FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

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)
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?

By Charles P. Pierce, Esquire Magazine

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.

 

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

 
-353 # globalcitizen 2012-03-07 18:11
Obama, even worse than Bush, just sent to FASCIST ISRAELIS bunker buster bombs, all AGGRESSIVE WEAPONS, in effect giving the NAZI GO, GREEN LIGHT TO ISRAEL FASCISTS TO CARRY OUT ILLEGAL AGGRESSION, ONE WHICH WESTERN FASCISTS, WERE HUNG FOR, AFTER WORLD WAR II, making democrats, FASCIST IMPERIAL THUGS, complicit in this attack against Iran. END RESULT U.S. WILL BE ATTACKED FOR ARMING ISRAELI NAZIS.!!! SIEG HEIL OBAMA.
 
 
-357 # globalcitizen 2012-03-07 18:30
It is getting ridiculous. On the one hand clueless Liberals FAWN over the corrupt, selective , FAKE SOCIAL RHETORIC of Obama, where TIKKUN, cherry picks his phony rhetoric and you will see 100 plus idiot votes for VOTE STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC .....even as the OBAMA OFFICIALS, DEMOCRATS, CONGRESS, NATO AND ISRAELIS ARE ALL MOVING TOWARDS FASCISM.

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:
 
 
+100 # Phlippinout 2012-03-08 07:46
Too many caps dude!
 
 
+57 # reiverpacific 2012-03-08 12:09
There you go, YELLING again and throwin' the "F" word about like a scatter gun.
Try some Chamomile tea or better still Yerba Maté -very calming.
 
 
-337 # globalcitizen 2012-03-07 18:49
I don't know if anyone caught on to Colbert's comedy routine against FASCIST DEMOCRATS, FASCIST CONGRESS, WESTERN FASCISM, but it is the basis of my whole theory, HISTORICAL THEORY for a Social Manifesto against CLASS HISTORY.

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.
 
 
+88 # Cactusman 2012-03-08 12:08
Your comments received hundreds of negative votes, not necessarily because of some of your points, but because your style is impossible to read and turns most of us off. Too incoherent, blindly angry, SHOUTING, and repetitive without being interesting.

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.
 
 
+3 # genierae 2012-03-10 17:42
Excellent comment, Cactusman, you nailed it.
 
 
+35 # bugbuster 2012-03-08 14:14
Globalcitizen, you may have good points to make, but the way you present them ensures that nobody will take them seriously.

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.
 
 
-306 # globalcitizen 2012-03-07 19:44
The gist of this argument is that FASCIST DEMOCRATS are challanging FASCIST REPUBLICANS, in their success for totalitarian domesitc economic policies and criminal foreign policies.

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.
 
 
+96 # rockieball 2012-03-08 10:05
It is very obvious that you do not know what Fascism is. so I will quote from someone who knew and you will see that is is more relevant to the Republicon's and whom they represent than to the Democrats.
"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.
 
 
+29 # Cactusman 2012-03-08 12:10
Well-stated.
 
 
-13 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 13:36
What makes you think that because Republicans are fascist that precluded Democrats from also being fascists? Don't you know they both work for the same corporate oligarchy? They are just two wings of the same fascist duopolistic party.
 
 
+15 # Billy Bob 2012-03-08 18:02
You missed the point. Mr. CAPS implies that ONLY Democrats are fascists. rockieball doesn't deny that some Democrats have those tendencies. He's only stating the obvious - that the repug party is even more guilty.

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.
 
 
+5 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 19:59
I didn't see him saying only democrats -- but the subject here is Democrats by the nature of the articles. To me, it's like saying Al Capone was better than Bugs Moran because he opened soup kitchens and wasn't as crazy -- maybe so, but they were both gangsters.

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).
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2012-03-08 21:57
While I disagree with you, I appreciate you actually getting back to me about who you're voting for. Often people won't answer this because they don't want to reveal their true intention, which is to convince as many lefties as possible not to vote.

At least your voting intentions are perfectly consistent with your words.
 
 
-248 # globalcitizen 2012-03-07 20:27
bluebluesdancer:

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.
 
 
-262 # globalcitizen 2012-03-07 20:31
we now have 3 more negative votes. Could those three negative votes give their reasoning.... or are they like Obama, Eric Holder, too cowardly to make their own arguments....?? ? Hiding behind negative votes without reasoning....is MASS PSYCHOSIS of class dogmas, which allowed FASCISM.
 
 
+65 # juliajayne 2012-03-07 23:12
Oh, settle down. You do know Colbert plays a conservative on the teevee machine, right?
 
 
+71 # maddave 2012-03-07 23:15
My, global. aren't we the testy one tonight! Why don't we just have a cookie and go to bed. It will be all better in the light tomorrow morning.
 
 
+37 # reiverpacific 2012-03-07 23:56
Quoting globalcitizen:
we now have 3 more negative votes. Could those three negative votes give their reasoning.... or are they like Obama, Eric Holder, too cowardly to make their own arguments....??? Hiding behind negative votes without reasoning....is MASS PSYCHOSIS of class dogmas, which allowed FASCISM.

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!
 
 
+80 # maddave 2012-03-08 00:00
Globalcitizen, we all feel your frustration, anger & pain. We live in perilous times - but not so perilous that a GOP president can't make things considerably worse for us all!

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!
 
 
+54 # BobbyLip 2012-03-08 00:08
Your solution, sir? (Not your rant. Enough with the ranting.) The thing about voting for the lesser of two evils, to paraphrase Noam Chomsky, is: you get less evil. As a global citizen, you can, presumably, live any place you like. So what are you doing here?
 
 
+32 # maddave 2012-03-08 09:23
In today's world, "Evil" is all relative, BobbyLip, and "less" is indeed preferable to "more". When one has only two choices, one of them will NEVER be complete perfection - we just have to live with the world as it is - unless, of course, you have a realistic, viable plan for changing it - in which case I volunteer to be your apostle! .

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.
 
 
+29 # Gryzelda 2012-03-08 10:21
Unfortunately, Canada has become much more conservative in the past few years. Their PM is a right-wing, anti-environmen tal jerk. If he were in the USA, he would fit in well, wedged into the ReThug clown car.
 
 
+55 # OldRedleg 2012-03-08 00:10
Dear globalcitizen,

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.
 
 
+56 # Texas Aggie 2012-03-08 00:45
Your problem is that you don't make a whole lot of sense. Instead you capitalize key nouns as if that somehow makes your arguments, whatever they are, for you. Take a good college level writing course. Learn to put together a cogent argument, and then get back to us.
 
 
+11 # LeeBlack 2012-03-08 13:04
I think he just needs attention.
 
 
+36 # Texas Aggie 2012-03-08 00:47
Did I mention that you can't put together a full sentence that meets the minimal requirements for subject, verb and direct and indirect objects?
 
 
+9 # vitobonespur 2012-03-08 02:10
Thank you, Obi Wan Kenobi.
 
 
+30 # Kiwikid 2012-03-08 02:26
Stop reading half way through your first post - I don't like being shouted at.
 
 
+47 # Jane Gilgun 2012-03-08 02:40
Who is this person? How does s/he get to be first in line and have so many posts? I wonder if this person has ever heard of making a point and then supporting that point with some sort of evidence, facts, and example. We do need to hear all voices, but unsupported generalizations do not help us to think through possible solutions to problems. These posts come across as passionate, pointless intensity.
 
 
-9 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 03:50
It's like a hit & run flash mob. I doubt many of those marking your posts down stick around long enough to even read what you wrote -- looks more like one of these "somebody wrote something negative about Obama (or Israel) at .... so go there and vote it down".

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.
 
 
+10 # bugbuster 2012-03-08 14:26
bluepilgrim, you are as deep into this emotional partisanship as anyone on line. You are no more objective than anyone else. This is all about emotion, and yours is showing too. Welcome to the human race.

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.
 
 
0 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 15:35
(1)
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?
 
 
0 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 15:37
(2)
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.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-03-08 18:04
After all those years of "being apolitical" I don't think you were paying attention to what was going on. Once again, who do you plan to vote for in November?
 
 
0 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 20:04
I was paying attention enough to get the drift, and could easily enough fill in the details by a little research. My time, when I wasn't dealing with personal crises, was working with people on a very local and personal level in non-political areas. There are many ways to work at improving the world.

Once again, I'm voting for the socialist, Jerry White.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-03-08 22:09
Many of us have been paying close attention for decades and have given our current oppinions A LOT of mulling over, before we arrived at them. The voting decisions we make are informed by a lifetime of experience and we don't need advice or lectures about our lack of purity from someone who's just joined the conversation and feels obliged to question our righteousness.

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.
 
 
-1 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 23:49
(1)
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.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-03-09 13:23
You're defensive and I'm defensive. The point is that we all vote with our consciences. What I have a problem with is not voting. What I have an even bigger problem with is encouraging others not to vote.

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.
 
 
-2 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 23:50
(2)
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.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-03-09 13:25
Uninvolving yourself will ensure that the cards that are already stacked against us will indeed play out just as you expect. I'm involved and I plan to stay involved because I have children, so I'm invested in the future. I'd rather fight a losing battle than sit back and just allow it to happen.
 
 
-1 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 23:00
BTW -- I notice that at this point in our discussion we both have -2 votes (-3 from my aboce post).
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.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-03-09 13:29
There are over 1/2 a million readers of these articles. Very few of us actually comment. Also, the math of pluses and minuses only means that the red and green count are cumulative scores. To achieve a negative or positive 1, we may have been voted on a dozen times.

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.
 
 
+10 # Merschrod 2012-03-08 05:54
Global, come up for air and take a breath or the fascists will watch you drownd in your own verbage! Right on, but, say it once concisely please.
 
 
+32 # lcarrier 2012-03-08 06:17
You want reasoning? Nobody appreciates a conspiracy theorist who simply rants and raves (in capital letters, no less). The world's problems are complicated, and one doesn't solve them simply by saying that someone is a fascist or a thug. There is not much a president can do if he has a non-compliant Congress. So if you don't like the way things are going, stop the griping and do something about it--join a protest, write letters to the editor, get out the vote for those whom you think will make things better.
 
 
+23 # Gryzelda 2012-03-08 09:08
Is your caps lock key sticky again? Do you rant like this in person? Does ANYONE want to talk to you? I think not. Can you not get your (crazy) point across in just 1 post? Are you paid by the right wing to be a troll? Just askin'.
 
 
+21 # Gryzelda 2012-03-08 09:14
Very good piece, as always, Charles. I'm pleased that the Prez is finally calling the ReThugs out. The LAST thing we need is yet another war (or 2...) What are they thinking? Is it Adelson's big $$ the few remaining candidates are seeking? Only Ron Paul among the 4 has the moral courage to speak out against war. I don't like Paul, for many reasons, but aat least on this , he is right.
 
 
+191 # PABLO DIABLO 2012-03-07 22:56
WOW! Obama is starting to look good again.
 
 
+23 # lincolnimp 2012-03-08 00:15
Quoting PABLO DIABLO:
WOW! Obama is starting to look good again.

Amen, brother, Amen.
 
 
-50 # globalcitizen 2012-03-08 08:49
Wow Colbert mocks the corrupt, totalitarian Democrats and their FASCISM, and 100 plus idiot liberals vote for Obama's Fascism, "looking good"
for his criminality, POLICE STATE and fascist laws.
 
 
+2 # Timaloha 2012-03-09 18:39
You really don't understand that Colbert is being satirical, do you?
 
 
-18 # HowardMH 2012-03-08 10:23
Quoting PABLO DIABLO:
WOW! Obama is starting to look good again.

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.
 
 
+30 # juliajayne 2012-03-07 23:17
Not to say we aren't a plutocracy. Anyone paying a whit of attention has figured that out long ago.

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.
 
 
+10 # Barkingcarpet 2012-03-07 23:20
Obama always talks the good talk and sounds great.

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.
 
 
+12 # Glen 2012-03-08 09:45
Barking, thanks for inserting your comments. Global was attempting to condemn both parties, also, but due to the fact that the article concerns Obama, it appeared to be only Democrats in the criticism. I understand the frustration and anger. My head nearly exploded at one point during George W.'s administration. Then came the dawn: it is ALL of them.

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.
 
 
+39 # maddave 2012-03-07 23:35
Here we have Exhibit A for why we ought to support Obama's re-election!

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!
 
 
+3 # Barbara K 2012-03-10 11:10
Maddave: I'm with you! Get the Republibaggers and Blue Dog Dems out of our government; then we can make some progress.
 
 
+24 # medusa 2012-03-07 23:46
My grandfather said that you can't strengthen your argument by raising your voice. I have to say that when I see all capital letters,
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.
 
 
+11 # noitall 2012-03-08 00:02
It seems that Obama's done a lot of what could be done given all the crazies that globe has so eloquently described. Nonetheless, we're stuck in the country and the crazies, greedy, self-serving, wreckless as they are, won't evaporate by the vapors of a rant. I think I'll just decide to vote for Obama and go make a sandwitch. take it easy bub, they're running out of red ink.
 
 
+16 # Majikman 2012-03-08 00:32
globalcitizen
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.
 
 
+15 # SenorN 2012-03-08 00:38
To other commenters:
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.
 
 
+15 # BettyFaas 2012-03-08 00:48
Wow, Global, I hope getting that off your chest released some of your rage. Your vitriol obscures your points. Lashing out at the
rest of us is not very informative. .
 
 
-27 # That Woman 2012-03-08 00:57
Wow! I actually thought there were some actual real liberals who read the articles at this site. Obviously I was wrong. Are you all unprincipled Obamapologists other than globalcitizen. You are being played. All those big bad republicans and those warmongering Israelis all pushing him to go to war. This is all political theater so that Obama can get up and do the one thing he does well - make a speech looking like he is being "Mr. Peace President" to bring his sheep back into the fold. He escalated and is still in Afghanistan. We are never really leaving Iraq - he took out troops and replaced them with contractors. Not to mention our billion dollar embassy and permanent bases all over Iraq. He has bombed Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya and it looking like Syria will be next and then Iran. How can you possibly believe this crap when at the same time he is agreeing to give Israeli bunker busting bombs that even George W. wouldn't give them. Are you this gullible. We are doomed.
 
 
+4 # Glen 2012-03-08 09:56
Thank you, Woman. As I posted above, it is what these people DO, not what they say. There is plenty of evidence and reporting on what Obama is doing and what Bush did. RMDC put the list up. Let's hope everyone here reads it.
 
 
+12 # teineitalia 2012-03-08 02:56
Global citizen, please calm down. Your rant makes you look unhinged. Even if you are correct, and I don't think you are, no one is going to care.
 
 
+31 # Ralph Averill 2012-03-08 03:21
I think the reason the Republicans fielded the "B team" against Obama is because nobody on the "A team" thinks he can be beaten.
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!
 
 
+22 # susanguare 2012-03-08 04:37
@globalcitizen: you are receiving negative votes not because we can't answer you, but because you keep answering yourself. It's obnoxious.
 
 
+4 # allie 2012-03-08 04:47
Good Grief global citizen! Is that huge dribble of words your manifesto? You need praying for, but I won't waste my time on you.....
 
 
+5 # Steve5551 2012-03-08 04:56
I love Stephen Colbert. I wish he could be our president. I believe fascism is here in a big way and class warfare is inevitable.
 
 
-17 # RMDC 2012-03-08 05:44
Obama is facing re-election and he needs to now appeal to this progressive and liberal base. So he has been talking better in the last month or so. It is easy to talk better when the republican party has all jumped into the clown bus and has driven off of a cliff. Larry, Moe, and Curly is the right allusion of McCain, Liebeman, and Graham.

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.
 
 
+2 # Glen 2012-03-08 12:02
Interesting how so many contributors here condemn the actions of the U.S. government and call for serious protests, but become quite defensive when their party is criticized. Selective filtering of information is practiced by adherents to both parties. It would be to everyone's advantage to take a step back and give even all caps a bit of attention.

Hell, I can't figure out why YOU are getting thumbs down.
 
 
+21 # mikehz 2012-03-08 05:52
I don't know where 'global citizen' is coming from, but it's obviously filled with hate.

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.
 
 
+8 # eldoryder 2012-03-08 06:10
How many "negative" votes does it take for a poster to be removed for "lack of reader's interest"?
 
 
+2 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 12:16
With that many negative votes one might say it's apparent that many readers are interested.
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.
 
 
-49 # Robt Eagle 2012-03-08 06:33
Pierce indicates in his last paragraph above that the GOP only can put up the B squad...Obama receives an F for all his policies. What is with his no go policies on everything. No pipeline, no drilling, no one goes without healthcare (even if you can't afford it or couldn't qualify because you are sickly already), no cost to contraception?? ? When will it become evident that Obama's policies are designed to tear down America from the top. He is doing everything in his power (abusing executive privilege) to destroy America fiscally, politically, as a great proud nation (all his apologies) and lose our currency standing in the world with printing money (QE1 &2). Get this disaster out of office in Nov. We need someone, anyone, who will get us back on track to being a great nation. Vote Obama OUT!!!
 
 
+6 # bugbuster 2012-03-08 14:15
Which nation in the world, in your opinion, is a great nation?
 
 
+8 # noitall 2012-03-08 18:01
I think that a nation that helps care for the young, educates the youth for free understanding the benefit to the national future, assures equality and safety in society and in the workplace, provides health care equally for all, rewards a life of work with a quality of life during retirement, trades only with countries with similar ethics and relates with other countries through diplomacy rather than bullets, provides for privacy and freedom in one's home and one's body, would qualify as a "great nation". We were close but now we're fleeing in the other direction. Lies should not be tolerated, as it destroys democracy.
 
 
-13 # noitall 2012-03-08 18:06
HOW COULD CAPITAL LETTERS BE CONSIDERED THE NOTABLE PART OF GLOBE'S RANT AND I'D LIKE TO SEE ANYONE ACTUALLY GET A HEADACHE FROM CAPITAL LETTERS. LOL ITS TO STRESS THE POINT, IT DOESN'T STRESS THE BRAIN.
 
 
+27 # Barbara K 2012-03-08 06:51
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT! We don't need to police other countries and kill their citizens and have our kids killed for interests that are not to protect our own country. Those clowns are warmongers who make lots of money off wars and the killing of our kids. Thanks for putting them in their place, actually, they need to be removed from Congress, here's to hoping they have smart voters.
 
 
+9 # Don Thomann 2012-03-08 06:55
Hey "global citizen" why aim your rant to the" left?"
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.
 
 
-7 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 12:21
I don't see him criticizing the left -- just Democrats and liberals, as well as Republicans and the right. Democrats mostly are on the right now, although not as far as the Republicans, and liberls are barely even liberal anymore even in the classical liberal sense -- mostly neoliberal.

Your 'polar interdependence ' thing is a false narrative. Hegel would not approve.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-03-08 18:07
What does "liberal" mean?
 
 
0 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 20:36
It can means different things to different people, and there are several common understandings of it, but it includes capitalism and free trade (although what is now called free trade isn't -- and in reality never was -- it's as fictional as the 'invisible hand').

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.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-03-08 22:23
You're confusing economic "neo-liberalism " with political liberalism, as it applies to the entire political world we live in.

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.
 
 
-2 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 23:56
Things are not nearly that simple, and there is MUCH more to political philosophy and science than a simple one-dimensional liberal vs conservative line, and both words signify radial categories.

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.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-03-09 13:40
So where do you stand? If it's "neither", than you're either not involved, or you're simplifying your attitude that your philosophy is an amalgam. Which is it?

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".
 
 
0 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-09 15:03
I'm mostly a leftist -- largely an anarchosocialis t -- but I am not a liberal, and neither of the two words I gave should be taken without some salt. That's just where I usually end up after looking at a situation. A leftist is NOT the same as a liberal -- at all.

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.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-03-09 15:41
I don't understand the point of puting so much energy in worrying about "valid cognitive and philosophical positions", and reading about "general semantics" or "semiotics and linguistics",

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".
 
 
+1 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-09 16:22
Valid epistemology is critically importent is you want valid knowledge and good decisions. Lack of that has done tremendous damage to the country -- the actions of the far right, political and religious, for example. It affects everything.

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.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-03-09 18:49
Perhaps the debate about "valid epistemology" would be more appropriate in a philosophical forum. Down here in the mud, very few of us have time to reformulate the language we've inherited. I'll admit my goals are simpler than yours. My goals are political. I'm not trying to achieve some sort of philosophical purity. I'm more interested in the real political world we live in.

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.
 
 
0 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-09 20:31
What I've been doing in not just ivory tower. The words and frames you use matters a great deal. Ever read any (or about)George Lakoff? Frank Luntz? Jeff Feldman? Even Gingrich about words. Or Walter Lipman, Goerribng and Goebbels, Edward Bernays? How about Luntz's http://www.scribd.com/doc/12539369/Republican-Playbook ( & http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001187.php -- used to be a downloadable version somewhere, some years back)?

This is rather hard nosed, real mud, politics, widely used. And it all has intellectual research behind it. Ignore it at your peril.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-03-09 21:37
George Lakoff is one of my favorite political writers. What he talks about and what you're talking about are very different things. Arguing that there's no difference between conservativism and liberalism is not what I'd call affective framing.
 
 
-1 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-09 22:55
Who argues that?
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-03-09 19:00
By the way, your views on the Keystone Pipeline show that all of that analysis can be paralyzing. The issue we discussed is not nearly as complex as your epistemology. As a result, you still don't have a strongly held conviction that you can apply to it. The repugnant party is beating our brains out in the real world, even when they are in the minority. Do you think it's because they're concentrating on abstractions? NO. They don't even have basic logical consistency in their stances from one issue to the next. They're too busy thinking in terms of the battle they're engaged in and "winning".

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.
 
 
-1 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-09 20:34
No -- I haven't analyzed it -- I have spent hardly any time even looking it. I've been doing other things. Anti-intellectu al arguments don't wash with me at all.
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.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-03-09 21:35
This isn't an anti-intellectu al argument. Self-styled intellectualism doesn't wash with reality. The purpose of the think tanks is to frame issues for their advantage, not to argue about the finer points of pedantic definitions. What they're interested in is no different from advertising. The objective is to communicate. Arguing over every little detail without actually formulating a game plan is the opposite of communication.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-03-09 21:41
All the intellectualism in the world serves no purpose without a purpose. If you can't apply your "intellectualis m" to the issues we face, what you're left with is nothing more than pontification.

Perhaps I chose the wrong issue for you to feel strongly about. Is there an issue that you actually feel passionate about?
 
 
-1 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-09 23:11
I am most passionate about truth and knowledge(which what philosophy is allegedly 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.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-03-09 16:00
On a side note, what's "anarchist" about being an "anarchosociali st"?
 
 
-1 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-09 20:39
It means it's a socialistic system where there no authoritarian bosses or dictators, but participatory government, heavy on consensus -- much like the original Marxist ideas, or the neo-Marxist outlook, and not the gross distortions such as state capitalism under Stalin. Anarchism doesn't really mean chaos (as the propaganda or the weird offshoots would have it), but no chiefs -- it's real democracy, and it scares the heck out of fascists.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-03-09 21:31
What if no consensus is achieved?
 
 
0 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-09 23:21
Then you use alternate methods such as consensus minus 1, or consensus minus 2, or go with affinity groups, or breaking the group, or limit action for the time to issues where consensus can be reached. There are various ways -- but nothing is foolproof, including especially majority votes (by whichever sort of voting is used -- none of them are without errors). Voting is also very easy to game.

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.
 
 
-1 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-09 15:20
I do not consider this test to be of high validity, but for what it's worth I scored Economic Left/Right: -9.12
Social Libertarian/Aut horitarian: -8.62
at http://politicalcompass.org/test

http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-9.12&soc=-8.62
 
 
+11 # tedrey 2012-03-08 07:07
GLOBAL CITIZEN: Take a deep breath, and try to understand. The first thing everybody notices about your posts is that your use of capital letters gives them a headache. The second is that you are continuously hysterical -- not calm, not cool. A possible third is that using the word "fascist" as a synonym for "something I destest" is not informative.
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.
 
 
+13 # walt 2012-03-08 07:14
Good for President Obama! Stand strong!

"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.
 
 
-3 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-08 12:26
If Obama was really against more war he would not be demonizing Iran or sending in covert ops. Same with Syria. He's still sending drones to bomb people in Pakistan -- mostly civilians, including women and children -- that increases the chances for war. His massive support for the Israeli right wing? That's likely to lead to more war.
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.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-03-09 08:41
I agree with you completely.
 
 
+9 # Floridatexan 2012-03-08 07:52
globalcitizen, I think your CAPSLOCK is stuck.
 
 
+25 # Larry 2012-03-08 08:04
Anyone who politicizes war deserves a place on the front line when it starts.

Any volunteers, chicken hawks?
 
 
+4 # firefly 2012-03-08 08:13
They tend to try to do that when they are running for office...
 
 
+12 # Peace Anonymous 2012-03-08 08:33
Thanks Global
If we can get you on FOX the Republicans are finished.
 
 
+1 # Gryzelda 2012-03-09 09:56
He would fit right in with the other "pundits"
 
 
+23 # Winston 2012-03-08 08:34
About time President Obama lashed out against these blowhard Republicans because if Mitt Romney wins, we will go to war over Israel. There are many basic differences between the Latter Day Saints (Mormons)and churches popularly referred to as Christian, but they share common ground on the subject of Israel and its role in ushering in the end of the world. Romney might be clueless about the real world, look harmless (although we know that he twists the truth or outright lie in his political speeches) but, as a Mormon, he went on a mission, was a bishop and then a Stake President (the highest authority in a wide geographic area), he tithes religiously and, I can safely assume, doesn't smoke and drink. In other words, he is a "good Mormon," a Mormon of the highest order, the kind that will tow his church's line and any new mandate of his church's President and apostles. As such, he will rush to Israel's side with our country's weapons of mass destruction if an Arab so much as look cross-eyed at that presumptuous, warmongering Netanyahu.
 
 
+14 # mungosforge 2012-03-08 08:50
Dont you LOVE the way the CAPSLOCK can SUBSTITUTE for rational ARGUEMENT?
 
 
+16 # ABen 2012-03-08 09:10
Citizen; your semi-coherent shouting grows tiresome. Please attempt to "enlighten" us Liberals with less name-calling and more cogent argument--eithe r that or go into your closet and shout at yourself.
 
 
+24 # riverhouse 2012-03-08 09:20
It's so comforting to have a grown up in the Oval Office. War is not a game and America should not be Israel's gun for hire. These are our young men and women the Republicans want to die and suffer for a war of no national interests to America. For these small government nutters who want a highly restricted federal budget, they sure are willing to put even more trillions of our tax dollars and more of our military out in service of some other country. Even Israelis in a Jerusalem Post poll last wee only showed 19% of Israelis wanting war with Iran and the vast majority of Israelis saying they had more confidence in Obama than Netanyahu on the Iran issue.
 
 
+28 # GeeRob 2012-03-08 10:01
Draft each of Romney's 5 sons.
 
 
+13 # bugbuster 2012-03-08 13:48
What the hell. Draft Romney. And Gingrich. And Santorum. And the rest of them.
 
 
-3 # noitall 2012-03-08 18:08
I hope we never see the draft again! Although they've positioned themself to pull it off.
 
 
+7 # GeeRob 2012-03-08 21:40
A draft would make a war less likely. When people start realizing that their own children could be sent off to battle, they become much more reflective. If Mitt Romney's sons faced a draft, you would hear much less war baiting in his campaign.
 
 
+12 # Windy126 2012-03-08 15:09
How many of all of you could do Obama's job? I wouldn't take it at any price. It is a totally thankless job. I am living now under the 14th President to hold office in my life time.Out of all of them, the only one I would bet on is Jimmy Carter. He was a honest President. Out of his league, but he wanted peace, he respected all the citizens of the USA and at over 80 continues to do good. How many of you have built houses for others? He may have "lusted in his heart" but I'd bet the farm that he was faithful to his wife.
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?
 
 
+11 # Activista 2012-03-08 21:47
Jimmy Caret was NOT out of his league - just opposite - ahead of his times.
He has scientific education and moral grounding and is not corrupted by money/power.
 
 
+6 # Rixar13 2012-03-08 20:11
'John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman - the Moe, Larry, and Curly of the national-securi ty 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:
 
 
+4 # Winston 2012-03-09 14:58
Activista, I agree with your comments about President Jimmy Carter. People made fun of him for being himself, but he was an honest person. I have tremendous respect for him and his humanitarian work. There's something perverse about us human beings, especially politicians and those in media. We vote someone into office and then we proceed to tear him down as if to see if he can remain standing.
 
 
+1 # XXMD48 2012-03-10 16:47
Quoting bluepilgrim:
What makes you think that because Republicans are fascist that precluded Democrats from also being fascists? Don't you know they both work for the same corporate oligarchy? They are just two wings of the same fascist duopolistic party.


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.
 
 
0 # XXMD48 2012-03-10 16:57
Quoting bluepilgrim:
If Obama was really against more war he would not be demonizing Iran or sending in covert ops. Same with Syria. He's still sending drones to bomb people in Pakistan -- mostly civilians, including women and children -- that increases the chances for war. His massive support for the Israeli right wing? That's likely to lead to more war.
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.


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.
 
 
-1 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-11 10:39
I haven't watched TV or listened to radio, or regularly read newspapers or magazines for over ten years.
 

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.

RSNRSN