| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/03/2013 04:09:20 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And, by the way, you might try taking your own "broken record" advice and not drag "Obamacare" into this argument. The bat-shit crazy Tea Party attacks don't help your cause. |
 |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 07:47:10 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
None of this is funny but.. |
I guess Mandy hasn't seen the polls that say there is 9 percent support for war with Syria (all-out war, invasion style) but that support rises to about 38 percent with a limited strike. Do you suppose that the 91 percent opposed to all-out war includes any liberals?
Likewise with Afghanistan, there was almost universal support, including among liberals, for some level of military action after 9/11. There was even high support for the war in Iraq population-wide, before folks figured out what was really going on there.
Where does this false notion come from that all liberals are always opposed to all military action? |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 08:07:03 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by jmritz:
None of this is funny but.. |
I guess Mandy hasn't seen the polls that say there is 9 percent support for war with Syria (all-out war, invasion style) but that support rises to about 38 percent with a limited strike. Do you suppose that the 91 percent opposed to all-out war includes any liberals?
Likewise with Afghanistan, there was almost universal support, including among liberals, for some level of military action after 9/11. There was even high support for the war in Iraq population-wide, before folks figured out what was really going on there.
Where does this false notion come from that all liberals are always opposed to all military action? |
Besides which, whatever's going on over there, Obama didn't "start" it. He/we may or may not decide to get involved, but we sure as heck didn't "start" that civil war. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 09:01:06 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by jmritz:
None of this is funny but.. |
I guess Mandy hasn't seen the polls that say there is 9 percent support for war with Syria (all-out war, invasion style) but that support rises to about 38 percent with a limited strike. Do you suppose that the 91 percent opposed to all-out war includes any liberals?
Likewise with Afghanistan, there was almost universal support, including among liberals, for some level of military action after 9/11. There was even high support for the war in Iraq population-wide, before folks figured out what was really going on there.
Where does this false notion come from that all liberals are always opposed to all military action? |
I agree, liberals aren't opposed to all military action. Fun times |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 05:59:53 PM · #80 |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 06:15:56 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And, by the way, you might try taking your own "broken record" advice and not drag "Obamacare" into this argument. The bat-shit crazy Tea Party attacks don't help your cause. |
First of all, It wasn't "advice" - it was an "alert". And the Obamacare/Death Panel comment was tongue-in-cheek - a joke, ya know? And while I do tend to agree with a great number of principles that most tea party members uphold (There are a broad range of tea party groups), I also agree with many of the OWS ideals and potential solutions and I like to consider all opinions and ideas. Additionally, I don't paint any large group with diverse opinions and ideas with a broad "bat-shit crazy" brush. I may refer to individuals as such, but your vitriolic, partisan, blind-messianic-faith-in-Obama clouds your ability to be of much use in this discussion.
Moving on. In regards, to the idea of "limited" involvement - you might have to be bat-shit crazy to think any involvement would be limited or controllable when you have Russia and China threatening various forms of opposition or retaliation if we strike.
Also, ALL the talk of ANY action is based on the misconception that we KNOW CONCLUSIVELY that it was the Syrian Gov't (Assad) who used the chemical weapons. As conclusively as we knew there were WMDs in Iraq? |
|
|
|
09/07/2013 11:29:29 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And, by the way, you might try taking your own "broken record" advice and not drag "Obamacare" into this argument. The bat-shit crazy Tea Party attacks don't help your cause. |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
First of all, It wasn't "advice" - it was an "alert". And the Obamacare/Death Panel comment was tongue-in-cheek - a joke, ya know? And while I do tend to agree with a great number of principles that most tea party members uphold (There are a broad range of tea party groups), I also agree with many of the OWS ideals and potential solutions and I like to consider all opinions and ideas. Additionally, I don't paint any large group with diverse opinions and ideas with a broad "bat-shit crazy" brush. I may refer to individuals as such, but your vitriolic, partisan, blind-messianic-faith-in-Obama clouds your ability to be of much use in this discussion.
Moving on. In regards, to the idea of "limited" involvement - you might have to be bat-shit crazy to think any involvement would be limited or controllable when you have Russia and China threatening various forms of opposition or retaliation if we strike.
Also, ALL the talk of ANY action is based on the misconception that we KNOW CONCLUSIVELY that it was the Syrian Gov't (Assad) who used the chemical weapons. As conclusively as we knew there were WMDs in Iraq? |
For your information, I joined the local Occupy Wall Street group years ago and have been very critical of some of Obama's economic policies (as well as some of his policies in other areas) and have been working to change them, so your characterization of me as a blind partisan is just wrong. I will, however, cop to being a partisan when it comes to the Tea Party. I'm still waiting to hear at least one good idea or accurate analysis originating with any of those groups, even if all the flat-out racists and bigots are subtracted from the mix.
Having said that, I will listen with more of an open mind when Obama proposes using the military for the reasons I've stated previously -- he is not a war monger, he is not a neo-con, he will have ended two wars come next year, he has been working on non-proliferation for many years, and, whether you know it or not (and I don't know how you can call yourself an informed person and not be aware of this) he has resisted for two years military involvement in Syria.
Now, having listened to the administration's arguments over the last several days, I have to say that I have not been persuaded by those arguments and do not support their so-called "limited strikes" (I don't believe the U.S. can limit its involvement once the bombing starts, even if that is Obama's sincere intention). That's not the only area where their arguments haven't been persuasive, but I'll just leave it at that for now. So, nothing more to argue about here.
As for Obamacare, I will finally be able to afford health insurance next year for the first time since becoming self-employed 25 years ago, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. So, for me personally, the misinformation, lies, and stupid attacks around the health care law have gotten really old. But, hey, I'm glad to know you were just "joking"; thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
|
09/09/2013 01:20:11 AM · #83 |
Maybe we should move this thread to "Rant". Oh, right........
We're already there! I tire of the liberal/conservative, tea party/whatever, and republicans are to be hated thing. The powers that be must really get a laugh at how they keep the average citizens powerless with this tripe. It's just like Mohammad Ali's
"rope a dope".
For example; The first time I heard of "tea party" in modern times I was curious and thought I might attend a rally. That very night I was seeing leaders like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson calling the tea party a bunch of racists. Hell, I'd never heard of them, and already they were racists. Wow.
People, here is how it works. Divide and conquer. Pit the people against each other and you can control them. If we don't soon learn to work with each other even just a bit, we are doomed. The ovens will be warmed up and we'll be smoke in the sky. |
|
|
|
09/09/2013 12:55:34 PM · #84 |
|
|
|
09/09/2013 05:09:24 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Erastus:
Maybe we should move this thread to "Rant". Oh, right........
We're already there! I tire of the liberal/conservative, tea party/whatever, and republicans are to be hated thing. The powers that be must really get a laugh at how they keep the average citizens powerless with this tripe. It's just like Mohammad Ali's
"rope a dope".
For example; The first time I heard of "tea party" in modern times I was curious and thought I might attend a rally. That very night I was seeing leaders like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson calling the tea party a bunch of racists. Hell, I'd never heard of them, and already they were racists. Wow.
People, here is how it works. Divide and conquer. Pit the people against each other and you can control them. If we don't soon learn to work with each other even just a bit, we are doomed. The ovens will be warmed up and we'll be smoke in the sky. |
Preaching to another preacher, here. I just won't engage (try not to, anyway) in discussions with those who are stuck in this way of thinking. The sooner we can all cooperate and find common ground (of which, there is much more than people think), the sooner we can stop being slaves and pawns. Even if some groups are ideologically 180° apart, it should not prevent them from coming together on specific and critical ISSUES that they can agree on - like Syria (hopefully). People need to asks themselves if they are loyal to principles or to a party or worse- to a personality.
...speaking of that, where are the anti-war celebs??
And here is Biden during the 2012 campaign talking about Romney wanting to go to war with Syria...
Message edited by author 2013-09-09 17:25:51. |
|
|
|
09/10/2013 06:06:31 AM · #86 |
It looks like the UN will be quickly progressing with a resolution to place the chemical weapons under control and destroy them. What an interesting turn of events. John Kerry makes a passing remark in an interview that the only way to prevent military action again Syria would be is they handed over their chemical weapons. Russia picks up on this and suggest it to Syria (obviously Russia are looking for any way to prevent strikes) Syria go for it. France make the proposal to the UN.
Assuming all this passes the UN vote, and assuming the US are happy enough to stand down to allow the weapons to be put under control, the only concern I have is that of UN 'inspectors' being given access.
This is groundhog day. One of the triggers in Iraq was UN inspectors not getting access to weapons sites. The inspectors were barely out of the country and hadn't even completed their report when the US started attacks.
I really hope the inspectors can get access this time. The rebels know they'll benefit from any US strikes, so it'd be easy for them to send a few snipers in, prevent access to the chemical weapons, inspectors leave the country, US commence strikes. We've been here before. |
|
|
|
09/10/2013 09:09:04 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by JH:
...I really hope the inspectors can get access this time. The rebels know they'll benefit from any US strikes, so it'd be easy for them to send a few snipers in, prevent access to the chemical weapons, inspectors leave the country, US commence strikes. We've been here before. |
Considering the total lack of public support for any form of attack on Syria, the rebels might be seriously mistaken if thet opted for this approach.
Sadly, when one considers the UN's hands of approach in other similar situations, I fear that the proposal made is not a "fait accompli"
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-09-10 09:10:14. |
|
|
|
09/12/2013 08:06:16 AM · #88 |
Heh.
'The Pentagon confirmed that the Secretary of State (John Kerry) is: ‘…suffering from a dissociative fuge. And has been seen travelling the globe, unable to recall our nation’s past, twentieth century history or basic colour coding.’
'This selective amnesia happily includes the fact that since WW2 Yemen, Russia, Australia & Argentina have USED chemical weapons; Germany, Holland, U.K. and France have MADE them (for Iraq) and the U.S. has DROPPED more of them than any nation in history. ‘And when we’re not dropping them,’ explained the Pentagon spokesman. ‘We are absent-mindedly testing them on thousands of American military personnel, often without their knowledge. In the longer term we are hoping that their surprised faces will lead to an excellent bloopers reel for our end of year party.'
And i particularly like this bit....
'The United Nations have described Present Obama’s ‘ditzy routine’ as he forgets forty years of Da Nang birth defects as a ‘delightful homage to 1920 s vaudeville’.
Haha.
Message edited by author 2013-09-12 08:16:46. |
|
|
|
09/12/2013 09:58:02 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Look people...Obama in the best case scenario is a weak pres. He is a wimp and he is making..he has made the US the laughing stock of the world. |
You think your Pres. is bad. Just Google Zuma and throw in the words rape, HIV, AIDS, trial, corruption, wives, Inkandla, house, overspending, nepotism, crony-ism, Sheik, Mugabe, arms deal, wives (he has 4 concurrently), children (20), lovers (we've lost count) etc etc. This is someone who has no formal education at all and has ZERO qualification only tribal, political, union ties that put him where he is today by promising an illiterate electorate houses, free t-shirts and endless parties and government jobs.
Nope, South Africa's President is the clear winner on that front... God help us; we are heading toward another general election in 2014 and he is seeking a 2nd 5 year term. He and his kind have done nothing but enrich themselves since 1994 with a total disregard for future generations.
Message edited by author 2013-09-12 09:58:46. |
|
|
|
09/14/2013 09:28:20 AM · #90 |
It seems a bit of negotiating has thankfully lead to an unlikely agreement between Russia and the other members of the UN Security Council. At this time the threat of a military strike is tabled, and full chemical weapons inspections are hoped to be completed by November, with full removal/destruction by mid-2014.
Ambitious and unlikely timetable, but we've narrowly avoided another senseless unilateral strike, and with all major players involved in this agreement (namely Russia) -- even though this specifically addresses the chemical weapons situation -- there's hope that perhaps the Syrian government can be brought more under control. Bringing the disturbing radical elements that are now entrenched in the rebel movement is another matter entirely, but regardless of that I see this agreement as a step forward. |
|
|
|
09/14/2013 11:00:56 AM · #91 |
|
|
|
09/14/2013 08:57:17 PM · #92 |
I certainly hope that this proposal works, but considering the amount of time needed to ferret out the WMDs in Iraq, I fear that the proposed time frame in a war torn country seems somewhat improbable.
Here's hoping it all comes to fruition in a timely manner.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/14/2014 05:24:03 AM · #93 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 12:53:48 PM EDT.
