Is it Obama or is it the American people?
Who is dysfunctional here?
The political right & left have changed sides about Syria. And what is the underlying reason for this ladyboy transformation. Are you sure you know who you are?
And Congress? A bunch of cocksuckers who is not even good at sucking.
Syria & Iraq, there is a difference.
Whether you like it or now, we are the leader of the free world. And Americans do enjoy displaying the strut that our affluence and power generates. Not so long ago, just having an American passport in your shirt pocket would generate envious looks, and women to drop their panties. Now, sadly, not so much, and the passport has to be supplemented with 3 or 4 platinum credit cards, and pictures of your 5 bedroom house, with at least 2 BMWs in the driveway.
So we stand for freedom, justice, human dignity?
We can argue about the reasons for going to Iraq. But Syria, we are stepping in for humanitarian reason, and for a major voice in the outcome. For this reason, we can stand tall & be proud to be Americans. We have given enough time for their civil war to run its course, but it is not a fair fight anymore. With Russia & Iran giving help to Assad, we need to step in. And only by playing tough, can we convince the other parties to contribute to a resolution. On this issue, Obama has shown restrain and leadership and I am proud that Obama has taken this stance. No ladyboy here.
The rest of you are just playing politics, as usual. It's about the next elections, you know.
You guys can be on the Tonight Show
[QUOTE=Tiny12;435647]Then you missed my support for appointing Kerry as Secretary of State instead of Susan Rice, agreeing not to prosecute pot smokers in Colorado and Washington, and initially negotiating with Boehner in good faith to decrease the deficit in 2011. I admit my "praise" was lukewarm on the first two points, but I was enthusiastic about the third. I think I even compared Obama to Nixon when he normalized relations with China. Unfortunately, political considerations and his impulse to pursue class warfare outweighed doing the right thing, and negotiations broke down.[/QUOTE]Very funny, if I didn't think you & Jackson were dead serious. Like saying, your tie pin is nice, just throw out the suit & tie. Next complain will be Obama's pee flow is too loud.
Fearmongering at its best!
[QUOTE=Punter127;435628]But be careful what you wish for because this could easily lead to WW III. If you don't believe that just look at movements of both Russian and US forces in the last few weeks, and then consider the huge egos at play here.Make no mistake, Russia controls Syria and they will not give up that control easily. This situation could very easily escalate, this is nothing like Libya.[/QUOTE]
And if you were my accountant & saw my financial picture, you would be predicting my self destruction. But I am doing fine & enjoying my life under the poverty line. The real things in life are actually free, you could sing, dance & have sex for free(in my case, with one self). OK, they did not teach you that in school. How about fresh air, beautiful butterflies, colorful flowers, a faithful dog. Ok, you were not a flower child. Actually, I wasn't one either. In my culture, you could be a flower child only after you finish engineering school. And I flunk college.
Evil triumphs when people choose to look the other way. Sure, we cannot cure or solve every problem with force. Obama knew that Americans were sick of foreign campaigns, but he also wanted the world to know what America stands for. His leadership despite the crumbling Brits, cheating French, cowardly Italians, emotionless Germans, looking-the-other-way Chinese, was able to make Putin come to the table for the time being. It is not over yet, but Obama make masterful moves to allay opposition on the home front(the table is very full) and make American stand tall in the international community.
Russia host the Winter Olympics this coming Winter, they will not want anything to overshadow the festivities. In Sochi on the Black Sea, just a hop-step & jump from Syria. World War III awaits? I feel no need to do any confessing to the priest yet.
Caveat: my insulting of certain nationalities was committed under temporary insanity.
You keep forgetting, intentinally or otherwise.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;435677]Just as I predicted, you are changing your position on Syria to whatever Obama's position is. I thought Bush was a genius, that he was going to get the Iraqi's to open the country up to WMD inspections again without having to spill blood, right until the moment when he entered the country. What a let down.
A big difference between the situations is that Bush was, unfortunately, enough of a consensus builder to get Congressional approval for Iraq. The same Congress that you want to string up thankfully would not give that approval to Obama for Syria.
You have way too much confidence in politicians.[/QUOTE]That there is a consequence for previous actions. And because of what happened in Iraq, there is a fear factor about Syria. But you can continually blame Obama for everything under the Sun. Unlike you, I am not as savvy as the president and willing to let him make the case for America. I am a team player, until such time I feel the need to exit. Why? Because he was elected, and re-elected. Something the The Gang that Couldn't Straight cannot accept since Day 1.
No need to get excited, brother!
[QUOTE=Punter127;435684]Is there no end to your absurdness? Obama was elected President, not appointed God!
We have every right to speak out against anything he does that we disagree with. What's next a law forbidding us from speaking out?
[B]"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”[/B][/QUOTE]You have, and by all means. I never said you were forbidden. Just saying don't blame him for everything under the sun, just wipe your eyes once in a while.
Punter127 watch this video
You will want to adopt this kid. What he says at 13:25 is exactly what I believe and he says it better than I do. I'm not sure if the documentary is supposed to be pro or con, it seems pretty neutral to me, but I'm with this kid. Too bad he'll prolly end up at Guantanamo.
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA[/URL]
Neoliberalism AKA conservatism
I watched the video, in particular to see what quote DR connected with. Interesting stuff. I have seen those stereolithography machines (AKA 3 D printers) in person and the molded prototypes they can generate. They're immensely useful in design iteration because if you had to do the same with actual steel molds it would cost a fortune. Those machines are expensive and will never see widespread use. Sure, some folks could start up small operations and make guns, but outside of personal use they'll be regulated like other manufacturers. I don't see it changing the gun debate significantly.
[QUOTE] "There's this Fukuyamaist idea that history had ended after the Cold War and that if we could just tweak neoliberal democracy, everything's going to be fine forever; that somehow, this is like the final political form. I mean, this is ridiculous. And you can see it. There's no evidence of a political program anymore - in the world; in America. There aren't genuine politics. There's the media telling you that Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney is the epic clash of ideology when we both know they're globalist neoliberals. I mean, they both exist to preserve the interests of this relatively autonomous class of Goldman Sachs bankers." [/QUOTE]Who ever heard of Fukuyamaism before? Who thinks everything will be or could be fine forever? The kid talks as if this is some widely held belief, which is ridiculous. Maybe it's just part of his marketing gimmick. Now on the latter part of what he says though, there's actually a shred of common ground I share with him. Which is -- a disdain, or wariness, of what I have referred to before as the 'rich elite'. There is absolutely a system in place, both in the US and worldwide, where the wealthiest individuals and corporations continue to amass more wealth and power. I've posted such facts and figures before, like the top 5% receiving 81.7% of the new wealth created over the past three decades. This wild economic inequality is one of the world's great problems. Where the kid goes wrong however is calling both Obama and Romney equal in their support of the rich elite, calling them both "neoliberals". Neoliberalism encompasses right wing ideologies such as small government, private sector deregulation and free markets. I doubt few politicians actively or consciously support the rich elite, but the power and wealth of this group is not something that can be changed easily or quickly. It has evolved in proportion to the spread of capitalism. To gauge whether a political leader is acting to "preserve" this group, simply look to their policies. Policies like financial regulation, higher taxation of high incomes, the Buffett Rule, and expansion of social programs, act to counter the forces favoring the rich elite. Obama is absolutely [I]not[/I] a neoliberal. Romney, and several posters on this board, yes.
