- This topic has 1,004 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
urbanrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 1, 2011 at 4:28 PM #727695September 1, 2011 at 4:28 PM #727778
Anonymous
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Um, Brian? Uh, yeah, the Tea Party DID NOT EXIST when Obama took office.[/quote]
Yeah, but Fox/Limbaugh/Beck did. And they dominated the the ratings at the time.
[quote]So, that means Obama was lying on the campaign trail, yes? He knew FULL WELL that he was going to continue the abysmal policies of his predecessor and just bullshitted the American people, correct?[/quote]
Allan. Here’s a little secret: Politicians are liars. Feel free to vote for the guy that tells the truth, when you find him.
[quote]At some point, you’re going to need to admit that Obama is engaged in torture, targeted assassinations[/quote]
Heck, I’ll admit it now.
[quote]undermining the US Constitution and rule of law and dangerously eroding American civil liberties.[/quote]
Now you are going hyperbolic. We’ve been abusing “bad guys” for a long time. Where do you think the CIA learned these tricks? Know were waterboarding was first used? The Spanish American war in the Philippines (which has interesting parallels to the Iraq war, btw…)
This stuff has been around long before Obama. Bush/Cheney took it to a new level. And there IS a difference between initiating it and choosing not to stop it when it’s already in place.
You seem to be absolutely fixated on this issue, Allan. But what you consistently fail to provide is an alternative course of action.
FACT: If Obama even tries to change this stuff, he loses the election, guaranteed.
FACT: If Obama even tries to change this stuff, he will meet tremendous resistance from many powerful people in government, military, and the media. So the odds of actually doing any good if he goes down that path (especially at the 10 year anniversary of 9/11) are slim.
So what should he do? Sacrifice his second term (where he may actually have the power to do the right thing) just to demonstrate commitment to some idealistic principle, even though he’ll accomplish next to nothing?
And while he’s doing all this, when is he supposed to be working on the economy?
Allan, you don’t play chess much, do you?
September 1, 2011 at 4:28 PM #728090Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Um, Brian? Uh, yeah, the Tea Party DID NOT EXIST when Obama took office.[/quote]
Yeah, but Fox/Limbaugh/Beck did. And they dominated the the ratings at the time.
[quote]So, that means Obama was lying on the campaign trail, yes? He knew FULL WELL that he was going to continue the abysmal policies of his predecessor and just bullshitted the American people, correct?[/quote]
Allan. Here’s a little secret: Politicians are liars. Feel free to vote for the guy that tells the truth, when you find him.
[quote]At some point, you’re going to need to admit that Obama is engaged in torture, targeted assassinations[/quote]
Heck, I’ll admit it now.
[quote]undermining the US Constitution and rule of law and dangerously eroding American civil liberties.[/quote]
Now you are going hyperbolic. We’ve been abusing “bad guys” for a long time. Where do you think the CIA learned these tricks? Know were waterboarding was first used? The Spanish American war in the Philippines (which has interesting parallels to the Iraq war, btw…)
This stuff has been around long before Obama. Bush/Cheney took it to a new level. And there IS a difference between initiating it and choosing not to stop it when it’s already in place.
You seem to be absolutely fixated on this issue, Allan. But what you consistently fail to provide is an alternative course of action.
FACT: If Obama even tries to change this stuff, he loses the election, guaranteed.
FACT: If Obama even tries to change this stuff, he will meet tremendous resistance from many powerful people in government, military, and the media. So the odds of actually doing any good if he goes down that path (especially at the 10 year anniversary of 9/11) are slim.
So what should he do? Sacrifice his second term (where he may actually have the power to do the right thing) just to demonstrate commitment to some idealistic principle, even though he’ll accomplish next to nothing?
And while he’s doing all this, when is he supposed to be working on the economy?
Allan, you don’t play chess much, do you?
September 1, 2011 at 4:30 PM #727700Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPri: Excellent response and there is nothing in there that I disagree with.
I don’t hold Obama to any standards at all, actually. As you said, he’s a politician. But I’ll profess to a somewhat misguided and naive hope that he would’ve been somewhat different than Dubya. While I understand the American reaction, post-9/11, we’ve gone down a terrifying road here and I don’t think people truly understand that, once you’ve abrogated your rights and liberties, you don’t get them back easily.
This isn’t partisan, either. One of the reasons I take Brian to task is that he professes a certain set of beliefs, but is more than willing to look the other way if its “his guy” that’s now burning down the house.
This is a very different America than it was even under Reagan and I had some MAJOR issues with the shit that was going on THEN. Its way worse now, and people seem perfectly content to go about their business and not really care. As a conservative, I COUNT on bleeding-heart liberals to stand up and fight this kind of stuff (said sincerely). When the Libs and the Center-Left stop paying attention, well, now we’re really in the shit.
September 1, 2011 at 4:30 PM #727783ParticipantPri: Excellent response and there is nothing in there that I disagree with.
I don’t hold Obama to any standards at all, actually. As you said, he’s a politician. But I’ll profess to a somewhat misguided and naive hope that he would’ve been somewhat different than Dubya. While I understand the American reaction, post-9/11, we’ve gone down a terrifying road here and I don’t think people truly understand that, once you’ve abrogated your rights and liberties, you don’t get them back easily.
This isn’t partisan, either. One of the reasons I take Brian to task is that he professes a certain set of beliefs, but is more than willing to look the other way if its “his guy” that’s now burning down the house.
This is a very different America than it was even under Reagan and I had some MAJOR issues with the shit that was going on THEN. Its way worse now, and people seem perfectly content to go about their business and not really care. As a conservative, I COUNT on bleeding-heart liberals to stand up and fight this kind of stuff (said sincerely). When the Libs and the Center-Left stop paying attention, well, now we’re really in the shit.
September 1, 2011 at 4:30 PM #728091ParticipantPri: Excellent response and there is nothing in there that I disagree with.
I don’t hold Obama to any standards at all, actually. As you said, he’s a politician. But I’ll profess to a somewhat misguided and naive hope that he would’ve been somewhat different than Dubya. While I understand the American reaction, post-9/11, we’ve gone down a terrifying road here and I don’t think people truly understand that, once you’ve abrogated your rights and liberties, you don’t get them back easily.
This isn’t partisan, either. One of the reasons I take Brian to task is that he professes a certain set of beliefs, but is more than willing to look the other way if its “his guy” that’s now burning down the house.
This is a very different America than it was even under Reagan and I had some MAJOR issues with the shit that was going on THEN. Its way worse now, and people seem perfectly content to go about their business and not really care. As a conservative, I COUNT on bleeding-heart liberals to stand up and fight this kind of stuff (said sincerely). When the Libs and the Center-Left stop paying attention, well, now we’re really in the shit.
September 1, 2011 at 4:36 PM #727710Participant[quote=briansd1]
At first glance you are correct.But as you said, especially in diplomacy, words have meanings.
I believe that Democrats are kinder, gentler. Republicans are the intransigent kinds who by making sine qua non demands on other countries back us into corners from which we cannot extricate ourselves. The very nature of diplomacy and foreign policy is that there is continuity.
For example, let’s look at Cuba. Republican presidents’ tough talk on Cuba have prevented rapprochement. So we ended up with a Cuban leadership that hardened towards the US. That’s brought the two countries closer to conflict and imposed humanitarian hardship on the Cuban people.[/quote]
Brian: With respect to Cuba, American policy regarding Cuba was the product of a Democratic President (remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?) and has remained in place during successive administrations, so that doesn’t hold water.
Relative to the “humanitarian hardships imposed on the Cuban people”, uh, Brian, that would be directly attributable to the repressive, oppressive policies of the Castro regime. To attempt to lay Castro’s bullshit at the feet of the GOP is strikingly ignorant and smacks of moral infantilism. The man is a murderous Stalinist thug and has been since he deposed Batista.
As for “kinder, gentler” Democrats, I’d offer LBJ and Vietnam (and JFK is in there, too) and the 500,000 dead Iraqis that Clinton racked up. Yeah, the Dems are a sweet bunch. As I said earlier, there is no difference between the two when it comes to support of empire.
September 1, 2011 at 4:36 PM #727793Participant[quote=briansd1]
At first glance you are correct.But as you said, especially in diplomacy, words have meanings.
I believe that Democrats are kinder, gentler. Republicans are the intransigent kinds who by making sine qua non demands on other countries back us into corners from which we cannot extricate ourselves. The very nature of diplomacy and foreign policy is that there is continuity.
For example, let’s look at Cuba. Republican presidents’ tough talk on Cuba have prevented rapprochement. So we ended up with a Cuban leadership that hardened towards the US. That’s brought the two countries closer to conflict and imposed humanitarian hardship on the Cuban people.[/quote]
Brian: With respect to Cuba, American policy regarding Cuba was the product of a Democratic President (remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?) and has remained in place during successive administrations, so that doesn’t hold water.
Relative to the “humanitarian hardships imposed on the Cuban people”, uh, Brian, that would be directly attributable to the repressive, oppressive policies of the Castro regime. To attempt to lay Castro’s bullshit at the feet of the GOP is strikingly ignorant and smacks of moral infantilism. The man is a murderous Stalinist thug and has been since he deposed Batista.
As for “kinder, gentler” Democrats, I’d offer LBJ and Vietnam (and JFK is in there, too) and the 500,000 dead Iraqis that Clinton racked up. Yeah, the Dems are a sweet bunch. As I said earlier, there is no difference between the two when it comes to support of empire.
September 1, 2011 at 4:36 PM #728093Participant[quote=briansd1]
At first glance you are correct.But as you said, especially in diplomacy, words have meanings.
I believe that Democrats are kinder, gentler. Republicans are the intransigent kinds who by making sine qua non demands on other countries back us into corners from which we cannot extricate ourselves. The very nature of diplomacy and foreign policy is that there is continuity.
For example, let’s look at Cuba. Republican presidents’ tough talk on Cuba have prevented rapprochement. So we ended up with a Cuban leadership that hardened towards the US. That’s brought the two countries closer to conflict and imposed humanitarian hardship on the Cuban people.[/quote]
Brian: With respect to Cuba, American policy regarding Cuba was the product of a Democratic President (remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?) and has remained in place during successive administrations, so that doesn’t hold water.
Relative to the “humanitarian hardships imposed on the Cuban people”, uh, Brian, that would be directly attributable to the repressive, oppressive policies of the Castro regime. To attempt to lay Castro’s bullshit at the feet of the GOP is strikingly ignorant and smacks of moral infantilism. The man is a murderous Stalinist thug and has been since he deposed Batista.
As for “kinder, gentler” Democrats, I’d offer LBJ and Vietnam (and JFK is in there, too) and the 500,000 dead Iraqis that Clinton racked up. Yeah, the Dems are a sweet bunch. As I said earlier, there is no difference between the two when it comes to support of empire.
September 1, 2011 at 4:42 PM #727715Participant[quote=pri_dk]
This stuff has been around long before Obama. Bush/Cheney took it to a new level. And there IS a difference between initiating it and choosing not to stop it when it’s already in place.You seem to be absolutely fixated on this issue, Allan. But what you consistently fail to provide is an alternative course of action.
[/quote]
Pri: Relative to torture: STOP DOING IT. Simple as that. I know from firsthand experience that torture does NOT work.
Repeal Patriots I and II, along with FISA and the NSA Carnivore and Echelon programs. You referenced an earlier Obama Executive Order directing the closure of Gitmo (and it would now appear that YOU DID know that EO was BS), why not have the Prez issue some Executive Orders undoing some of these programs (and, given the nature of these programs, an EO is exactly what is needed).
Stop extraordinary renditions. Again, simple as that.
September 1, 2011 at 4:42 PM #727798Participant[quote=pri_dk]
This stuff has been around long before Obama. Bush/Cheney took it to a new level. And there IS a difference between initiating it and choosing not to stop it when it’s already in place.You seem to be absolutely fixated on this issue, Allan. But what you consistently fail to provide is an alternative course of action.
[/quote]
Pri: Relative to torture: STOP DOING IT. Simple as that. I know from firsthand experience that torture does NOT work.
Repeal Patriots I and II, along with FISA and the NSA Carnivore and Echelon programs. You referenced an earlier Obama Executive Order directing the closure of Gitmo (and it would now appear that YOU DID know that EO was BS), why not have the Prez issue some Executive Orders undoing some of these programs (and, given the nature of these programs, an EO is exactly what is needed).
Stop extraordinary renditions. Again, simple as that.
September 1, 2011 at 4:42 PM #728094Participant[quote=pri_dk]
This stuff has been around long before Obama. Bush/Cheney took it to a new level. And there IS a difference between initiating it and choosing not to stop it when it’s already in place.You seem to be absolutely fixated on this issue, Allan. But what you consistently fail to provide is an alternative course of action.
[/quote]
Pri: Relative to torture: STOP DOING IT. Simple as that. I know from firsthand experience that torture does NOT work.
Repeal Patriots I and II, along with FISA and the NSA Carnivore and Echelon programs. You referenced an earlier Obama Executive Order directing the closure of Gitmo (and it would now appear that YOU DID know that EO was BS), why not have the Prez issue some Executive Orders undoing some of these programs (and, given the nature of these programs, an EO is exactly what is needed).
Stop extraordinary renditions. Again, simple as that.
September 1, 2011 at 4:53 PM #727725briansd1
GuestAllan, please look at the more recent history.
Sure LBJ escalated Vietnam. That was wrong. But after the fall of Saigon, the Republicans played up the communism and POW issues as the sine qua non to rapprochement.
Clinton normalized relations and Vietnam is now an American ally that is part of our supply chain. The Vietnamese people’s lives are so much better now.
The Republicans pandered to the right-wing voting Cuban exiles of Florida and played up the fear of communism in the American public.
Or course Castro is responsible for the oppression of his people. However, I believe that early rapprochement with Cuba would have benefited both countries.
September 1, 2011 at 4:53 PM #727808GuestAllan, please look at the more recent history.
Sure LBJ escalated Vietnam. That was wrong. But after the fall of Saigon, the Republicans played up the communism and POW issues as the sine qua non to rapprochement.
Clinton normalized relations and Vietnam is now an American ally that is part of our supply chain. The Vietnamese people’s lives are so much better now.
The Republicans pandered to the right-wing voting Cuban exiles of Florida and played up the fear of communism in the American public.
Or course Castro is responsible for the oppression of his people. However, I believe that early rapprochement with Cuba would have benefited both countries.
September 1, 2011 at 4:53 PM #728096GuestAllan, please look at the more recent history.
Sure LBJ escalated Vietnam. That was wrong. But after the fall of Saigon, the Republicans played up the communism and POW issues as the sine qua non to rapprochement.
Clinton normalized relations and Vietnam is now an American ally that is part of our supply chain. The Vietnamese people’s lives are so much better now.
The Republicans pandered to the right-wing voting Cuban exiles of Florida and played up the fear of communism in the American public.
Or course Castro is responsible for the oppression of his people. However, I believe that early rapprochement with Cuba would have benefited both countries.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.