Pierce writes: "John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman - the Moe, Larry, and Curly of the national-security state - are all up in his grill now, too, about why he hasn't yet bombed the hell out of Syria. So the president took the opportunity to remind the entire noisy peanut gallery that it's easy to call for another war from the cheap seats."
President Barack Obama takes a question during a news conference in the White House Briefing Room, 03/06/12. (photo: Jason Reed/Reuters)
Obama to GOP: Who Are the Cowards Now?
07 March 12
don't think we should ever minimize the political value of carefully bridled contempt. The president - who can, his attorney-general has said, pretty much kill anyone he wants, anywhere - held a press conference on (Super) Tuesday afternoon in which most of the questions were about the ongoing concerns about the Iranian nuclear program, the issue on which the Republican presidential candidates have become increasingly bellicose.'John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman - the Moe, Larry, and Curly of the national-security state - are all up in his grill now, too, about why he hasn't yet bombed the hell out of Syria. (Thanks, commenter Jennifer Hill!) 'So the president took the opportunity to remind the entire noisy peanut gallery that it's easy to call for another war from the cheap seats:
Now, what is said on the campaign trail, you know, those folks don't have a lot of responsibilities. They are not commander-in-chief. And when I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I'm reminded of the costs involved in war. I'm reminded that the decision that I have to make, in terms of sending our young men and women into battle, and the impact that has on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact it has on our economy. This is not a game, and there is nothing casual about it. And, you know, when I see some of these folks who have a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk, but when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it turns out they repeat the things that we've been doing over the last three years. It indicates to me that that is more about politics than actually trying to solve a difficult problem. Now, the one thing that we have not done is we haven't launched a war. If some of these folks think that it's time to launch a war they should say so, and they should explain to the american people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be.
Those people who are proposing a war, or beating the drums of war, should explain clearly to the American people what the costs and benefits of a war would be. I'm not one of those people,. There is a cost, and sometimes we bear that cost, but we don't play politics with it. When that decision gets mixed up with politics, that's when we make mistakes.
Normally, the whole commander-in-chief thing makes my teeth itch, largely because I've seen presidents of both parties assume that being commander-in-chief of the armed forces made them commander-in-chief of the whole country. But the Republicans have spent most of this election season deriding Obama essentially as being a coward on matters of the national defense; watching a bulging bag of pretension and old sins like N. Leroy Gingrich, who never has found within himself an appetite he had the character to resist, call the president "soft" over and over again is enough to make any reasonable person give the president a pass on it this one time. Moreover, as the president himself pointed out, if you push any of the Republicans to the all, their solution to the problem of Iran is to "repeat the things we've been doing over the past three years."
He leaned heavily on the notion that we are still in a "window of opportunity" in which diplomacy and sanctions could forestall a military action, something that NBC's Richard Engel said afterwards might not sit well with "hardline Israelis." (My opinion? "Hardline Israelis" can sit in a corner and have a cookie.) But what was more evident was that the president pretty much feels as though he's been pecked at by ducks who really don't have any skin in the actual game, and that he finds their bellicosity not only against the national interest, but also politically offensive. They don't have the courage to stand up against their own compulsion to demagogue the most serious job a president has. Who are the cowards now?
(He also let a little of this slip out at poor Ed Henry, who noted that "some critics" think the president is deliberately causing gas prices to rise so as to "wean Americans" off fossil fuels. This is a recently popular trope among political paranoids. "Ed," he replied, "do you seriously think that a president of the United States facing re-election wants gas prices to go higher? Does anyone here believe that?")
There is no question that being the incumbent carries certain inherent advantages - such as making policy and holding press conferences while your potential rivals are tearing out each other's livers. But this was something different. This was a subtle, deft assault on the notion that anyone on the Republican side has any real idea of the gravity of the job they're running for, shrewdly reinforcing the dread in the Republican party that they've only been able to put the B-squad on the field against a still-very-vulnerable Democratic president. In doing so, he handed the floundering GOP a very carefully designed anvil.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
At Least Colbert Viewers Know Murder Is Legal Now (VIDEO)
http://warisacrime.org/content/least-colbert-viewers-know-murder-legal-now
READER SUPPORTE LIBERALS have no clue about the class/empire Patriarchal BETRAYING mechanism of the whole of class history, including the failed Western Enlightenment WHICH DEGENERATED INTO, NOW, TWO ROUNDS, ANOTHER AXIS, AND GLOBAL FASCIST MATRIX under U.S. EMPIRE, LIBERAL WHORES, CONSERVATIVE THUGS
The few who point this out are routinely ignored, but even COMEDY shows like Colbert knows that ERIC HOLDER, OBAMA, CONGRESS, AND THE WEST HAVE BECOME TOTALTIARIANS, making fun of the DUPLICITOUS, know nothing liberals who fawn over fake social rhetoric while FASCISM MARCHES ON IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY:
Try some Chamomile tea or better still Yerba Maté -very calming.
Colbert is mocking, making fun though satire of the DEGENERATING IDEOLOGICAL CATEGORIZATION, TERMINOLOGY, of all class parties which have degenerated into totalitarianism , Fascism.
For all you clueless Liberals who desperately cling to fake , PARTIAL, corrupt SOCIAL rhetoric, which cloaks class deformed language, terminology, you might want to go beyond class dogmas, class history, to find the reason FOR THIS DEGENERATIVE, DEVOLVING , CREEPING FASCIST TOTALITARIANISM:
A SOCIAL MANIFESTO AND HISTORICAL THEORY
http://asocialmanifestoagainstclasshistory.com
IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS....FACTS.... IT REQUIRES HOW AND WHY this CLASS/EMPIRE DEGENERATION occurs with all class ideologies including FASCIST DEMOCRATS, who still call themsevles liberals.
If your point is that there are corporatists (the better term for fascists) amongst the Democrats, I think virtually all of us would agree with that. But you act as if the worst corporatism is on the left, when it's on the right.
Maddave below made a good point: If you think that Repugs can't make today's politics a lot worse if one of them gets elected to the presidency and/or they get control of the Senate too, you're wrong. At least with Obama we're in a controlled slide of sorts, with some hope of pulling out of it. With Repugs it would be a headlong, full-speed, accelerating crash.
Calm down, be more succinct and coherent, and use caps only when you want to emphasize ONE concept, and then you'll probably find us more receptive.
Your posts are too long. The language is too emotional. The only thing they convey is that you are emotionally overwrought.
Unless your objective is simply to vent, you need to write your posts offline first, exercise self-discipline , edit your posts, and put them aside a while before copying them onto any online site. Try to see them through your reader's eyes.
If your objective is simply to vent, then have at it. You should be donating to RSN for the use of their bandwidth this way.
For those who find this corrupt, despotic process by BOTH CORPORATE, EMPIRE FASCIST THUGS, as problematical, then have the SOCIAL RESISTANCE to at least rais the question of who is COWARDLY. I am willing to take on all DUPLICITOUS , TOTALITARIAN, FASCIST , CLASS DOGMAS.......es pecially corrupt liberals, who hide behind their negative votes.
MAKE YOU ARGUMENTS...... ..not mindless cheerleading, and I promise you an Enlightenment process.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Now considering that the Republicon's stand up and in most cases are owned by the corporations in this country. Would you not say that they are the Fascist?
That quote was by Mussolini.
As for hiding behind negative vote who votes lock in lock step against any bill even when it has their idea's in it? Who said that the goal of the party was to see Obama is a one term President? The Republicon's have done everything to see that this country does not recover just in order to get one man out of office.
By the way, who do you plan to vote for in November? It's not such a tough question, but every time I ask it of people who say there's no difference between the right and, what they call, "the left", I get no answer. For once, I'd like an answer.
I'll be voting for Jerry White of the Socialist Equity party if it's possible, otherwise I have voted only for Greens the last few years (Cynthia McKinney last time). I've read what they say on WSWS.org, and see what they do, and they are far better than the others. I'll vote for someone I actually want and would be good for the country (I think that's what is supposed to about).
At least your voting intentions are perfectly consistent with your words.
Colbert is calling the democrats , totalitarians, fascists, making a mockery of their DUPLICITY...... Now try finding out the reason, WHY, AND HOW, not only WHAT IS.
Now-now; belay the YELLING at us, who are still trying to digest stuff.
Maybe we should cast you into the darkness of "Please ignore and let 'em rave on" where there is a-wailing and gnashing of teeth, like the other reactionaries who elbow in here and make no truths to enlighten us but spray toxic unreason heavily, like the cloaks o' Monsanto, Chiquita Banana et al.
Please; peace and a modicum of reason to you and s'il vous plait, calm down a bit.
B.t.w., re. y'r "promise of an enlightenment process", I can think of no more words to you than ol' Bobby Dylan's "In all their promises of Paradise, you will not hear a laugh". (Gates of Eden).
Ab'ab'ab-bbb Th'th'tat's all f-f-folks! heheheheh!
Insofar as fascism is concerned, sure! We've been awash in growing fascism ever since Carter left office and maybe even before. Surely you saw its powerful heart throbbing in every word of Patriot I; the work-up to our invading Iraq; and a dozen laws & executive orders since then.
Wake up & smell the coffee, Buddy! If you don't like what's happening now, help to elect one of the myopic GOP Chicken-hawks as President and after he gets us mired down in a 30-year, un-winnable war you'll wish to hell that you'd thought a little more critically about the circumstances that precipitated your temper tantrum tonight.
Which presidential candidate is presently taking "prudence" with Iran? Who is walking-the-wal k for jobs? Who gives us the better chance of reversing Citizens United? One answer here: Obama!
So, for now---like it or not---THIS country is still about as good as it gets. Admittedly, New Zealand and Canada are looking more attractive every day, but after that---if you are a mono-lingual adult---the list gets really short.
Have you taken your Ritalin today?
It is fruitless to attempt to make reasoned and coherent arguments against someone who is so obviously making incoherent rants, so no one is really trying. Please be satisfied that enough people have even attempted to read your rants to even give you the attention of negative votes.
They even vote down Colbert.
Not that I like you capital [ist? :-D ) letters -- makes it hard to read, and all.
When I see a large volume of red votes I figure it's either some right wing rant or something that offends people but that I should read, because truth is often offensive.
This hyper-partisan emotional catfight doesn't come from us. We are being manipulated by the political machines of our choice. Our choices are determined by personal factors.
If you could peel off the bickering points, you would find that at the core there isn't a dime's worth of difference between us. We think in stereotypes based on myths.
You don't know me well at all.
This is not a partisan issue, but one of survival of the nation, and more importantly, the species, and I am mildly involved emotionally with that -- although in truth, I have no children, I am too old, poor, and decrepit to last many years more, and my main concer is who will take of of the cats. It's not like anything lasts forever, after all. But no, it is not all about emotion.
You can think in stereotypes if you want; I avoid thinking in metaphors although I use them frequently for communication. I've been working on these sort of cognitive problems and traps, and 'monkey brain psychology', for many decades (including that of projection).
Now, here's a thought: the corporate oligarchy has bought the media, bought the Republicans, bought much of the judiciary branch, and various other institutions, -- but some people seem to think that they thought that was enough and they would let the Democrats alone and if people voted for the Demcrats than the rich would have to just sit back and bemoan their loss. Does that not seem passing strange? Perhaps even rather unlikely?
We of course use emotions in our thinking -- as we do perceptions, intuition, and various other cognitive structures, but emotions can become servants rather than masters (as a competent artist learns early on if he is to become competent). There are parallels with formal rational thought and the traps of logical fallacy, which one must also learn to master.
(I'll have you know I have a Doctorate in Thinkology from the Wizard of Oz.)
I have no political machines of choice -- in fact I spent years being apolitical -- this is just a recent, unpleasant flairup due to the crisis.
Once again, I'm voting for the socialist, Jerry White.
The problem with researching things that you missed the first time when you weren't paying attention, is that any information you get years after the fact is filtered through a higher number of people's agendas. What did you think on 9-11? What did you think by a few days later? What do you think about the same things several years later? You've changed and so has the narrative forced down your throat.
Another way of saying it, is that non-participati on is not a virtue. It's good that you're finally joining the fray and getting involved, but researching things now is a bit like joining a marathon argument late, and asking to be caught up on what you missed.
Well, I HAVE been paying very close attention for over ten years -- spending as much as 16 hours a day at it, every day. (You can get some inkling of what I've done over at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/intermindcollective )
I used to be involved in politics when I was younger. I used to print the local Democratic club's newsletter, but gave that stuff up when I recognized how the machine worked and how stupid it all was.
On 9/11 I was not all that excited, recognizing it as a relatively minor attack regardless of where it came from (although I was worried some people I knew might have been killed -- I used to work in downtown NYC). As the situation evolved I was, and am, appalled by the political baggage which has accrued around it -- but I wasn't surprised by it.
My understanding is also informed by a lifetime. I recognized what Reagan was back then, but I didn't have the time to get involved. I was more aware than most people of what was going on, but I didn't involve myself in it. There is much more to living than partisan politics, and there are bigger fish to fry.
You and I disagree about the bigger fish to fry. Politics already affects every aspect of our lives (public and personal). That trend is only getting worse.
Don't think I don't understand how this works -- it's just another aspect of society, and that's something I was very involved in for decades. The players are different but the scripts are the same. Erich Fromm is as relevant now as he was when I first read him in the 1960s. I spent years working against fascism in non-partisan venues. I'm not asking to be caught up on anything.
I'll tell you though -- I may soon uninvolve myself again because the 'point of power' is pretty much gone and the cards will play out pretty much as they are now. People have pretty much decided they understand this stuff, made up their minds, and stopped listening and taking in new information.
Amazing -- partly because we are in disagreement, but more so that someone thinks putting down a red mark means anything in this context -- and fails to make any comments on anything either of has said. Is this supposed to be some new kind of phone-in reality show?
Yeah -- this is where much discussion has gone in the US .... and THAT says a lot about how we got where we are.
In the end, it doesn't really matter anyway. Do you think robteagle is bothered by negatives?
In fact, an unpopular opinion, as long as it's not from a troll, can be a more meaningful addition to the debate. It just means we might have more convincing to do. It's nothing personal.
Amen, brother, Amen.
for his criminality, POLICE STATE and fascist laws.
Now that is getting really scary when Obama is starting to look good. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Obama the Wimp. Wall Street Banks Investigation
Isn’t DHS part of the “GOVERNMENT”. Why should we be the least bit surprised about the Department of Homeland Security wanting to squash OWS.
During the Savings and Loan mess 15 or so years ago there were over 1000 agents assigned to investigate, and over 1000 Felony convictions. The Current Economic Crisis (Wall Street Mess) is according to MSNBC Dylan Ratigan Show on 27 Feb 2012, 70 times larger, so doing the math, there should be many many Thousands of FBI Agents assigned, not the 120 that have assigned since 2007. So far there has been ZERO Elite Felons convicted. Have you figured out yet that Obama the Wimp is totally bought and paid for by Wall Street? Occupy Wall Street is a thorn in the “GOVERNMENT’s” side and they want it GONE!
The NY State AG is the one handling it, but looks like his hands have been tied behind his back and he has been blindfolded.
Oh, that's to global citizen dude.
Even so, beating the drum of war is stupid on stilts right now. And Obama's comments make sense. It's up to "we the people" to make our support for those words known.
But screw it, we continue to get more of the same corporate bullshit. Monsanto is the FDA? Tar sands even considered, let alone not stopped dead, Nukes, and Fracking?
Yes, WE can folks, but scre the Dems, AND the Repub's. They are mostly all corrupt.
We need policy and law to benefit and protect WE, THE PEOPLE, and all of nature, worldwide.
The issues do concern both parties. The style is very different between parties, but one must listen to the representatives and then witness what they actually DO. As you say, that is all that is important, and yes, we need a new government. Good luck with all of that.
HE HAS FINALLY LEARNED HOW TO USE THE BULLY PULPIT TO TAKE THE FIGHT RIGHT BACK TO THE GOP NAY-SAYERS!
I am the first to admit my disappointment over OUR NOT getting a single-payer health care system and over NOT raising taxes on the 1%. Both were critical issues with me in 2008; however, the tide is turning and we have the opportunity to re-elect Obama; to take back the House; and give the President a filibuster-proo f Senate majority. As a bonus, this will secure us a Supreme Court that cannot get worse than it is it right now - 5-4 against We The People - until well past 2016!
HOWEVER none of this is a slam-dunk! Regardless of what you see or think tonight, the election will be close. and the GOP will pull out all stops. Consequently, we all have to work hard, contribute as well as we can (to our favorite candidates); register EVERYBODY and get out the vote next November.
We will NOT be out of the woods until November 7th -and not even then if we don't support "our candidates".
NEVER VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN - OR A BLUE DOG DEMOCRAT!
I skip the post.
Iraq . . . Afghanistan . . . let's not "do Iran".
Why don't we trade a public commitment to defend them (Iran) against enemies, in return for having them develop nuclear power, without bombs? Trade benefits instead of threats.
I suggest you take your rantings to Godot. I, for one, don't read you and don't even bother to score you. You are simply an irritant to those of us who enjoy rational comments.
We can assume everyone here has strong feelings about socio-politcal issues, or they wouldn't bother commenting.
Please reserve CAPITAL LETTERS for exceptional circumstances.
rest of us is not very informative. .
Karl Rove is working on Congressional races ans so should everybody. If you're not happy with Obama, work to give him back a Dem majority in the House, and a stronger Dem majority in the Senate.
It's all about Congress in 2012!
But Obama is 90% just talk. He is making war already against Syria and Iran. The wars are still in the covert phase. Just because he has not made the macabre oral office announcement that "military actions to liberate the people of insert nation name here) have begun" does not mean that the US isn't fully at war in Syria. As we know, the pentagon's plans for the last 8 years have been to develop more covert capacities. It was Bush who said that we will be fighting all over the world and some wars you will see and some you will not see.
Obama has special forces operating in about 100 nations. Sometimes they are actively killing people and blowing up things, sometimes they are recruiting and organizing among the population. It is all war. It is all aimed at regime change and colonialism.
I don't understand why people neg Globalcitizen. I don't like his ALL CAPS, but he makes good points. Most of what he says is right.
Hell, I can't figure out why YOU are getting thumbs down.
Obama is right on in keeping a clear focus on the human and economic costs of war. It seems like he is one of the few people in government who has learned the lessons of the last 10 years. GOP dogma doesn't work.
Obama is indeed looking good again.
I don't think removing posters and censoring opinions is what this site should be about -- and I've left sites when that is done. Trolls is another issue, but this isn't trolling.
Save some for the "right!"
You can't have one without the other - have you never heard of "polar interdependence?"
(No "up" without "down,"
no "back" without "front,"
no "left" without "right,"
no "good" without "bad,")
No doubt you get the point.
Your 'polar interdependence ' thing is a false narrative. Hegel would not approve.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Free trade assumes that no one has any structural advantage, but is never the case, and especially in the world now because governments set up the rules, at the behest of big corporations, to favor some over others (those wih more money and political clout). All trade occurs under SOME set of rules and is never really free, unless you are talking about a garage sale. Markets are not free either -- you can't buy into a hedge fund unless you are wealthy, and you can't buy stocks without a broker -- just as obvious examples. At this point patent and copyright laws also favor those with lots of money and encourage monopoly.
And there are subsidies -- look at the Mexican farmers driven out of business by US subsidies and Monsanto's GM crops.
Anyway, the simple definition is what I'm looking for. Do you espouse conservative attitudes or liberal ones on any particular issue? For instance:
science vs. religion,
the prerogatives of the powerful vs. the rights of the powerless,
the prerogatives of individualism vs. the welfare of society as a whole,
the prerogatives of military imperialism vs. the rights of self-determination,
You're either a "liberal" on each of these or a "conservative". Your words and justifications seem liberal. Someone told you it's a bad word and probably wanted to replace it with the rebranded word, "progressive".
You're right about neo-liberalism - which is, in fact, the economic counterpart of neo-conservatis m.
No, nobody told me it's a bd word -- I research it and read the political science of those terms usage. I do eclectic matric thinking ... and I do philosophy -- have all my life.
Without getting into a pedantic philosophical discussion about what words SHOULD mean, I want a meaningful real-world discussion concerning the meanings as they've come to be commonly used in current American politics.
For example, either you're FOR the Keystone Pipeline or you're against it. If you're for it, you're on the right (CONSERVATIVE) side of the argument. If you're against it you're on the left (LIBERAL) side. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that. It's possible that you can have liberal motives that lead you to a seemingly conservative conclusion and vice versa. If so, all you have to do is say, "I believe this and this is why"...
Speaking in generalities about textbook definitions out of any actual context could be used as a way of avoiding being caught with an opinion you might have to defend. It also makes the debate unnecessarily dry.
Even if you're a "moderate", if you're paying attention, you still have polar beliefs about the issues. It just means that not all of your beliefs fall in line with one poll or the other. It could also mean that you're undecided.
So, without discussing generalities, where does your political philosophy lean? If you're a leftist, like it or not, that's another word for "liberal".
Because YOU want to reduce it all to simplistic terms and abstractions doesn't have anything to do with me. In general, I don't *believe* things -- it's not a valid cognitive and philosophical position. You might want to look up Korzybski's general semantics and check out the problems of abstraction. And learn more about semiotics and linguistics.
I collect information and analyze and weigh, and don't make decisions before I need to, and then only tentatively, and open to revision if I have not decided to commit myself and it's not too late. I use a variety of modes of thinking and assumption sets (or world views), and follow them out in parallel.
On the pipeline, for instance, what I know of it -- and I have not looked at that closely -- the disadvantages significantly outweigh the advantages -- but I am not in a position to decide what is done, and there are more productive and important things to spend my time on.
A person does NOT have to have an opinion about everything, and SHOULD not form an opinion without an adaquate investigation and evidential-base d factual basis.
while thinking the water supply of the nation you live in isn't not important enough to spend your time on.
You and I have VERY different opinions about the meaning of "abstractions".
The most important thing is to work on increasing knowledge, education, awareness, and level of consciousness because unless progress is made on those nothing else will work -- we won't even be able to get people organized enough to look at and act effetively about the environment.
Look at just the effect of the lousy linguistics and the propaganda has had on the country. That's the major reason we got into these messes, and why people didn't fight back -- lies and brainwashing. The solutions have be based in solid thinking.
And one person can't do everything. Especially me -- I'm weary and in bad health. I have to do triage and judge how I can be most effective with what resources I have.
We can't attack lies and brainwashing on an ivory tower purely hypothetical level. They need to be attacked head-on as they happen. In a boxing match, it's less important how well you can pontificate about the virtues of "defense" and "offense" in the abstract, and a lot more important that you keep your guard up and actually land a few punches.
Of course non of this means anything if you spend the entire fight questioning why you're even in it to start with, or whose side you should be on.
This is rather hard nosed, real mud, politics, widely used. And it all has intellectual research behind it. Ignore it at your peril.
Their logic is rarely consistent, but their loyalties and fighting spirit are never distracted for a moment. Their convictions may not be ethical, but they are strongly held, and in politics, strongly held convictions trump wishy-washy mental exercises 100% of the time.
The reason the right has been winning is because of the well funded research and think tanks behind it. This has not happened by accident.
Perhaps I chose the wrong issue for you to feel strongly about. Is there an issue that you actually feel passionate about?
But no, the purpose of these think tanks (and see the reference I gave in Bob Parries article about the beginning of the smear machine) -- the purpose is deception, or convincing people of their views regardless of truth.
No need to tell me about advertising -- My old man produced TV commercials and I grew up with such framing and deception being pulled on me.
You want game plans? Did you look at my posts at intermindcollec tive? They are filled with game plans and practical information, back to 2004.
I've been down this road many times before with people who dismiss what I'm saying, telling me they are practical. It doesn't hold up -- no more than going to war without strategy, and the generals study that stuff in detail. That's what West Point is for. You have to have people planning and analyzing who know what they are doing, and the more the better.
There is adifference between intellectualism and intellectual -- one is ideology and one is thinking. I engage in the latter.
What abut Newt Gingrich and his words?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-16/gingrich-uses-fog-of-words-to-cloud-our-memory-jonathan-alter.html
Maybe you just don't understand what I'm talking about because you have never studied up on it enough? Do the research --- it's WORTH it.
There are intrinsic problems in organizing that have no ultimate solution, but at least with consensus they are well delineated and people understand the real differences, not hype and buzzwords. Sometimes compromises are possible with consensus which could not even be approached with voting, and surely not with authoritarian methods. It may well be discovered that the differences evaporate once identity politics, or bundling issues is bypassed.
These are problems grappled with by all sorts of anarchistic groups, including the Friends (Quakers) who have much experience with it. But there are no rose gardens promised anywhere.
Social Libertarian/Aut horitarian: -8.62
at http://politicalcompass.org/test
http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-9.12&soc=-8.62
Please find a calm moment, and write one short comment, without capital letters, excessive emotion, or the superfluous word "FASCIST," and see if you can rack up a few positive votes. You might even persuade somebody of one of your positions.
Or else, since you see that you are persuading absolutely nobody, you might stop submitting comments with which you can see almost nobody agrees.
"Moe, Larry, and Curly"--fitting names for the idiots: Sore-Loser McCain, SC bigot Graham and "The Senator from Israel" Liebermann! These are some of the same who were screaming about the deficit yet they would plunge us into a war. And old Newt "Walk Out on Your Sick Wife" Gingrich is chiming in to use this as a political opportunity as he goes down the political drain again. What a sack of slime balls!
This just shows where their donations are coming from and who they represent. It is not the American people and the USA!
Let's hope the voting public appreciates Mr. Obama's stand against more war. It's time to fix this country which is quite tired of wars and policing the globe at our expense.
I'm looking at what he does, not the empty rhetoric while campaigning.
Are the Republicans worse? It seems so, but that doesn't say much.
Any volunteers, chicken hawks?
If we can get you on FOX the Republicans are finished.
When I first got a computer in 1997 there was a site called "Garden Escape". It had feature where you could ignore someone whom you felt was being inappropriate. We used to call them "weeds" and "pull" them. One click of the button did it. The best part we all got along so well that to this day we still chat with each other only now on Facebook. Why aren't there more like us?
He has scientific education and moral grounding and is not corrupted by money/power.
Things are not so black and white. Even Republican party had one decent person- Olympia Snow, who resigned based on the principle of ethics.
The major difference between Republicans and Democrats apparent since Mr. Obama started his term is his maintaining decent conduct and avoidance of descending to the level of hateful hostility, conduct typical for the Republican party. He also faces the elimination of independent objective media replaced with censored special interest representing media producing flood of lies, fabrications, accusations and utter disrespect for the president.
This is an action adopted from totalitarian systems with sole purpose to brainwash sufficient amount of susceptible people who will truly start to believe that they voted for president who abandonded them.
There are decisions I wish Mr. Obama did not make, but as a president he consistently displays much more concern for the whole country and its people than any of the candidates so far produced by the Republican party.
Listening and watching monopolized censored media representing the right wing leads exactly to the way of thinking as above. This will turn against the president and some Republican candidate will win the presidency. Then we will go to war not only with Iran but with half of the world and the right wing war profitteers will succeed, while people who were brainwashed into this mess will pay dearly for their gullibility.
RSS feed for comments to this post