited government are futile at best until politicians start wearing Nascar jumpsuits with patches on them showing who has bribed them. Limited government just means that there are fewer that can be bribed, and that these bribes will just go to a fewer collection of individuals. Hell, I bet many of them are for limited government for this very reason.

This is obviously silly, I realize that political corruption is not some sort of new thing, but would you agree that the lack of differentiation between money, power, and politics is at an all-time low right now, and that maybe the fact that corporations are considered people that can provide unlimited campaign donations is not a really healthy thing? I know you're generally more comfortable with corporations than you are politicians, but politicians are also people - they can do the same thing with their personal funds or with whatever money they can put in the ring. It's all the same basic thing to me.

There have been stories about the Clinton Global Initiative having some financial blips, but if Hillary does run, you know that she and Bill could raise obscene amounts of money in 2016. Do you want that deciding that election and the politics of the following 4+ years?

I think Hillary has the best chance of winning because basically I think people will think "okay we tried the business guy (Bush) and that didn't work, we tried the scrappy underdog guy that was going to change everything (Obama) and that didn't work either.... Hmmm.. let's go back to what seemed to work in the 90s".

I'm sure some of you would disagree with what the 90s were like, but my sense is that the common narrative is that many people would like to go back to the economy we had in the 90s.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2013, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I would say to you, ebuddy, that your dreams of limited government are futile at best until politicians start wearing Nascar jumpsuits with patches on them showing who has bribed them. Limited government just means that there are fewer that can be bribed, and that these bribes will just go to a fewer collection of individuals. Hell, I bet many of them are for limited government for this very reason.
I agree with the difficulty in trimming down the size of government, but I disagree with why that is. IMO, it's because the electorate is wearing Nascar jumpsuits with Largesse Giveaway stamped on it. This is politicians bribing people. As painful as it is to hear, if you want BIG money interest out of government, you'll have to ask less of your government. There's just no other way out. We have to grow up. At this point not unlike an alcoholic, we'll have to hit rock-bottom. I'm discouraged by that, but I don't see a return to common sense until all the distractions are taken away.

This is obviously silly, I realize that political corruption is not some sort of new thing, but would you agree that the lack of differentiation between money, power, and politics is at an all-time low right now, and that maybe the fact that corporations are considered people that can provide unlimited campaign donations is not a really healthy thing?
I see this as an entirely inconsequential thing unless there's a back-room door in government through which they can enter. This is like trying to bribe a giraffe to swim. They can't. You're wasting your money. The less you have your government do for you, the less beholden they'll be to BIG money interest. Unless you're advocating full-on Communism, the government will have to look to big business for their wares. Between Big Corp and Big Labor, I'd say Big Labor owns the lion's share of distorting the market. By merely removing Big Corp from the table, you're only leaving the more egregious offender to speak his piece into legislation. In our current environment as much as I dislike the money interest and would rather have neither -- I'll settle for both. By pointing a finger only at Big Corp, you're missing more than half the picture. Giveaways and bail-outs to failed monoliths will only continue as long as those monoliths are necessary for providing whatever it is government has stamped in bribes on the Nascar suits of the electorate.

I know you're generally more comfortable with corporations than you are politicians, but politicians are also people - they can do the same thing with their personal funds or with whatever money they can put in the ring. It's all the same basic thing to me.
There's nothing to stop them from doing so now.

There have been stories about the Clinton Global Initiative having some financial blips, but if Hillary does run, you know that she and Bill could raise obscene amounts of money in 2016. Do you want that deciding that election and the politics of the following 4+ years?
Of course not, but one shouldn't underestimate the amount of money Republicans will be able to compile upon the prospect of facing a Hillary Clinton. There will be obscene amounts of money coming out of both sides.

I think Hillary has the best chance of winning because basically I think people will think "okay we tried the business guy (Bush) and that didn't work, we tried the scrappy underdog guy that was going to change everything (Obama) and that didn't work either.... Hmmm.. let's go back to what seemed to work in the 90s".

I'm sure some of you would disagree with what the 90s were like, but my sense is that the common narrative is that many people would like to go back to the economy we had in the 90s.
This would all be a pipe-dream without a Republican-lead House and Senate and another Contract with America. Hillary Clinton with half or all of Congress at her disposal would be just as disastrous as what we have now.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 11:42 AM
 
Well looks like Putin to the rescue.

News from The Associated Press

MOSCOW (AP) -- Syria said Tuesday it has accepted Russia's proposal to place its chemical weapons under international control for subsequent dismantling.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Tuesday after meeting with Russian parliament speaker that his government quickly "agreed to the Russian initiative."

Al-Moallem added that Syria did so to "uproot U.S. aggression."
Obama is going to have to pull a "Greg Stillson" if he still wants to attack Syria

Biden: "This not necessary Mr President, we have a diplomatic solution."

Obama:Mister Vice President, Mister Secretary, The missiles are flying Hallelujah, Hallelujah .
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 03:26 PM
 
I love how Obama came up with his new policy. Just wait for Kerry to say something stupid, then run with it!

Jesus Russia made the US look weak and incompetent. Russia to the rescue!

Accidental Diplomacy? Kerry now claims credit for Syria weapons proposal | Fox News
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 03:46 PM
 
President Obama said Monday, a day before his prime-time address to the nation justifying military action in Syria, that he would prefer a diplomatic solution over a military strike.

"I did have those conversations" with Russian President Vladimir Putin, he told PBS NewsHour co-anchor Gwen Ifill at the White House when asked whether he had discussions with the Russian leader about the idea of putting Syrian chemical weapons under international control.

"This is a continuation of conversations I've had with President Putin for quite some time. As I said to you the last time we spoke, this chemical weapons ban matters to us, to the United States," the president said.

He added that he has instructed Secretary of State John Kerry to talk directly to the Russians about that option.

"And if we can exhaust these diplomatic efforts and come up with a formula that gives the international community a verifiable, enforceable mechanism to deal with these chemical weapons in Syria, then I'm all for it. But we're going to have to see specifics."
Obama Says He Spoke With Putin About Chemical Weapons Control Idea, Favors Diplomatic Solution | PBS NewsHour

If the Obama Administration can pull this off my then original comment in this thread will be even more on point. No military action AND Syria declares its chemical weapons stockpile and joins the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Originally Posted by OAW
My hope here is that President Obama is outmaneuvering his political opposition. Clearly he has been reluctant to get the US into another long-term military entanglement in the Middle East. Getting involved in the Syrian civil war is like picking a side between Lucifer and Satan. It's best just to stay out of it and let them weaken each other. But he erred with that "red line" comment. And now he's being pressed by neo-cons to intervene militarily in order to preserve US "credibility" in the region. As if there was much of that left to begin with given the Iraq War debacle and the general hypocrisy of US foreign policy in the region for decades. In any event, I don't think he really wants to go down that road. So as we started to hear the drums of war started then what happens? The executive branch starts beating them even harder! Word gets about about naval deployments. Timeline for attacks within days. Rampant speculation about Tomahawk cruise missiles. High-level Administration officials talking about how "certain" they were that the Syrian government was responsible … even when the UN chemical weapons inspection team was still in country conducting their investigation. The Administration is really playing up how the US has to "do something" to show that the use of chemical weapons can't be tolerated blah blah blah. All the while hedging by saying he hasn't made a final decision. And what happens? Congress and the US public start to freak out. We now have 80% of the public saying the POTUS should get Congressional approval before striking Syria. Which given the general war weariness among Dems and the House GOP's penchant for opposing anything he pushes for will likely never happen. So at the end of the day his hands may end up tied by Congress on all of this. And perhaps that's what he's been hoping for all along?
OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 03:47 PM
 
Entirely expected, and yet, I welcome the whole world laughing at US foreign policy.
Obama and Kerry are the useful idiots.

Hopefully, that'll teach us to stop meddle in other nation's affairs.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Entirely expected, and yet, I welcome the whole world laughing at US foreign policy.
Obama and Kerry are the useful idiots.

Hopefully, that'll teach us to stop meddle in other nation's affairs.

-t
Yep, let the others police the crazies for a while, we're broke.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 04:55 PM
 
Wait, how is this embarrassing for the US?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 05:02 PM
 
But it was Obama's idea all along guys!

What a genius! In just 24 hours he went from not having a clue to having it all figured out.

*****
Kerry didn't have a ****ing clue until a reporter asked him how Syria could avert a strike and he mumbled something that sounded good, and added "thats not going to happen"

Putin absolutely owned the Obama administration on this one. By design or not, the US looks extremely weak and incompetent given all the "red line" rhetoric. Russia has to come in and save the day. Obama has to be sighing in relief that the vote on the strike won't be necessary now that his idiot secretary of state backed into a decent idea.

We should be giving that reporter Obama's Nobel peace prize as his question quite possibly saved Obama from having to do a strike without congressional approval just to save face.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Wait, how is this embarrassing for the US?
mostly it's just embarrassing for Obama and Kerry. He's reaching Bush Jr levels of laughing stock now, I'm even starting to wince and feel sorry for him.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Wait, how is this embarrassing for the US?
Because its Russia thats saving the day. Not Obama, not the powerful US. Russia. Without a military strike, like was Obama's plan which is extremely unpopular at home and abroad.

Putin managed to make the leader of the US look extremely incompetent and weak. Putin also probably saved what's left of Obama's credibility by avoiding a congressional vote on strikes which would not have gone well for Obama.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yep, let the others police the crazies for a while, we're broke.

Wouldn't some would say that war is actually good for the economy?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Wouldn't some would say that war is actually good for the economy?
Hasn't been since WW2, not sure how this one would be different. War sucks and we just need to stop attacking people.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Hasn't been since WW2, not sure how this one would be different. War sucks and we just need to stop attacking people.
I'm no fan of it myself. Would now be a good time to ask for a hug?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 06:50 PM
 
I'm wondering when the Left turned into the Neocons, I suppose it was when Obama found it fashionable.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm wondering when the Left turned into the Neocons, I suppose it was when Obama found it fashionable.

About the time I started asking this was when I started to see how silly the whole Right vs. Left thing is right now. I mean, all the people grumbling about Obama right now, who would you install that would do anything significantly different?

We need somebody like a Ron Paul or Jesse Ventura, if only they were less crackpotty and were perhaps a little more cerebral (in the case of Ventura), and only if they ran independently.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 07:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm wondering when the Left turned into the Neocons, I suppose it was when Obama found it fashionable.
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
About the time I started asking this was when I started to see how silly the whole Right vs. Left thing is right now. I mean, all the people grumbling about Obama right now, who would you install that would do anything significantly different?

We need somebody like a Ron Paul or Jesse Ventura, if only they were less crackpotty and were perhaps a little more cerebral (in the case of Ventura), and only if they ran independently.
You know they're both puppets of the NWO! W, Obama, and whoever gets (not Hillary, too old, and too fill in the blank)"elected" in 2016 just do what they're told.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 07:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You know they're both puppets of the NWO! W, Obama, and whoever gets (not Hillary, too old, and too fill in the blank)"elected" in 2016 just do what they're told.

Sorry, whenever anybody starts going on about the New World Order as if this is an established thing we are supposed to accept the crackpot bells go off in my mind.

You were joking, right?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 07:42 PM
 
Also, Hillary being too old, weren't you in support of McCain?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Sorry, whenever anybody starts going on about the New World Order as if this is an established thing we are supposed to accept the crackpot bells go off in my mind.

You were joking, right?
Yes
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Also, Hillary being too old, weren't you in support of McCain?
Over Obama? Held my nose. I voted for Romney in the 2008 primaries.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
But it was Obama's idea all along guys!
Do you have something concrete to refute what President Obama and Sec. Kerry said? Especially in light of this ….

Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama discussed the idea of placing Syria's chemical weapons arsenal under international control on the sidelines of a G20 summit last week, Putin's spokesman said on Tuesday.

"The issue was discussed," spokesman Dmitry Peskov said by telephone.
He would not say who raised the issue or give other details.

Russia announced its proposal to put Syrian chemical weapons under international control on Monday. Hours earlier, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could avoid a U.S. military strike by surrendering all his chemical weapons within a week but added that Assad "isn't about to do it and it can't be done".
Putin, Obama discussed Syria arms control idea last week: Kremlin | Reuters.com

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What a genius! In just 24 hours he went from not having a clue to having it all figured out.

*****
Kerry didn't have a ****ing clue until a reporter asked him how Syria could avert a strike and he mumbled something that sounded good, and added "thats not going to happen"
Did it ever occur to you Sec. Kerry may have said that precisely because the Russians had been rejecting such proposals for months on end?

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2013, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Do you have something concrete to refute what President Obama and Sec. Kerry said? Especially in light of this ….
Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama discussed the idea of placing Syria's chemical weapons arsenal under international control on the sidelines of a G20 summit last week, Putin's spokesman said on Tuesday.

"The issue was discussed," spokesman Dmitry Peskov said by telephone.
He would not say who raised the issue or give other details...
Was that before or after he accused Obama and Kerry of flat-out lying to the world about who's gassing who? Which Putin are you hanging our supposed national security on?

Russia announced its proposal to put Syrian chemical weapons under international control on Monday. Hours earlier, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could avoid a U.S. military strike by surrendering all his chemical weapons within a week but added that Assad "isn't about to do it and it can't be done".
And what should we believe? That it's doable and Putin will personally see to it that his ally Assad gives up his most powerful weapons? Or what Kerry said that's it's not possible. I mean, it took what -- 5+ years to extract WMDs from Libya with Gaddafi's compliance during relative peace in the region? We're supposed to pull thousands of pounds of chemical weapons out of Syria while mired in a civil war... by when?!? I mean, we know how well this worked out for Gaddafi. Now we get to watch Putin leverage Obama's foolishness into some kludgy agreement.

Did it ever occur to you Sec. Kerry may have said that precisely because the Russians had been rejecting such proposals for months on end?
OAW
No. I think he said it because he knows it's not possible. The statement was made "off the cuff".
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 10:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
mostly it's just embarrassing for Obama and Kerry. He's reaching Bush Jr levels of laughing stock now, I'm even starting to wince and feel sorry for him.
Okay, how is it embarrassing for Obama and Kerry?


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Because its Russia thats saving the day. Not Obama, not the powerful US. Russia. Without a military strike, like was Obama's plan which is extremely unpopular at home and abroad.

Putin managed to make the leader of the US look extremely incompetent and weak. Putin also probably saved what's left of Obama's credibility by avoiding a congressional vote on strikes which would not have gone well for Obama.
Question: Does Russia even put this on the table if the US isn't threatening to do airstrikes on their buddy Assad?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Okay, how is it embarrassing for Obama and Kerry?
I mean, you don't see how bad this makes Obama look on the world stage? This is Putin's show now. Obama's just along for the ride. he failed with his foreign policy here, and I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.

Hell, Obama couldn't even get Britain on board here with his policy. Britain! Not to mention the entire Israeli armed forces laughing at our ineptitude and being ordered not to say anything that might embarrass their mighty ally.


Question: Does Russia even put this on the table if the US isn't threatening to do airstrikes on their buddy Assad?
Does it even matter? Of course Putin is going to jump on a chance to undermine our influence and make us look like idiots while protecting their interests. They've already done a damn good job of it so far.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:59 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2