• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 460 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Again, you guys can't tell the truth because that would f*ck-up your whole line of bullsh!t. Here are the quotes:





It's just unimaginable that the leader of the United States would suggest that there would be consequences for using weapons of mass destruction on your own people. (to more than just Assad) Unforgivable actually. What a completely unwarranted, idiotic statement...:rolleyes:
Again, you guys can't tell the truth because that would f*ck-up your whole line of bullsh!t.
What truth can't us guys tell?

It's just unimaginable that the leader of the United States would suggest that there would be consequences for using weapons of mass destruction on your own people. (to more than just Assad) Unforgivable actually. What a completely unwarranted, idiotic statement
Oh wait, I thought you said he wants a way out... That he's out-flanked the R's in the political game? So, is there consequences or not? Why make that statement publicly? Why not call Assad on the bat phone and tell him there is no hole deep enough to hide if he gasses his own people?

He's now not able to do nothing. Do you see?
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,363
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Did I misunderstand?
Did you? My man is going to take a bullet no matter what. He knows this (if he tells the 'truth') and chooses to be true to himself anyway.
What did you think I meant?
I have a second thought though too. Here's the revised response: I would respect that man. More than myself, but then I'm grateful I didn't get myself into that position in the first place.

No big deal in "as the world turns".
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
RetroActive said:
Did you? My man is going to take a bullet no matter what. He knows this (if he tells the 'truth') and chooses to be true to himself anyway.
What did you think I meant?
I have a second thought though too. Here's the revised response: I would respect that man. More than myself, but then I'm grateful I didn't get myself into that position in the first place.

No big deal in "as the world turns".
I misunderstood. Sorry.

I don't like the bullet in the head stuff. More like a swift kick in the *** maybe.

Maybe I'm being too harsh on the guy. But he signed up for the hot spot light twice.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,363
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I misunderstood. Sorry.

I don't like the bullet in the head stuff. More like a swift kick in the *** maybe.

Maybe I'm being too harsh on the guy. But he signed up for the hot spot light twice.
Just trying to interject some 'reality'.
"More like a swift kick in the *** maybe."
Pillow fight! Yeah, that's how things work.
Spill the beans and you get a "time out".
 
Scott SoCal said:
Show what cards?

WTF would you do? Now that the situation is a total mess, what would you do?
You are so pathetic. I asked you what you would do about Syria and all you can say is Obama should resign. How spineless, though judging from everything you've posted thus far, this isn't at all surprising.

Come on Scott where are your balls, no? You're so quick to discuss the economy and everything that's disastrous about the economy and that how, if only there were a political leadership that thought in the conservative mindset, with a liberal capitalist perspective, with a businessman's mentality, then all would be well. Yet your utter provincialism, for there is no greater provincialism than US provincialism, can't even come to grips with what the costs, both human and economic, the policy of "aggressive leadership" has inflicted upon global society.

In addition, the greatest and most sinister contribution to history the US has made has been to jockey the entire financial apparatus and the military into an agent of global empire on a scale never before witnessed.

To answer your question then: many things, none of which, however, include taking military action (yet again). The first thing would be to place a moratorium on the sinister arms trade, I know it’s big business, but working toward long term peace solutions begins here. Then I’d try to broker a deal with all the principle powers in the region, while willing to make many concessions and, at once, negotiate with Russia a more equitable share (partnership – along with China) in the industrial side of energy distribution. In short, give up power in exchange for more peace and security.

Of course at the same time I’d enact laws which force the oil and gas companies to invest in alternative and clean energy resources, etc. I realize this is political science fiction, but it seems to offer better solutions to current crisis than the bomber diplomacy with which we have currently been working that only increases anti-Americanism and is in untenable for any long term goals.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Okay...

Is there anything with the Syria situation that you will criticize Obama for? If your answer is "yes" please tell me what or where, in your view, he's gone wrong.

If your answer is "no" then I will happily STFU.
Plenty, but my criticism has to do the the substantive aspects of the action rather than the political football being played. I have expressed those thoughts here. You have continued to play the "Obama is an incompetent fool for saying the use of chemical weapons would have consequences" game. There is a substantive difference between being critical of using military resources to commit acts of war and being critical of Obama making a statement warning a country not to use chemical weapons. If you don't understand the difference, I don't know what to tell you.

The funny thing is that you and many Republicans(as well as many Democrats) want him to attack Syria, and he wants to attack Syria, and you guys are criticizing him for doing what you want him to do. This is Obama Derangement Syndrome rearing its head. Your goal is to criticize him and de-legitimize him, not to get him to enact policy you want enacted...because he's doing that last part. You just need to make sure he pays a political price for doing what you want him to do because there are elections coming up next year. Quit pretending the game you are playing is anything else.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
What truth can't us guys tell?



Oh wait, I thought you said he wants a way out... That he's out-flanked the R's in the political game? So, is there consequences or not? Why make that statement publicly? Why not call Assad on the bat phone and tell him there is no hole deep enough to hide if he gasses his own people?

He's now not able to do nothing. Do you see?
He does want a way out. See, he knows that the way to doom any policy or law is to propose it and allow the Republican majority in Congress kill it...because they oppose anything he does. This will get killed because you guys will find a way to kill it because, instead of working with him to get what you want (play that game of chickenhawk war you guys seem to think is a fu*king video game), you will try to destroy him instead because there are important elections next year, and who gives a sh!t about the people in Syria who will be killed or were killed anyway, there is an election to win, and an opportunity to criticize Obama for making foreign policy statements that really aren't that earth shattering. Bush telegraphed his policy on Iraq, and then made up things to telegraph about...but that was totally fine with you guys because you got to go play chickenhawk war with your chickenhawk president.

Enjoy your game of football, and don't bother pretending that you care two sh!ts about the people in Syria that were killed with chemical weapons, because they don't actually factor into what you are talking about.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
....as if this situation could not get any more insane....check out the following article....can't vouch for its authenticity but parts of it have appeared on more conventional sites/sources so it not all mad....

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/putin-orders-massive-strike-against-saudi-arabia-if-west-attacks-syria/

....my particular fave is the following....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to Kremlin sources familiar with this extraordinary “war order,” Putin became “enraged” after his early August meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan who warned that if Russia did not accept the defeat of Syria, Saudi Arabia would unleash Chechen terrorists under their control to cause mass death and chaos during the Winter Olympics scheduled to be held 7-23 February 2014 in Sochi, Russia.

Lebanese newspaper As-Safir confirmed this amazing threat against Russia saying that Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord by stating: “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....kinda crazy huh....but it is generally accepted that Bander Bush has been bat-sh!t crazy for decades...think of him as the Bush family's insane Arab cousin....I mean his fingerprints were found very close to this little thang called the 9/11 caper which if you remember was very heavily populated by Saudi nationals...

....mix in the reports that the US military thinks this is nuts with the idea that your wingman on this mission is certified.....then leaven with the idea that the Dale Gavlak report is actually accepted to be correct by the adults in the US govt.( their official US report is just a bad cover that has holes in it so big you can drive a truck thru it at 90mph and not touch anything...I mean look at Kerry trying to sell this tripe...he just can't do it convincingly ... )....and presto zesto comes the crazy idea that Obama stepped back from the brink because he realized this is absolutely nuts and no matter what his allies in this plan say he wants no part of it...

....or put another way if Bander is stupid enough to threaten Putin in his own house he is stupid enough to give the lung-eating clowns sarin gas...

...just a wild and crazy thought to kick off the morning...

Cheers
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
You are so pathetic. I asked you what you would do about Syria and all you can say is Obama should resign. How spineless, though judging from everything you've posted thus far, this isn't at all surprising.

Come on Scott where are your balls, no? You're so quick to discuss the economy and everything that's disastrous about the economy and that how, if only there were a political leadership that thought in the conservative mindset, with a liberal capitalist perspective, with a businessman's mentality, then all would be well. Yet your utter provincialism, for there is no greater provincialism than US provincialism, can't even come to grips with what the costs, both human and economic, the policy of "aggressive leadership" has inflicted upon global society.

In addition, the greatest and most sinister contribution to history the US as made has been to jockey the entire financial apparatus and the military into an agent of global empire on a scale never before witnessed.

To answer your question then: many things, none of which, however, include taking military action (yet again). The first thing would be to place a moratorium on the sinister arms trade, I know it’s big business, but working toward long term peace solutions begins here. Then I’d try to broker a deal with all the principle powers in the region, willing to make many concessions and, at once, negotiate with Russia a more equitable share (partnership – along with China) in the industrial side of energy distribution. In short, give up power in exchange for more peace and security.

Of course at the same time I’d enact laws which force the oil and gas companies to invest in alternative and clean energy resources, etc. I realize this is political science fiction, but it seems to offer better solutions to current crisis than the bomber diplomacy with which we have currently been working that only increases anti-Americanism and is in untenable for any long term goals.
I asked you what you would do about Syria and all you can say is Obama should resign. How spineless
Probably a good strategy. I've told you what I would do. Unfortuantely for this President he really doesn't have the luxury of doing what you suggest.

Come on Scott where are your balls, no? You're so quick to discuss the economy and everything that's disastrous about the economy and that how, if only there were a political leadership that thought in the conservative mindset, with a liberal capitalist perspective, with a businessman's mentality, then all would be well. Yet your utter provincialism, for there is no greater provincialism than US provincialism, can't even come to grips with what the costs, both human and economic, the policy of "aggressive leadership" has inflicted upon global society.
Two words. Sarin gas.

The first thing would be to place a moratorium on the sinister arms trade
Russia, China and Iran will surely agree.:rolleyes:

Then I’d try to broker a deal with all the principle powers in the region, willing to make many concessions and, at once, negotiate with Russia a more equitable share (partnership – along with China) in the industrial side of energy distribution. In short, give up power in exchange for more peace and security.
Yeah. Cool. Since all the players are non the same page with the same objectives I'm sure you would get your win-win.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Plenty, but my criticism has to do the the substantive aspects of the action rather than the political football being played. I have expressed those thoughts here. You have continued to play the "Obama is an incompetent fool for saying the use of chemical weapons would have consequences" game. There is a substantive difference between being critical of using military resources to commit acts of war and being critical of Obama making a statement warning a country not to use chemical weapons. If you don't understand the difference, I don't know what to tell you.

The funny thing is that you and many Republicans(as well as many Democrats) want him to attack Syria, and he wants to attack Syria, and you guys are criticizing him for doing what you want him to do. This is Obama Derangement Syndrome rearing its head. Your goal is to criticize him and de-legitimize him, not to get him to enact policy you want enacted...because he's doing that last part. You just need to make sure he pays a political price for doing what you want him to do because there are elections coming up next year. Quit pretending the game you are playing is anything else.
but my criticism has to do the the substantive aspects of the action
Like what? Give me some details please.

There is a substantive difference between being critical of using military resources to commit acts of war and being critical of Obama making a statement warning a country not to use chemical weapons. If you don't understand the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
And there is a huge risk of escalation in the region due to the US being percieved as a paper tiger. Better to say little than make threats you have no intention of following through on.

The funny thing is that you and many Republicans(as well as many Democrats) want him to attack Syria, and he wants to attack Syria, and you guys are criticizing him for doing what you want him to do

You have completely missed the point. First, I don't want the US to attack Syria. Second, we will end up attacking Syria because Obama has to back up his silly threats. I don't think there is a way out for Obama... from his own doing. The very thing you don't want to happen is going to happen. That wheel was set in motion after the red line speech.

And if I'm wrong about eventual attacks, then Obama still has lost the perception of power and has shown a particular weakness. Now, maybe that's a good thing... but as RetroActive has said: watch Israel.

This is Obama Derangement Syndrome rearing its head. Your goal is to criticize him and de-legitimize him, not to get him to enact policy you want enacted...because he's doing that last part.
You know what? By your own admission Obama deserves criticism... just not from people like me. It's not the substance of the criticism, it's that I'm (people on the wrong side of the aisle) are the one being critical.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
He does want a way out. See, he knows that the way to doom any policy or law is to propose it and allow the Republican majority in Congress kill it...because they oppose anything he does. This will get killed because you guys will find a way to kill it because, instead of working with him to get what you want (play that game of chickenhawk war you guys seem to think is a fu*king video game), you will try to destroy him instead because there are important elections next year, and who gives a sh!t about the people in Syria who will be killed or were killed anyway, there is an election to win, and an opportunity to criticize Obama for making foreign policy statements that really aren't that earth shattering. Bush telegraphed his policy on Iraq, and then made up things to telegraph about...but that was totally fine with you guys because you got to go play chickenhawk war with your chickenhawk president.

Enjoy your game of football, and don't bother pretending that you care two sh!ts about the people in Syria that were killed with chemical weapons, because they don't actually factor into what you are talking about.
Accuse the other side of what, in fact, your side is doing. How typical.

Didn't you just get done saying Obama going to congress for approval was a brilliant "political" move?

So can we now say Obama doesn't give a **** about the Syrians gassed?

It's always politics with your guy. With your guy. Govern much? Nope.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Plenty, but my criticism has to do the the substantive aspects of the action rather than the political football being played. I have expressed those thoughts here. You have continued to play the "Obama is an incompetent fool for saying the use of chemical weapons would have consequences" game. There is a substantive difference between being critical of using military resources to commit acts of war and being critical of Obama making a statement warning a country not to use chemical weapons. If you don't understand the difference, I don't know what to tell you.

The funny thing is that you and many Republicans(as well as many Democrats) want him to attack Syria, and he wants to attack Syria, and you guys are criticizing him for doing what you want him to do. This is Obama Derangement Syndrome rearing its head. Your goal is to criticize him and de-legitimize him, not to get him to enact policy you want enacted...because he's doing that last part. You just need to make sure he pays a political price for doing what you want him to do because there are elections coming up next year. Quit pretending the game you are playing is anything else.
Ahh, finally some sense.
 
Scott SoCal said:
And there is a huge risk of escalation in the region due to the US being percieved as a paper tiger. Better to say little than make threats you have no intention of following through on.




You have completely missed the point. First, I don't want the US to attack Syria. Second, we will end up...
You pu$$y! Com'on Scott let's just go in and kick some royal fuking a$$! You sound like Pope Francesco, for whom it is a great concern that an eventual US attack of Syria could result in a "world war."

What has come of US conservatives these days, I've asked? They just haven't got the stomach for it anymore.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
You pu$$y! Com'on Scott let's just go in and kick some royal fuking a$$! You sound like Pope Francesco, for whom it is a great concern that an eventual US attack of Syria could result in a "world war."

What has come of US conservatives these days, I've asked? They just haven't got the stomach for it anymore.
You just don't know how to respond to people who don't fit your prejudice.

Sad really.
 
Scott SoCal said:
...Two words. Sarin gas.



Russia, China and Iran will surely agree.:rolleyes:



Yeah. Cool. Since all the players are non the same page with the same objectives I'm sure you would get your win-win...
I said mine was political fiction, though not for that not increasingly imperative.

Ah, Saran gas, and by which means was such gas fabricated in the region, I've asked? Then, who holds the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction?

Russia and China have become antagonistic because of a prevalent geopolitical, ideological and colonial schemes by now superseded (Economics is a rather vexing thing), as they are at least two centuries old. This must change. I don't know how this is to be done, only that it must be done for the future of civilization and, as always, the chess board covers the Middle East.

Maintaining current strategies is only a recipe for further disaster. If not today, then tomorrow.

It has nothing to do with "being on the same page," but getting on the same page, if this is even possible. Though the alternative...
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,363
0
0
US Navy rejects firing missiles in Mediterranean
http://presstv.com/detail/2013/09/03/321878/us-rejects-mediterranean-missile-launch/

The rejection comes although Israel said on Tuesday that it carried out a joint missile test with the United States in the Mediterranean.


"The Israeli defense ministry and the American MDA (Missile Defense Agency) Tuesday morning at 9:15 (0615 GMT) successfully launched an Ankor-type radar missile," Israel's defense ministry said in a statement.

Pentagon spokesman Navy Commander William Speaks also said, "I have nothing to confirm those reports whatsoever."
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
If it's a train wreck, why then would you feel the need to sabotage it?

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2013/aug/29/ga-insurance-chief-brags-about-sabotage-obamacare/

“Let me tell you what we’re doing (about ObamaCare),” Georgia Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens bragged to a crowd of fellow Republicans in Floyd County earlier this month: “Everything in our power to be an obstructionist.”

After pausing to let applause roll over him, a grinning Hudgens went on to give an example of that obstructionist behavior, this one involving so-called “navigators” who are being hired to guide customers through the process of buying health insurance on marketplaces, or exchanges, set up under the federal program.

“We have passed a law that says that a navigator, which is a position in that exchange, has to be licensed by our Department of Insurance,” Hudgens said. “The ObamaCare law says that we cannot require them to be an insurance agent, so we said fine, we’ll just require them to be a licensed navigator. So we’re going to make up the test, and basically you take the insurance agent test, you erase the name, you write ‘navigator test’ on it.”

Hudgens clearly thought that was a pretty cute way for state officials to obstruct and delay implementation of the program and to ensure that it doesn’t work well for Georgians. Judging from their reaction, his audience thought so too. The question is why he thinks such steps are necessary.

After all, if ObamaCare is the looming disaster that he and other Republicans claim it will be, wouldn’t it be wiser to simply step back and let it fail on its own lack of merits? Why must it be undermined through active, direct — and thanks to Hudgens, now candidly confessed — sabotage on the part of state officials?
Maybe he should be focusing on making it work instead? But this goes right back to what the Republican Party has become:

In fact, there’s a saying that Republicans run for office on the notion that government can do nothing right, and that once in office they set out to prove it.
Doing a fine job of it, too.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts