NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/25/jindal.defense.obama/

Jindal described the premise of the question -- "Do you want the president to fail?" -- as the "latest gotcha game" being perpetrated by Democrats against Republicans.

"Make no mistake: Anything other than an immediate and compliant, 'Why no sir, I don't want the president to fail,' is treated as some sort of act of treason, civil disobedience or political obstructionism," Jindal said at a political fundraiser attended by 1,200 people. "This is political correctness run amok."


Anything short of compliance and support is treated as treason? Where have I heard that before? I think it was phrased as "If you dont support the president youre unpatrioric", "Youre either with us or against us", and "If you dont support the president youre emboldening the enemey/want the terrorists to win" the last time I heard it....

Can anyone help me remember?:rolleyes:

Seriously...*sigh*

Who let Jindal back on TV?

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/25/jindal.defense.obama/



Anything short of compliance and support is treated as treason? Where have I heard that before? I think it was phrased as "If you dont support the president youre unpatrioric", "Youre either with us or against us", and "If you dont support the president youre emboldening the enemey/want the terrorists to win" the last time I heard it....

Can anyone help me remember?:rolleyes:

Seriously...*sigh*

Who let Jindal back on TV?

Indeed so the people who called that sort of behaviour poor, unacceptable and downright wrong better not be saying the same thing when these people do criticise the President and his policies.

I told you Obama's is possessed by Cheney. that old man knows some evil Voodoo I swear.

Indeed so the people who called that sort of behaviour poor, unacceptable and downright wrong better not be saying the same thing when these people do criticise the President and his policies.

Who is? I havent heard it. Ive just heard people say, "You know, if the president fails, we're fucked. You want that?"


No one has called anyone a terrorist for wanting Obama to fail. People have just said theyre not really thinking of the consequences.

Who is? I havent heard it. Ive just heard people say, "You know, if the president fails, we're fucked. You want that?"


No one has called anyone a terrorist for wanting Obama to fail. People have just said theyre not really thinking of the consequences.

That because only the Right is allowed to call non Muslims terrorist.

Though the difference also comes to Obama's test is with the economy.
So faith in Obama is investing in the economy and maybe losing my life savings.

Where as Bush's test was war. As crappy as that turned out.

In his defense, it's a lot easier to criticize plans than to offer viable alternatives.

In his defense, it's a lot easier to criticize plans than to offer viable alternatives.

I keep telling them make me dictator to solve the worlds problems. Most of the time i jsut get arrested and held over night for that though.

I keep telling them make me dictator to solve the worlds problems. Most of the time i jsut get arrested and held over night for that though.

They just don't understand you.

They just don't understand you.

Maybe its because A bunch of Youth dressed in uniforms come with me every time I make the request.

Indeed so the people who called that sort of behaviour poor, unacceptable and downright wrong better not be saying the same thing when these people do criticise the President and his policies.

Uh huh, and when the shoe is on the other foot? It's perfectly fine to do it then?

Maybe its because A bunch of Youth dressed in uniforms come with me every time I make the request.

Is that you, Mishima?

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/25/jindal.defense.obama/



Anything short of compliance and support is treated as treason? Where have I heard that before? I think it was phrased as "If you dont support the president youre unpatrioric", "Youre either with us or against us", and "If you dont support the president youre emboldening the enemey/want the terrorists to win" the last time I heard it....

Can anyone help me remember?:rolleyes:

Seriously...*sigh*

Who let Jindal back on TV?

Splendid. A REPUBLICAN, of all people, complaining about that.

He hates America. :D

Their turn is over. Now it's OUR TURN. And, quite frankly, after the crap all liberals got, even IF Jindal were telling the truth, it'd be A-OK. They dished it out, they MUST take it.

Indeed so the people who called that sort of behaviour poor, unacceptable and downright wrong better not be saying the same thing when these people do criticise the President and his policies.

Here's the difference. We're not.

Here's the difference. We're not.

No matter how much right we'd have to after how we've been treated for eight frickin' years.

LOL @ silly Amerikans with your deeply devidedness and with us or against us mentality

Here's the difference. We're not.

we? ("we're"...shush)

No matter how much right we'd have to after how we've been treated for eight frickin' years.

your from Brazil comrade

your from Brazil comrade

And still I got crap. So, they should take it.

And still I got crap. So, they should take it.

what over the internet? :tongue:

Here's the difference. We're not.

Now now, dont let facts get in the way of BE's rather predicatable attempt to try and point out the non-existant double standard of the left.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/25/jindal.defense.obama/



Anything short of compliance and support is treated as treason? Where have I heard that before? I think it was phrased as "If you dont support the president youre unpatrioric", "Youre either with us or against us", and "If you dont support the president youre emboldening the enemey/want the terrorists to win" the last time I heard it....

Can anyone help me remember?:rolleyes:

Seriously...*sigh*

Who let Jindal back on TV?
Okay, well, as soon as Bobby Jindal is carted off to GITMO for flapping his dumb yap, I'll be first in line to decry the violation of his rights. In the meantime, he can shove that bull up his fake-goober ass.

EDIT: Sorry, I should have said "lying, fake-goober ass."

For the record, Bobby Jindal makes me need to smoke.

Adopting the tactics that one despised while in the minority simply because one now has a majority is not a good thing in my opinion, no matter how much the opposition "deserves" it. That said, I haven't really heard accusations directed at these individuals patriotism. I've mostly just heard them called obstructionists. I'm more concerned about the talk I've heard about using special Senate voting rules to pass major reform with a bare majority.

I fear that Jindal will only further the stereotype that my people are morons :(

GOP hypocrisy at its finest.

I keep saying, give the man time.

I voted for him, not because he's the best person for the job but because, as I saw it at the time, he was a Hell of a lot better than the alternative.

I don't want him to fail, I hope he won't.

That doesn't mean I'm going to like everything he does, or even most of what he does.

The problem is, he's what we've go right now.

I fear that Jindal will only further the stereotype that my people are morons :(

You are a Republican?!? :eek:

You are a Republican?!? :eek:

Lmfao, Im glad you saw it that way, there's hope afterall!!!


I meant my Geographic people.....Im in no way a Republican...

You are a Republican?!? :eek:

you are now too it is infectious.

I keep telling them make me dictator to solve the worlds problems. Most of the time i jsut get arrested and held over night for that though.

Try terrorism, that might work.

you are now too it is infectious.

I've been vaccinated.

I've been vaccinated.

Fortunately, the Virus doesnt evolve, it just keeps repeating itself :rolleyes:

Fortunately, the Virus doesnt evolve, it just keeps repeating itself :rolleyes:

But you need an hourly vaccine if you have an AM radio receiver.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/25/jindal.defense.obama/



Anything short of compliance and support is treated as treason? Where have I heard that before? I think it was phrased as "If you dont support the president youre unpatrioric", "Youre either with us or against us", and "If you dont support the president youre emboldening the enemey/want the terrorists to win" the last time I heard it....

Can anyone help me remember?:rolleyes:

Seriously...*sigh*

Who let Jindal back on TV?

Not that I agree with the politics of these morons, but I think it is silly to be outraged over them not wanting Obama to succeed in his plans; after all, they did run somebody against him.

Anyway, did Jindal say anyone who did not support Bush was unpatriotic?

"You're either with us or against us."

If it was wrong then, what makes it right now?

"You're either with us or against us."

If it was wrong then, what makes it right now?

^This.

"You're either with us or against us."

If it was wrong then, what makes it right now?

^This.
It will only be that^^ if someone actually says that. Until then that^^ is a strawman.

Not that I agree with the politics of these morons, but I think it is silly to be outraged over them not wanting Obama to succeed in his plans; after all, they did run somebody against him.

Anyway, did Jindal say anyone who did not support Bush was unpatriotic?

Well, it depends. The way I understand comments like "I want him to fail" is that the person is saying "I want him to fail at fixing the economy because that would cause democrats to do well in the next election."

And that... well, that's a bad thing, I think, because if he can't fix the economy, we're kinda fucked.

Their turn is over. Now it's OUR TURN.
This is absurd coming from:

A) A Brazilian.

B) Someone who once claimed, in response to whether he cares if there is a civil war/mass violence in the United States, "your internal politics are none of my concern."

Not that I agree with the politics of these morons, but I think it is silly to be outraged over them not wanting Obama to succeed in his plans; after all, they did run somebody against him.

Anyway, did Jindal say anyone who did not support Bush was unpatriotic?
Whose outraged over that? Im annoyed over the double standards at play here. People whining that some are telling them, "Hey, you know..." when they did it for eight fucking years. They just cant take their own medicine, and are crying about it.
"You're either with us or against us."

If it was wrong then, what makes it right now?
What a pretty strawman you built. Its a shame you had to burn it.

And that... well, that's a bad thing, I think, because if he can't fix the economy, we're kinda fucked.

Hoping for anyone to fail is a pretty fucked up way of thinking. If someone's ideas clearly work, it makes a lot more sense to look in to their validity rather than to dismiss them and continue to live the dream.

That being said, I'm pretty sure the economy will rebound before the stimulus package really even begins to hit; the banks are making money, cash reserves are growing and the housing market appears to be leveling out. It is highly unlikely that the economy will not have made a full recovery by 2012. I personally feel the good parts of it will have a far bigger effect once the economy is on solid ground and people start investing in the technologies it provides funds and tax credits for. It isn't a stimulus so much as it is an attempt to strengthen the long-term growth capability of our economy. It remains to be seen whether or not he can bring the deficit under control in the next eight years because its current size is going to severely damage our economy quite rapidly, especially if we haven't achieved any material improvements in our energy situation.

And I mean late 1990's surpluses, not the "cut the deficit in half" bullshit that was notorious during the Bush administration.

This is absurd coming from:

A) A Brazilian.

B) Someone who once claimed, in response to whether he cares if there is a civil war/mass violence in the United States, "your internal politics are none of my concern."

1- I got called an US-hater for disagreeing with Bush. I remember that well. So did, for that matter, MANY other people. Who, I am assuming, remember it equally well.

2- Way to misrepresent it. My point was if Republicans start one "because" of the fact that a *cough*black*cough* Democrat got elected and because they are quickly driving themselves into a well-deserved political oblivion, I'd not care or take responsibility; It'd be the Republicans' fault for not being able to deal with a democratic process when they don't like the result (remember Leeroy's "Fort Sumter"? I do.). I support Obama because, though your internal politics are not of my concern, your EXTERNAL ones are.

3- If my being Brazilian means I shouldn't talk about your internal politics, you are automatically saying the CIA support to the bloody dictatorships in South America are wrong. Because that's interference in internal politics, and you are a coherent person.

Heikoku 2, Obama's policies are arguably just as harmful to Brazil's as McCain's would have been. He supports the insane, idiotic, unwinnable, tyrannical "War on Drugs." Isn't Brazil's high crime rate (especially in the favelas) due largely to the illicit drug trade, which has become as prevalent and profitable as it is because of the War on Drugs?

Heikoku 2, Obama's policies are arguably just as harmful to Brazil's as McCain's would have been. He supports the insane, idiotic, unwinnable, tyrannical "War on Drugs." Isn't Brazil's high crime rate (especially in the favelas) due largely to the illicit drug trade, which has become as prevalent and profitable as it is because of the War on Drugs?

And yet, Obama wants out of Iraq. McCain doesn't. Obama won't get into a pissing match with Venezuela. McCain would. It's not about what they ARE doing, it's about what they MIGHT do.

And yet, Obama wants out of Iraq. McCain doesn't. Obama won't get into a pissing match with Venezuela. McCain would. It's not about what they ARE doing, it's about what they MIGHT do.

No, he doesn't. (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14336)

And who's to say Obama won't get into a pissing match with Venezuela?

No, he doesn't. (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14336)

And who's to say Obama won't get into a pissing match with Venezuela?

Obama voted against the war. And his diplomatic style is different from that of the Republicans. You go with what you can get.

And yet, Obama wants out of Iraq. McCain doesn't. Obama won't get into a pissing match with Venezuela. McCain would. It's not about what they ARE doing, it's about what they MIGHT do.

Actually, Chavez is already bitching about Obama.

Apparently he underestimated the new President's resolve...he might not address issues the same way as Bush or McCain, but I don't think for a second that he'll let Venezuela push around the United States, threaten our interests or play games with a significant chunk of the world's energy supply. Obama is willing to meet with people and work first and foremost through diplomacy, but he won't back down when the facts advocate strong action. I feel that his approach is ultimately the more successful one because he uses all available tools to preserve and expand our strategic interests.

Considering that Venezuela is basically going broke, Obama's going to have his work cut out for him, especially if he delivers a second blow with his green initiatives.

Obama voted against the war. And his diplomatic style is different from that of the Republicans. You go with what you can get.

Obama wants to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq and maintain our fortress-sized embassy there.

Also, not once did he voice opposition to the Iraq War on moral grounds, but on the grounds of "we're bombing the wrong brown people."

Check the link I provided. It provides a long list of examples of Obama's duplicity.

Granted, he is probably better than McCain would have been (not that that's saying anything...), but that doesn't mean he isn't a douchebag.

1- I got called an US-hater for disagreeing with Bush. I remember that well. So did, for that matter, MANY other people. Who, I am assuming, remember it equally well.
You are anti-American. Being anti-American does not make you Democrat, thus I said no to you saying "our time", referring to the Democrats.

2- Way to misrepresent it. *SNIP*.
Don't care. We all remember what you said and how the discussion went. You won't weasle out of it.

3- If my being Brazilian means I shouldn't talk about your internal politics. . .
Whoah, there. That's not what I said. Everyone can talk about anyone's internal and external politics. That doesn't make you a part of the political party you favor, though, duh.

And yet, Obama wants out of Iraq.
Lol what??? Do you actually follow American politics?

TAI, Heikoku, please, for my sanity, put each other on ignore. Your pissing matches with each other are getting old.

TAI, I know its fun (and real easy) to set Heikoku off, but c'mon

Actually, Chavez is already bitching about Obama.

Apparently he underestimated the new President's resolve...he might not address issues the same way as Bush or McCain, but I don't think for a second that he'll let Venezuela push around the United States, threaten our interests or play games with a significant chunk of the world's energy supply. Obama is willing to meet with people and work first and foremost through diplomacy, but he won't back down when the facts advocate strong action. I feel that his approach is ultimately the more successful one because he uses all available tools to preserve and expand our strategic interests.

Considering that Venezuela is basically going broke, Obama's going to have his work cut out for him, especially if he delivers a second blow with his green initiatives.

Obama knows he has no right to FORCE Venezuela to sell him oil by arms.

You are anti-American.

How is he anti-American?

You are anti-American.

And you are a communist.

And you are a communist.

:confused:

:confused:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14611746#post14611746

This is a thread in which TAI admits to lie. So, I reached the conclusion that TAI only pretends to be in favor of using entire countries as pawns in a pissing match with Russia to make capitalists look bad.

Ergo, TAI is a commie. :D

Obama knows he has no right to FORCE Venezuela to sell him oil by arms.

Exactly. He knows Chavez has run the country in to the ground and it's only a matter of time before things change. Force would do nothing but bolster his power and influence.

Lol what??? Do you actually follow American politics?

TAI, I know its fun (and real easy) to set Heikoku off, but c'mon

Fine, I'll ignore the other stuff, but the above is serious. Heikoku's lack of understanding of Obama's Iraq policy (which is not bad, btw) is a legit target of my criticism in a forum about international politics.

Fine, I'll ignore the other stuff, but the above is serious. Heikoku's lack of understanding of Obama's Iraq policy (which is not bad, btw) is a legit target of my criticism in a forum about international politics.

Oh boy.

What do you think I think Obama's Iraq policy is, comrade?

And yet, Obama wants out of Iraq. McCain doesn't. Obama won't get into a pissing match with Venezuela. McCain would. It's not about what they ARE doing, it's about what they MIGHT do.

Oh boy.

What do you think I think Obama's Iraq policy is, comrade?
The above, which is so ridiculously simplistic that it actually renders itself useless.

The above, which is so ridiculously simplistic that it actually renders itself useless.

I see. Yet the basics of it isn't too different from that. I'm fully aware that there are a few more nuances to it, but the fact remains that Obama voted against the war and McCain voted for it; Obama wants an earlier withdrawal than McCain would have, as well.

Obama voted against the war

Obama not being a senator at the time would have made him voting against the war really difficult.

Fine, I'll ignore the other stuff, but the above is serious. Heikoku's lack of understanding of Obama's Iraq policy (which is not bad, btw) is a legit target of my criticism in a forum about international politics.
Whether H2 gets it right or wrong is entirely beside the fact that the claim that Obama "wants" to stay in Iraq (made earlier) is false. Obama is in the midst of engineering our withdrawal from that war. He just is not doing it in the precipitous manner that some would wish. But his loudest critics, the ones most obnoxiously declaring that he is just going to carry on Bush's policies and lied when he said otherwise, are among the same people who used to declare that it would be just horrible of us, a total disaster, if we were to pull out of Iraq all at once. So now Obama is doing it slowly and by stages, and he is being blamed for not doing it more precipitously.

That's what we in the thinking racket call "bullshit."

Whose outraged over that? Im annoyed over the double standards at play here. People whining that some are telling them, "Hey, you know..." when they did it for eight fucking years. They just cant take their own medicine, and are crying about it.

Limbaugh did it, surely; I do not believe Jindal did. Though I have to say, I agree with Nixon in that one should support the President, even if he is of the opposition, until election days approaches. This is not a good time to divide America, yet the Republican party may openly voice its opinion.

Anyway, I think Democrats gave Bush full support right after 9/11.

Whether H2 gets it right or wrong is entirely beside the fact that the claim that Obama "wants" to stay in Iraq (made earlier) is false.

But it does make me feel loved that TAI, our resident commie-under-a-mask, likes to try to aggravate me in every single thread. :D

I guess I should be happy I didn't get trapped in the snow, saved by him and forced by him to change the ending of my book. :p

Though I have to say, I agree with Nixon in that one should support the President, even if he is of the opposition, until election days approaches.

I could not disagree more.

Obama wants to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq and maintain our fortress-sized embassy there.

Also, not once did he voice opposition to the Iraq War on moral grounds, but on the grounds of "we're bombing the wrong brown people."

Check the link I provided. It provides a long list of examples of Obama's duplicity.

Granted, he is probably better than McCain would have been (not that that's saying anything...), but that doesn't mean he isn't a douchebag.

Yes.

Anyway, I think Democrats gave Bush full support right after 9/11.

Which the Republicans rewarded by calling dissent treason.

I could not disagree more.

Then why are you offended by Limbaugh saying he wants the President to fail?

By the way, support does not necessarily mean approval of policies, but rather frequent encouragement and an attempt to cooperate.

Then why are you offended by Limbaugh saying he wants the President to fail?

"You shouldn't do that, for the good of our country." isn't the same as "I hope he screws our country so I get to gloat."

Which the Republicans rewarded by calling dissent treason.

Jindal?

Then why are you offended by Limbaugh saying he wants the President to fail?

Im not offended. I dont know where you got that impression. I dont think Limbaugh is thinking of the consequences of an Obama failure, and I think he's allowing his hatred for the man to cloud his (rather limited) thinking, but Ive never been offended and never indicated anything of the sort.

Im merely annoyed that the GOP is crying "Waaaaah people are getting angry when we say we want Obama to fail" when the GOP for eight years said anyone who didnt support Bush hated 'merika. They cant deal with what they dished out. Thats whats funny to me.

Jindal?

Cheney.
Limbaugh.
Rove.
Hannity.
And on.
And on.
And FUCKING ON.

"I hope he screws our country so I get to gloat."

The fellow is certainly a purple-faced bumpkin, but I do not believe he meant that.

Whether H2 gets it right or wrong is entirely beside the fact that the claim that Obama "wants" to stay in Iraq (made earlier) is false. Obama is in the midst of engineering our withdrawal from that war. He just is not doing it in the precipitous manner that some would wish. But his loudest critics, the ones most obnoxiously declaring that he is just going to carry on Bush's policies and lied when he said otherwise, are among the same people who used to declare that it would be just horrible of us, a total disaster, if we were to pull out of Iraq all at once. So now Obama is doing it slowly and by stages, and he is being blamed for not doing it more precipitously.

That's what we in the thinking racket call "bullshit."

What about those who have always opposed the war and have always supported complete and immediate withdrawal?

The fellow is certainly a purple-faced bumpkin, but I do not believe he meant that.

Trust me, I'd love to see Limbaugh purple-faced.

It would likely mean he was asphyxiating.

And dying.

And I'd laugh. :D

Edit: Wee, spelled "asphyxiating" right.

Cheney.
Limbaugh.
Rove.
Hannity.
And on.
And on.
And FUCKING ON.

But you named the top-four assholes; there no real moderates in there. I imagine there were always extremist Democrats who said the same thing of their Presidents. Either way, we are speaking of Jindal.

But you named the top-four assholes; there no real moderates in there. I imagine there were always extremist Democrats who said the same thing of their Presidents. Either way, we are speaking of Jindal.

Then do tell how many mainstream democrats said it when Clinton was in power.

Trust me, I'd love to see Limbaugh purple-faced.

It would likely mean he was asphyxiating.

And dying.

And I'd laugh. :D

Edit: Wee, spelled "asphyxiating" right.

He seems always to be purple-faced, probably from talking loudly for extended periods of time, and regurgitating each sentence thrice.

Then do tell how many mainstream democrats said it when Clinton was in power.

A crises (which generally happens when a Republican is President--ho-hum) was not at hand. I could probably find some for JBJ, Kennedy, and FDR, though.

A crises (which generally happens when a Republican is President--ho-hum) was not at hand. I could probably find some for JBJ, Kennedy, and FDR, though.

By all means.

I see. Yet the basics of it isn't too different from that.
Either you're playing dumb, or your a sucker for electioning. Either way, let's wash things off with a fresh dose of reality.


but the fact remains that Obama voted against the war
Did he now? That fact remains, does it? How about the fact that Obama wasn't in the Senate yet and thus had no vote? Does that fact remain?

Obama wants an earlier withdrawal than McCain would have, as well.
Look, here's the point. Bush (yes, Bush, not Obama) signed an agreement with the Iraqi government that effectively gave the coalition troops a timetable to leave the country. That treaty would have came with the new administration, whether that administration was Obama or McCain.

But let's leave the Obama and McCain stuff and get with the present.

Obama has decided that troops would be withdrawn by August 31th, 2010, keeping with campaign promises, except for a force of anywhere between 35,000 and 50,000 which would remain in Iraq after his promised withdrawl deadline to "train, equip and advise Iraqi forces and to protect withdrawing forces and work on counterterrorism", basically the same exact thing we are doing now.

Now, are you still with me? Those troops will stay in Iraq until around December 31, 2011, by which they must be withdrawn, because that's the date which the Bush administration agreed upon with the Iraqi government.

So basically, a plan existed from Bush to withdraw by 2011. Obama, playing into his political populism from his campaign says, " I promised to have us out by 2010, and I shall! . . . except for 35,000 to 50,000 troops, who will leave by 2011 . . . which is when troops must leave anyway, according to the agreement Bush signed.

Thus, in this situation and this particular situation alone, it is fair to call bullshit on his "change platform", when all he is doing is giving Bush's pre-existing policy a paint job and calling it something else. Which, let me say again, is not a bad thing. . . he's making the right call, as was Bush when Bush made it.

Now, do you understand? You love Obama because he's continuing Bush's war plan because you don't know exactly the politics of what really happend.


Whether H2 gets it right or wrong is entirely beside the fact that the claim that Obama "wants" to stay in Iraq (made earlier) is false. Obama is in the midst of engineering our withdrawal from that war. He just is not doing it in the precipitous manner that some would wish. But his loudest critics, the ones most obnoxiously declaring that he is just going to carry on Bush's policies and lied when he said otherwise, are among the same people who used to declare that it would be just horrible of us, a total disaster, if we were to pull out of Iraq all at once. So now Obama is doing it slowly and by stages, and he is being blamed for not doing it more precipitously.

That's what we in the thinking racket call "bullshit."
Read above.

You love Obama

No, I don't.

Obama is better than McCain. That's like playing soccer better than me. I suck at it.

No, I don't.

Obama is better than McCain. That's like playing soccer better than me. I suck at it.
Is that a fucking joke? I had that whole post, filled with information showing exactly why your position is, at best ignorant of the reality of the situation, and that's what you reply with?

Fine, you don't love Obama. I don't care. Mind replying to everything else that was my response when you asked me about what I think about you and what you think of Obama's politics?

Is that a fucking joke?

Now, now. Don't get all over-emotional on me. :D

I had that whole post, filled with information showing exactly why your position is, at best ignorant of the reality of the situation, and that's what you reply with?

Apparently.

Fine, you don't love Obama. I don't care. Mind replying to everything else that was my response when you asked me about what I think about you and what you think of Obama's politics?

I don't wanna. ^_^

No, I don't.

Obama is better than McCain. That's like playing soccer better than me. I suck at it.

But I am better then both. Vote for me 2016.

By all means.

Truman never said anything about traitors, but he publicly said Kennedy's opposition "ought to go to hell."

On November 4th, 1967, President Johnson made it clear to a reporter that he felt opposition to his government meant opposition to the United States.

I fear I will have to read my history books to find some more data, but I will try my best to bring-up more substantial examples later-on.

Now, now. Don't get all over-emotional on me. :D
Well, I am happy that you are so excited about supporting a Bush policy. I'm even more happy that you seem to either, not be politically inclined enough to understand it, or that you've just totally missed it. ;)

Truman never said anything about traitors, but he publicly said Kennedy's opposition "ought to go to hell."

On November 4th, 1967, President Johnson made it clear to a reporter that he felt opposition to his government meant opposition to the United States.

I fear I will have to read my history books to find some more data, but I will try my best to bring-up more substantial examples later-on.

Well, no love lost between me and LBJ.

Well, I am happy that you are so excited about supporting a Bush policy. I'm even more happy that you seem to either, not be politically inclined enough to understand it, or that you've just totally missed it. ;)

I'm not.

Obama is but a message: One that says "Bush was wrong about Iraq". What he does from there on isn't my problem, but he did several times call the war a mistake.

Well, no love lost between me and LBJ.

If it were not for the god damned war, he probably would have been a decent President; alas, his place in the history books is sealed as the loser who prolonged it.

But look on the bright side: America did not chose Goldwater.

Well, I am happy that you are so excited about supporting a Bush policy. I'm even more happy that you seem to either, not be politically inclined enough to understand it, or that you've just totally missed it. ;)

I don't wanna. ^_^
Another victory, then. You make it all too easy. ;)

If it were not for the god damned war, he probably would have been a decent President; alas, his place in the history books is sealed as the loser who prolonged it.

But look on the bright side: America did not chose Goldwater.

Oh, I don't care about Nam.

That piece of shit was the POTUS at the time of the coup here. Had he been buried in NYC, I'd take the subway just to hock a loogie at his grave when I was there.

Another victory, then. You make it all too easy. ;)

You must be really desperate to call "tl, dr" a victory.

If it were not for the god damned war, he probably would have been a decent President; alas, his place in the history books is sealed as the loser who prolonged it.

But look on the bright side: America did not chose Goldwater.

LBJ helped impose a military dictatorship on H2's country, so war or not, he would still understandably detest LBJ.

Obama is but a message
No, see here's the reality of the situation. Obama is the President and is currently conducting military operations in various countries throughout the world which is far more relevant than whether or not you were happy or sad sitting in your jungle in 2003 when you heard of the invasion of Iraq.

No, see here's the reality of the situation. Obama is the President and is currently conducting military operations in various countries throughout the world which is far more relevant than whether or not you were happy or sad sitting in your jungle in 2003 when you heard of the invasion of Iraq.

And yet the fact remains that in just about every issue I agree more with Obama than with any Republican.

If Belo Horizonte is a jungle, I wonder what you call Houston.

Edit: Wait, I forgot. You're just a commie trying to make capitalists look bad by feigning lack of understanding of basic information on other countries. Sorry. Carry on, Comrade. :D

No, see here's the reality of the situation. Obama is the President and is currently conducting military operations in various countries throughout the world which is far more relevant than whether or not you were happy or sad sitting in your jungle in 2003 when you heard of the invasion of Iraq.

"Your jungle?" :confused:

You must be really desperate to call "tl, dr" a victory.

Please, just because you may be nerdy enough to care about something called "tl;dr" doesn't mean I am. Not reading the answer to a question you ask because the answer happens to be around 7 paragraphs (where paragraphs are between 1 and 3 sentences long) is a loss of the argument for you. That's the reality of the situation and I know you hate it.

Oh, I don't care about Nam.

That piece of shit was the POTUS at the time of the coup here. Had he been buried in NYC, I'd take the subway just to hock a loogie at his grave when I was there.

He would not want you to bring any of your bodily fluids here.

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z266/ocweeklycrew/ripper.jpg

"Your jungle?" :confused:

TAI lives in a very simple world.

And yet the fact remains that in just about every issue I agree more with Obama than with any Republican.
Agree with Bush's policy on the Iraq war that he agreed to with the Iraqi government that is basically the outline of how the war is currently being managed?

Please, just because you may be nerdy enough to care about something called "tl;dr" doesn't mean I am. Not reading the answer to a question you ask because the answer happens to be around 7 paragraphs (where paragraphs are between 1 and 3 sentences long) is a loss of the argument for you. That's the reality of the situation and I know you hate it.

You're right, TAI, I'm so angry I stopped looking at porn to fume.

Wait, no, I didn't. :p

I pointed out, repeatedly, the main way in which Obama's victory matters to me. Your interpretation thereof is your problem.

Agree with Bush's policy on the Iraq war that he agreed to with the Iraqi government that is basically the outline of how the war is currently being managed?

Bush: "We should have gone in, and we'll exit like that."

Obama: "We shouldn't have gone in, and we'll exit like that."

That's the difference to me.

That's the difference to me.
Thanks. I'll write that down. No, wait I won't because it's not what I asked:


Agree with Bush's policy on the Iraq war that he agreed to with the Iraqi government that is basically the outline of how the war is currently being managed?

It's yes or no.

Thanks. I'll write that down. No, wait I won't because it's not what I asked:


Agree with Bush's policy on the Iraq war that he agreed to with the Iraqi government that is basically the outline of how the war is currently being managed?

It's yes or no.

Yo! :D

Nah. Obama should leave sooner, then give a bunch of international organizations boatloads of cash to rebuild Iraq.

But you take what you can get. And McCain's approach was worse.

LBJ helped impose a military dictatorship on H2's country.
Brazil needed it.

Brazil needed it.

Exactly as much as the US needed 9/11.

Edit: Wait, that's your routine. Damn, I keep forgetting, comrade. Sorry. :D

Yo! :D

Nah. Obama should leave sooner,
And if Iraq is not ready for the security forces to leave because they are not yet stable enough and ready to provide their own total defense? Then what? "Their internal affairs are none of my concern."? ? ?
then give a bunch of international organizations boatloads of cash to rebuild Iraq.
Do you have any idea how that would work?

But you take what you can get. And McCain's approach was worse.
If McCain were President, he'd have to pull out troops at exactly the same date Obama is. It was all explained in that "tl;dr" post of mine in which I schooled you on the reality of the Iraq policy.

Brazil needed it.

If you did not live there, how can you say that? I am guessing you are the type that supported Franco.

Exactly as much as the US needed 9/11.

^This.

Brazil needed it.

Why?

Exactly as much as the US needed 9/11.
They don't compare at all. 9/11 was an external attack on the US.

Your Revolução de 1964 was internal.

If you did not live there, how can you say that? I am guessing you are the type that supported Franco.

Relax, TPE. TAI is actually an undercover communist trying to make capitalists look like people who support bloodbaths offshore. :D

They don't compare at all. 9/11 was an external attack on the US.

Your Revolução de 1964 was internal.

So you would support the 9/11 attacks if the terrorists were domestic? :confused:

They don't compare at all. 9/11 was an external attack on the US.

Your Revolução de 1964 was internal.

Both were illegal, both killed people by the thousands, and both had, yes, external help.

By the way: "Golpe".

But you agree with me, Comrade. I bet you fought with MR-8! :D

TAI, the U.S. provided significant covert support for the coup; it may have never succeeded without U.S. support.

Relax, TPE. TAI is actually an undercover communist trying to make capitalists look like people who support bloodbaths offshore. :D

I think they did...decades ago. Where--what is in this guys hea--when is he from? His views went-out of style with the segregation of schools and the "Evil Empire" speech.

I think they did...decades ago. Where--what is in this guys hea--when is he from? His views went-out of style with the segregation of schools and the "Evil Empire" speech.

Well... I'm thinking Soviet Russia. TAI is a Soviet agent intent on making capitalists look bad. :D

Well... I'm thinking Soviet Russia. TAI is a Soviet agent intent on making capitalists look bad. :D

Soviet Russia, there you are; he is at least from the 80's.

For the record, João Goulart's government posed no threat to the United States. None whatsoever. Nor did it pose any threat to Brazil. U.S. propaganda of the time notwithstanding, Goulart was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a communist. And even if he was...so what? He had neither the capacity nor the intent to threaten the U.S. in any way, shape, or form. In fact, he tried his damnedest to get along with Washington.

Being an anarcho-capitalist, I naturally don't share Goulart's ideological inclinations, but even so, they were admittedly very modest. He wanted to double the minimum wage and institute a moderate land reform program. Not exactly the actions of a free market ideologue, but hardly the program of a foaming at the mouth Marxist-Leninist. You can debate the merits of his program all you want, but the fact is, he did not intend to make Brazil communist, or even socialist. Nor did he have any desire to impose a dictatorship of any kind on the Brazilian people.

Goulart, whatever his faults, was legitimately elected by the Brazilian people. We had no reason for supporting his overthrow. None whatsoever. If - and only if - he had been a threat to the U.S., then maybe, just maybe it would have made sense to encourage his overthrow. But even in that case, there was no reason to support an authoritarian, corrupt regime that exploited U.S. paranoia for its own ends to institute torture, murder, repression, and fear in Brazil.

Put simply, our policy toward Goulart should have been: We don't interfere in his country's affairs, he doesn't interfere in ours.

Why should a moderate social democrat with no communist leanings whatsoever be overthrown if he poses no threat to us? Shit, even if he was a Chávez, or a Castro, or whatever, what gives us the right to overthrow him if he doesn't threaten our security? It's not our place, nor should it be, to decide whom the Brazilian people choose to govern them.

Our failure to understand this is just one of the myriad (legitimate) reasons that animosity toward the U.S. is so common in Latin America today.

Beautifully put, Ledgersia, but we might want to move this to another thread.

*bows*

What about those who have always opposed the war and have always supported complete and immediate withdrawal?

What about them?

Look, here's the point. Bush (yes, Bush, not Obama) signed an agreement with the Iraqi government that effectively gave the coalition troops a timetable to leave the country. That treaty would have came with the new administration, whether that administration was Obama or McCain.

But let's leave the Obama and McCain stuff and get with the present.

Obama has decided that troops would be withdrawn by August 31th, 2010, keeping with campaign promises, except for a force of anywhere between 35,000 and 50,000 which would remain in Iraq after his promised withdrawl deadline to "train, equip and advise Iraqi forces and to protect withdrawing forces and work on counterterrorism", basically the same exact thing we are doing now.

Now, are you still with me? Those troops will stay in Iraq until around December 31, 2011, by which they must be withdrawn, because that's the date which the Bush administration agreed upon with the Iraqi government.

So basically, a plan existed from Bush to withdraw by 2011. Obama, playing into his political populism from his campaign says, " I promised to have us out by 2010, and I shall! . . . except for 35,000 to 50,000 troops, who will leave by 2011 . . . which is when troops must leave anyway, according to the agreement Bush signed.

Thus, in this situation and this particular situation alone, it is fair to call bullshit on his "change platform", when all he is doing is giving Bush's pre-existing policy a paint job and calling it something else. Which, let me say again, is not a bad thing. . . he's making the right call, as was Bush when Bush made it.

Now, do you understand? You love Obama because he's continuing Bush's war plan because you don't know exactly the politics of what really happend.



Read above.

Yes, and...?

Oh, by the way, if you pay attention to the recent history in more that 15-minute increments, you should realize that Bush's withdrawal plan, which was instituted at relatively the last minute, was a CHANGE from his ongoing war policy prior to that and that it came about in response to pressure from both the generals and the voters. Otherwise, Bush had no plans to end the war by a date certain, nor did McCain.

So, yes, by the time the election came about, both candidates, McCain and Obama, would have been bound by Bush withdrawal plan, but it is only valid to say Obama is continuing the Bush policy if you look ONLY at that one withdrawal plan, which was on the table for Bush for less than a year before the general election.

Such "validity" is shakey at best. The argument that Obama is fulfilling his campaign promise to end the war in accordance with the advice of the generals in the field but following a policy of ending the war, rather than continuing it indefinitely waiting on perfect circumstances, has far more solid validity.

Brazil needed it.
Pointlessly rude and also an attempt at flamebaiting? I have been trying to skip over your little hissy-minuet with H2, but that remark is just offensive and uncalled for.

Pointlessly rude and also an attempt at flamebaiting? I have been trying to skip over your little hissy-minuet with H2, but that remark is just offensive and uncalled for.

Already ruled on. Besides, I know TAI is just trying to make ACTUAL capitalists look bad. :D

LBJ helped impose a military dictatorship on H2's country, so war or not, he would still understandably detest LBJ.
You give LBJ too much credit. The Brazilian Revolução de 1964 was a home-grown, domestic issue. Just because America supported the side that won doesn't mean America caused the revolution or helped imposed it on Brazil. It's a common smoke-shield tactic to blame the Americans or the CIA while ignoring the domestic, local causes.

Look, no mention of America when discussing the causes. Looks quite internal and domestic to me:

José Guilherme Merquior, a Brazilian diplomat and sociologist, defined the causes of the 1964 coup as "governmental instability,
disintegration of the party system, virtual paralysis of the legislative branch, erroneous attitudes by president Goulart (if not none at all) towards presidential succession; the threat represented by a poorly-planned agrarian reform; military restlessness towards government tolerance to insubordination; and a growing radicalism, by both left and right wings (...) all compounded by high inflation and, naturally, the frightening phantom of the Cuban Revolution.[29]

According to Celso Castro of the Fundação Getúlio Vargas, the perception of a communist threat in Brazil became increasingly tangible until it reached its climax with the 1935 Revolt. He cites events contributing to a growing anti-communism in the armed forces, such as: the Russian Revolution of 1917, the foundation of a communist party in Brazil (1922), the conversion to communism of "tenentista" leader Luís Carlos Prestes (1930), and his departure to the Soviet Union; the appearance (March of 1935) of the Aliança Nacional Libertadora, dominated by communists, the sergeants' revolt (1963), the sailors' revolt, Jânio Quadros giving a medal to Che Guevara, Goulart's trip to China, and the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union by Quadros. These were perceived by the military as being threats to the status quo. [30] Castro further argues that the 1964 coup was supported by some important sectors of society: two conservative parties (PSD and UDN), the business elite, large land owners, the media and the Catholic Church, as well as the governors of important states such as Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and São Paulo.[31]

So you would support the 9/11 attacks if the terrorists were domestic? :confused:
What does 9/11 have to do with the Brazilian revolution, answer me that?
Both were illegal, both killed people by the thousands.
Illegal and killed people by the thousands? Ugh, it's sad that an American has to teach you your history about the Revolução, but I guess it must be so:

Altogether seven people would die during the events of April 1. Casualties included two students who were shot amidst a demonstration against the troops encircling the Governor's palace in Recife, three in Rio and two in Minas Gerais.[22]

On April 11, 1964, General Humberto de Alencar Castello Branco was elected as president by the national congress.

Castro further argues that the 1964 coup was supported by some important sectors of society: two conservative parties (PSD and UDN), the business elite, large land owners, the media and the Catholic Church, as well as the governors of important states such as Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and São Paulo.

So, yes, by the time the election came about, both candidates, McCain and Obama, would have been bound by Bush withdrawal plan, but it is only valid to say Obama is continuing the Bush policy if you look ONLY at that one withdrawal plan, which was on the table for Bush for less than a year before the general election.
But it is still correct to say that nothing has changed on America's Iraq policy pre-election and post election of Obama, which isn't a bad thing btw. I was just pointing that out because Heikoku couldn't understand that.
Such "validity" is shakey at best. The argument that Obama is fulfilling his campaign promise to end the war in accordance with the advice of the generals in the field but following a policy of ending the war, rather than continuing it indefinitely waiting on perfect circumstances, has far more solid validity.
Obama's campaign promises met reality when he realized he couldn't just leave Iraq and had to stay longer than he promised. That's why he's keeping troops (though he calls them something else) in Iraq even after the date he claims American troops will be out of Iraq.

What does 9/11 have to do with the Brazilian revolution, answer me that?

Illegal and killed people by the thousands? Ugh, it's sad that an American has to teach you your history about the Revolução, but I guess it must be so:

Answered in other thread.

But it is still correct to say that nothing has changed on America's Iraq policy pre-election and post election of Obama, which isn't a bad thing btw. I was just pointing that out because Heikoku couldn't understand that.
Actually, no, it is not correct.

I am not saying that H2 is right or wrong. I am saying that your description of events and policies is disingenuous.

Obama's campaign promises met reality when he realized he couldn't just leave Iraq and had to stay longer than he promised. That's why he's keeping troops (though he calls them something else) in Iraq even after the date he claims American troops will be out of Iraq.

False. Obama ALWAYS stated, very clearly, that whatever his desired goals were, they would always be subject to the realistic assessments of the commanders in the field, to which he would not be privy until he was elected. It was only the idiotic media -- and Obama's enemies looking for any minor appearance of discrepancy to pounce on -- who heard any pie-in-the-sky promises of a withdrawal date certain. He stated his desired goal date for withdrawal, but he never stated it without also stating the caveat that it could be subject to adjustment. Which is exactly what happened, as promised.

Because of this, and because at least half the people who insist he changed his approach to Iraq are politically motivated to attack him, I call the constant repetition of this claim a lie.

Actually, no, it is not correct.
Yes it is, and if not, you haven't stated why not. . .

False. Obama ALWAYS stated, very clearly, that whatever his desired goals were, they would always be subject to the realistic assessments of the commanders in the field, to which he would not be privy until he was elected. It was only the idiotic media -- and Obama's enemies looking for any minor appearance of discrepancy to pounce on -- who heard any pie-in-the-sky promises of a withdrawal date certain. He stated his desired goal date for withdrawal, but he never stated it without also stating the caveat that it could be subject to adjustment. Which is exactly what happened, as promised.

Because of this, and because at least half the people who insist he changed his approach to Iraq are politically motivated to attack him, I call the constant repetition of this claim a lie.

"I will bring our troops out at a pace of one two brigades a month" which would mean the United States would be totally out of Iraq in 16 months. "That is what I intend to do as president of the United States."

That was said in July 2008. That would mean out by November 2010, completely. Totally. All troops. That was his campaign promise as of July 2008.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/03/obama-open-to-refine-my-p_n_110750.html

However, in reality, troops are now planned to stay until the end of 2011:

"But up to 50,000 of 142,000 troops now there will stay into 2011 to advise Iraqi forces and protect US interests, leaving by the end of 2011, he said."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7914061.stm

And if you read anything from the Pentagon and such about the war, being there much longer than 2011 is the general idea:

Obama's plan, as his advisors have often said, is subject to "conditions on the ground," meaning it can be altered at any point between now and 2011. Underscoring this point, a spokesperson for New York Rep. John McHugh, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said on Friday that Obama "assured [McHugh] he will revisit the tempo of the withdrawal, or he will revisit the withdrawal plan if the situation on the ground dictates it. ... The president assured him that there was a Plan B."

Despite Obama's declarations Friday and the celebrations they have sparked on the liberal blogosphere, the Pentagon certainly seems to believe its forces may well be in Iraq after 2011. NBC's Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki reported on Friday that "military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated. And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years."

Some have suggested that such statements from the military are insubordination and contrary to Obama's orders, but they could also reflect discussions between the White House and the Pentagon to which the public is not privy.

Then there's the monstrous U.S. embassy unveiled last month in Baghdad, the largest of any nation anywhere in the history of the planet and itself resembling a military base. Maintaining this fortified city will require a sizable armed U.S. presence in Baghdad and will regularly place U.S. diplomats in armed convoys that put Iraqi civilian lives in jeopardy.

Whether this job is performed by State Department Diplomatic Security or mercenaries from the company formerly known as Blackwater (or else a corporation more acceptable to the Obama administration), the U.S. will have a substantial paramilitary force regularly escorting U.S. VIPs around Iraq -- a proven recipe for civilian deaths and injuries. Obama's speech on Friday did not even address the question of military contractors -- a crucial omission given that their presence rivals that of U.S. troops by a ratio of over 1-to-1.

Finally, the Status of Forces Agreement, which supposedly lays out a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, contains a gaping loophole that leaves open the possibility of a continuation of the occupation and a sustained presence of U.S. forces well beyond 2011, "upon request by the government of Iraq." Article 27 of the SOFA allows the U.S. to undertake military action, "or any other measure," inside Iraq's borders "In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq." Could this mean an election where the wrong candidate or party wins? What is the definition of a threat?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/obamas-iraq-all-troops-ou_b_170765.html

Yes it is, and if not, you haven't stated why not. . .

Actually, I did, in the paragraph that followed, and which you responded to after making this remark.

I am not going to bother with the lengthy remainder of your post for three reasons:

1) It is just a war of opinions. The facts are not in dispute. You and some other people just choose to interpret them one way, and I and some other people choose to interpret them another way. I believe my/our way is better because it is less distant from the facts and requires less spinning and explanation to reach its conclusions. Sort of the difference between 2 degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon as opposed to 8 degrees of separation.

2) Your comments, although lengthy do not change or add to anything you already said, and which I have already commented on. I realize that you are going into more depth, but that depth is actually not revealing anything new to me. So the comments I have already made stand.

3) If you can't even manage to read both paragraphs as part of the whole, I think it will be too tiring to argue this with you.