Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk]
I’d agree with all of that except for the part about the extreme vilification of Bush being for the same policies and programs as Obama’s. Bush was extremely vilified, but I think he deserved it. He got us into a war of choice apparently without significant reflection on the matter. Thousands of Americans are dead in vain and trillions of dollars are wasted. To me, that’s an extreme villain.Obama dithers and has made some bad calls. But he hasn’t done nearly the damage to this country that Bush did. Whole different league.
I’m curious about your opinions on Libya. What would you have us do there? What long-term strategy would you have?[/quote]
Zk: Except that Obama is continuing the very same policies as Bush: Gitmo remains open, extraordinary rendition continues (a policy instituted under Clinton), drone strikes continue, and the war in Afghanistan actually enlarged significantly under Obama. I don’t necessarily see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama.
As far as Libya goes: Obama could have easily removed Gaddafi’s air force from the conflict, and that air force (both fixed wing and helicopter) has been the difference thus far. He wouldn’t have needed to even involve US air power, but used SLBMs and cruise missiles deployed from US subs in the Med. All of Libya’s military airfields are pre-programmed into targeting computers and it would’ve taken about three days total to completely blind (missile strikes against radar and communications facilities) and then ground (missile and SLBM strikes against runways, revetments and fuel facilities) Gaddafi’s air power. This bullshit about involving the UN in a no-fly zone was a complete and total waste of time (we don’t have sufficient air power or resources to enforce a no-fly over Libya as it is, since USAF and USN resources are stretched thin supporting two wars), and Obama knew it. Under the guise of “multi-lateralism”, he essentially consigned the rebellion to destruction and aided and abetted a total fucking lunatic in the bargain.
Like I said, how do you think those Libyan rebels feel about that touchy-feely Cairo speech now?[/quote]
You don’t see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama? Really? It’s pretty simple. Bush got us into a war that wasn’t necessary, cost us massively, and got us nothing.
I don’t see your long-term strategy for Libya. How is the outcome better for us if the rebels win than if gadhafi stays? What’s in it for us and why would we fight for that?
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]Anyone here considered “taking a vacation” back east as a result of the nuclear problems?[/quote]
If you fly, you’ll get more extra radiation from being at altitude for 8 hours (round trip) than you would from staying here on the west coast.[/quote]
Yes, I’ve thought about this. Was planning to drive, but not sure if we could get far enough ahead of the radioactive plume. I do have my iodine pills, though. ;)[/quote]
I guess you’re kidding around here, I can’t really tell. But 5,000 miles in a car is more dangerous than the radiation you’d get in Tokyo, let alone San Diego.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]Anyone here considered “taking a vacation” back east as a result of the nuclear problems?[/quote]
If you fly, you’ll get more extra radiation from being at altitude for 8 hours (round trip) than you would from staying here on the west coast.[/quote]
Yes, I’ve thought about this. Was planning to drive, but not sure if we could get far enough ahead of the radioactive plume. I do have my iodine pills, though. ;)[/quote]
I guess you’re kidding around here, I can’t really tell. But 5,000 miles in a car is more dangerous than the radiation you’d get in Tokyo, let alone San Diego.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]Anyone here considered “taking a vacation” back east as a result of the nuclear problems?[/quote]
If you fly, you’ll get more extra radiation from being at altitude for 8 hours (round trip) than you would from staying here on the west coast.[/quote]
Yes, I’ve thought about this. Was planning to drive, but not sure if we could get far enough ahead of the radioactive plume. I do have my iodine pills, though. ;)[/quote]
I guess you’re kidding around here, I can’t really tell. But 5,000 miles in a car is more dangerous than the radiation you’d get in Tokyo, let alone San Diego.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]Anyone here considered “taking a vacation” back east as a result of the nuclear problems?[/quote]
If you fly, you’ll get more extra radiation from being at altitude for 8 hours (round trip) than you would from staying here on the west coast.[/quote]
Yes, I’ve thought about this. Was planning to drive, but not sure if we could get far enough ahead of the radioactive plume. I do have my iodine pills, though. ;)[/quote]
I guess you’re kidding around here, I can’t really tell. But 5,000 miles in a car is more dangerous than the radiation you’d get in Tokyo, let alone San Diego.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]Anyone here considered “taking a vacation” back east as a result of the nuclear problems?[/quote]
If you fly, you’ll get more extra radiation from being at altitude for 8 hours (round trip) than you would from staying here on the west coast.[/quote]
Yes, I’ve thought about this. Was planning to drive, but not sure if we could get far enough ahead of the radioactive plume. I do have my iodine pills, though. ;)[/quote]
I guess you’re kidding around here, I can’t really tell. But 5,000 miles in a car is more dangerous than the radiation you’d get in Tokyo, let alone San Diego.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk]
That all makes sense. You’ve also got several dyed-in-the-wool rightists who are unable to debate using facts and resort to childish and petty ad hominem when confronted.Perhaps on this type of forum, where the average joe is involved, the anger and stupidity is equal on both ends of the spectrum. Maybe my perception is skewed because the right-wing noise machine that you see every day in the media is wild with anger, far more so than what the left comes up with. It works, though. Obama was vilified far in excess of the mistakes he made almost immediately upon taking office. You see so much hatred and anger out there towards him that wouldn’t exist without that noise machine. That machine is not only angry, it is purposely deceitful. It’s why republicans keep winning despite their awful record recently.[/quote]
Zk: No disagreement from me on anything you’ve said. Regardless of stripe, idiots should be called out.
I also don’t debate the “noise machine”, either. Whether we’re discussing relative volume or content. However, when we get to the idea of signal versus noise ratio, I would ask: What volume of criticism is Obama in for?
More pointedly: How do you think those Libyan rebels in Benghazi feel about Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech right about now? Maybe it rings a little hollow for them as the US sits back and dithers while they get bombed out of existence?
I think there are valid criticisms of the man and his administration (Gitmo, Patriot I/II, etc), and I do believe he has made some significant missteps.
I would also point out that Dubya was subjected to fairly extreme vilification himself (and, ironically for the same policies and programs), as well as being cast as an American President who should be assassinated. He and Cheney were hung in effigy, and left-wing pundits and performers had an eight-year run of mocking the president for everything from his poor grammar and elocution, to his Hitlerian foreign policy.[/quote]
I’d agree with all of that except for the part about the extreme vilification of Bush being for the same policies and programs as Obama’s. Bush was extremely vilified, but I think he deserved it. He got us into a war of choice apparently without significant reflection on the matter. Thousands of Americans are dead in vain and trillions of dollars are wasted. To me, that’s an extreme villain.
Obama dithers and has made some bad calls. But he hasn’t done nearly the damage to this country that Bush did. Whole different league.
I’m curious about your opinions on Libya. What would you have us do there? What long-term strategy would you have?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk]
That all makes sense. You’ve also got several dyed-in-the-wool rightists who are unable to debate using facts and resort to childish and petty ad hominem when confronted.Perhaps on this type of forum, where the average joe is involved, the anger and stupidity is equal on both ends of the spectrum. Maybe my perception is skewed because the right-wing noise machine that you see every day in the media is wild with anger, far more so than what the left comes up with. It works, though. Obama was vilified far in excess of the mistakes he made almost immediately upon taking office. You see so much hatred and anger out there towards him that wouldn’t exist without that noise machine. That machine is not only angry, it is purposely deceitful. It’s why republicans keep winning despite their awful record recently.[/quote]
Zk: No disagreement from me on anything you’ve said. Regardless of stripe, idiots should be called out.
I also don’t debate the “noise machine”, either. Whether we’re discussing relative volume or content. However, when we get to the idea of signal versus noise ratio, I would ask: What volume of criticism is Obama in for?
More pointedly: How do you think those Libyan rebels in Benghazi feel about Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech right about now? Maybe it rings a little hollow for them as the US sits back and dithers while they get bombed out of existence?
I think there are valid criticisms of the man and his administration (Gitmo, Patriot I/II, etc), and I do believe he has made some significant missteps.
I would also point out that Dubya was subjected to fairly extreme vilification himself (and, ironically for the same policies and programs), as well as being cast as an American President who should be assassinated. He and Cheney were hung in effigy, and left-wing pundits and performers had an eight-year run of mocking the president for everything from his poor grammar and elocution, to his Hitlerian foreign policy.[/quote]
I’d agree with all of that except for the part about the extreme vilification of Bush being for the same policies and programs as Obama’s. Bush was extremely vilified, but I think he deserved it. He got us into a war of choice apparently without significant reflection on the matter. Thousands of Americans are dead in vain and trillions of dollars are wasted. To me, that’s an extreme villain.
Obama dithers and has made some bad calls. But he hasn’t done nearly the damage to this country that Bush did. Whole different league.
I’m curious about your opinions on Libya. What would you have us do there? What long-term strategy would you have?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk]
That all makes sense. You’ve also got several dyed-in-the-wool rightists who are unable to debate using facts and resort to childish and petty ad hominem when confronted.Perhaps on this type of forum, where the average joe is involved, the anger and stupidity is equal on both ends of the spectrum. Maybe my perception is skewed because the right-wing noise machine that you see every day in the media is wild with anger, far more so than what the left comes up with. It works, though. Obama was vilified far in excess of the mistakes he made almost immediately upon taking office. You see so much hatred and anger out there towards him that wouldn’t exist without that noise machine. That machine is not only angry, it is purposely deceitful. It’s why republicans keep winning despite their awful record recently.[/quote]
Zk: No disagreement from me on anything you’ve said. Regardless of stripe, idiots should be called out.
I also don’t debate the “noise machine”, either. Whether we’re discussing relative volume or content. However, when we get to the idea of signal versus noise ratio, I would ask: What volume of criticism is Obama in for?
More pointedly: How do you think those Libyan rebels in Benghazi feel about Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech right about now? Maybe it rings a little hollow for them as the US sits back and dithers while they get bombed out of existence?
I think there are valid criticisms of the man and his administration (Gitmo, Patriot I/II, etc), and I do believe he has made some significant missteps.
I would also point out that Dubya was subjected to fairly extreme vilification himself (and, ironically for the same policies and programs), as well as being cast as an American President who should be assassinated. He and Cheney were hung in effigy, and left-wing pundits and performers had an eight-year run of mocking the president for everything from his poor grammar and elocution, to his Hitlerian foreign policy.[/quote]
I’d agree with all of that except for the part about the extreme vilification of Bush being for the same policies and programs as Obama’s. Bush was extremely vilified, but I think he deserved it. He got us into a war of choice apparently without significant reflection on the matter. Thousands of Americans are dead in vain and trillions of dollars are wasted. To me, that’s an extreme villain.
Obama dithers and has made some bad calls. But he hasn’t done nearly the damage to this country that Bush did. Whole different league.
I’m curious about your opinions on Libya. What would you have us do there? What long-term strategy would you have?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk]
That all makes sense. You’ve also got several dyed-in-the-wool rightists who are unable to debate using facts and resort to childish and petty ad hominem when confronted.Perhaps on this type of forum, where the average joe is involved, the anger and stupidity is equal on both ends of the spectrum. Maybe my perception is skewed because the right-wing noise machine that you see every day in the media is wild with anger, far more so than what the left comes up with. It works, though. Obama was vilified far in excess of the mistakes he made almost immediately upon taking office. You see so much hatred and anger out there towards him that wouldn’t exist without that noise machine. That machine is not only angry, it is purposely deceitful. It’s why republicans keep winning despite their awful record recently.[/quote]
Zk: No disagreement from me on anything you’ve said. Regardless of stripe, idiots should be called out.
I also don’t debate the “noise machine”, either. Whether we’re discussing relative volume or content. However, when we get to the idea of signal versus noise ratio, I would ask: What volume of criticism is Obama in for?
More pointedly: How do you think those Libyan rebels in Benghazi feel about Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech right about now? Maybe it rings a little hollow for them as the US sits back and dithers while they get bombed out of existence?
I think there are valid criticisms of the man and his administration (Gitmo, Patriot I/II, etc), and I do believe he has made some significant missteps.
I would also point out that Dubya was subjected to fairly extreme vilification himself (and, ironically for the same policies and programs), as well as being cast as an American President who should be assassinated. He and Cheney were hung in effigy, and left-wing pundits and performers had an eight-year run of mocking the president for everything from his poor grammar and elocution, to his Hitlerian foreign policy.[/quote]
I’d agree with all of that except for the part about the extreme vilification of Bush being for the same policies and programs as Obama’s. Bush was extremely vilified, but I think he deserved it. He got us into a war of choice apparently without significant reflection on the matter. Thousands of Americans are dead in vain and trillions of dollars are wasted. To me, that’s an extreme villain.
Obama dithers and has made some bad calls. But he hasn’t done nearly the damage to this country that Bush did. Whole different league.
I’m curious about your opinions on Libya. What would you have us do there? What long-term strategy would you have?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk]
That all makes sense. You’ve also got several dyed-in-the-wool rightists who are unable to debate using facts and resort to childish and petty ad hominem when confronted.Perhaps on this type of forum, where the average joe is involved, the anger and stupidity is equal on both ends of the spectrum. Maybe my perception is skewed because the right-wing noise machine that you see every day in the media is wild with anger, far more so than what the left comes up with. It works, though. Obama was vilified far in excess of the mistakes he made almost immediately upon taking office. You see so much hatred and anger out there towards him that wouldn’t exist without that noise machine. That machine is not only angry, it is purposely deceitful. It’s why republicans keep winning despite their awful record recently.[/quote]
Zk: No disagreement from me on anything you’ve said. Regardless of stripe, idiots should be called out.
I also don’t debate the “noise machine”, either. Whether we’re discussing relative volume or content. However, when we get to the idea of signal versus noise ratio, I would ask: What volume of criticism is Obama in for?
More pointedly: How do you think those Libyan rebels in Benghazi feel about Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech right about now? Maybe it rings a little hollow for them as the US sits back and dithers while they get bombed out of existence?
I think there are valid criticisms of the man and his administration (Gitmo, Patriot I/II, etc), and I do believe he has made some significant missteps.
I would also point out that Dubya was subjected to fairly extreme vilification himself (and, ironically for the same policies and programs), as well as being cast as an American President who should be assassinated. He and Cheney were hung in effigy, and left-wing pundits and performers had an eight-year run of mocking the president for everything from his poor grammar and elocution, to his Hitlerian foreign policy.[/quote]
I’d agree with all of that except for the part about the extreme vilification of Bush being for the same policies and programs as Obama’s. Bush was extremely vilified, but I think he deserved it. He got us into a war of choice apparently without significant reflection on the matter. Thousands of Americans are dead in vain and trillions of dollars are wasted. To me, that’s an extreme villain.
Obama dithers and has made some bad calls. But he hasn’t done nearly the damage to this country that Bush did. Whole different league.
I’m curious about your opinions on Libya. What would you have us do there? What long-term strategy would you have?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Zk: No, I wasn’t comparing the Left to the Right at all. I was responding to LilBigGubment’s (ILoveRegulation) vitriolic spew directed at the “idiotbertarian” brigade of “morons” and their/our supposed “fear of facts”.
Coming from someone that believes that: (1) Chernobyl killed millions of people and (2) that deadly radiation is heading our way (look out!) and who attempts to shout down the opposition (telling FLU to STFU), well, it just pissed me off and I fired back.
And, I’m no shill for the Right, either. I’m a conservative and there is a huge friggin’ difference. Which means I find Limbaugh and Palin equally as irritating as I find Maddow and Pelosi. To say that I cannot stand Leftists is not an automatic endorsement of the Right. Like I tell my kids: I’m not a racist, I’m a bigot. I hate everybody equally.
This person, like other dyed-in-the-wool Leftists on this board (i.e. IForget, TheBreeze, BigGovernmentIsGood, etc) is unable to debate using the facts and resorts to childish and petty ad hominem when confronted. It gets tiresome after a while.[/quote]
That all makes sense. You’ve also got several dyed-in-the-wool rightists who are unable to debate using facts and resort to childish and petty ad hominem when confronted.
Perhaps on this type of forum, where the average joe is involved, the anger and stupidity is equal on both ends of the spectrum. Maybe my perception is skewed because the right-wing noise machine that you see every day in the media is wild with anger, far more so than what the left comes up with. It works, though. Obama was vilified far in excess of the mistakes he made almost immediately upon taking office. You see so much hatred and anger out there towards him that wouldn’t exist without that noise machine. That machine is not only angry, it is purposely deceitful. It’s why republicans keep winning despite their awful record recently.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Zk: No, I wasn’t comparing the Left to the Right at all. I was responding to LilBigGubment’s (ILoveRegulation) vitriolic spew directed at the “idiotbertarian” brigade of “morons” and their/our supposed “fear of facts”.
Coming from someone that believes that: (1) Chernobyl killed millions of people and (2) that deadly radiation is heading our way (look out!) and who attempts to shout down the opposition (telling FLU to STFU), well, it just pissed me off and I fired back.
And, I’m no shill for the Right, either. I’m a conservative and there is a huge friggin’ difference. Which means I find Limbaugh and Palin equally as irritating as I find Maddow and Pelosi. To say that I cannot stand Leftists is not an automatic endorsement of the Right. Like I tell my kids: I’m not a racist, I’m a bigot. I hate everybody equally.
This person, like other dyed-in-the-wool Leftists on this board (i.e. IForget, TheBreeze, BigGovernmentIsGood, etc) is unable to debate using the facts and resorts to childish and petty ad hominem when confronted. It gets tiresome after a while.[/quote]
That all makes sense. You’ve also got several dyed-in-the-wool rightists who are unable to debate using facts and resort to childish and petty ad hominem when confronted.
Perhaps on this type of forum, where the average joe is involved, the anger and stupidity is equal on both ends of the spectrum. Maybe my perception is skewed because the right-wing noise machine that you see every day in the media is wild with anger, far more so than what the left comes up with. It works, though. Obama was vilified far in excess of the mistakes he made almost immediately upon taking office. You see so much hatred and anger out there towards him that wouldn’t exist without that noise machine. That machine is not only angry, it is purposely deceitful. It’s why republicans keep winning despite their awful record recently.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Zk: No, I wasn’t comparing the Left to the Right at all. I was responding to LilBigGubment’s (ILoveRegulation) vitriolic spew directed at the “idiotbertarian” brigade of “morons” and their/our supposed “fear of facts”.
Coming from someone that believes that: (1) Chernobyl killed millions of people and (2) that deadly radiation is heading our way (look out!) and who attempts to shout down the opposition (telling FLU to STFU), well, it just pissed me off and I fired back.
And, I’m no shill for the Right, either. I’m a conservative and there is a huge friggin’ difference. Which means I find Limbaugh and Palin equally as irritating as I find Maddow and Pelosi. To say that I cannot stand Leftists is not an automatic endorsement of the Right. Like I tell my kids: I’m not a racist, I’m a bigot. I hate everybody equally.
This person, like other dyed-in-the-wool Leftists on this board (i.e. IForget, TheBreeze, BigGovernmentIsGood, etc) is unable to debate using the facts and resorts to childish and petty ad hominem when confronted. It gets tiresome after a while.[/quote]
That all makes sense. You’ve also got several dyed-in-the-wool rightists who are unable to debate using facts and resort to childish and petty ad hominem when confronted.
Perhaps on this type of forum, where the average joe is involved, the anger and stupidity is equal on both ends of the spectrum. Maybe my perception is skewed because the right-wing noise machine that you see every day in the media is wild with anger, far more so than what the left comes up with. It works, though. Obama was vilified far in excess of the mistakes he made almost immediately upon taking office. You see so much hatred and anger out there towards him that wouldn’t exist without that noise machine. That machine is not only angry, it is purposely deceitful. It’s why republicans keep winning despite their awful record recently.
-
AuthorPosts
