On September 01 2013 04:39 DeepElemBlues wrote: ... let's be honest here: any Republican would give his left nut to be alone in a room with Harry Reid for five minutes with no consequences for whatever he did, and any Democrat would do the same if they could get Ted Cruz alone in that same room with the same conditions. Unless we're talking about Republican or Democrat women, then the Republican ones would give their left tit to be in a room alone with Nancy Pelosi or Elizabeth Warren for 5 minutes, and the Democrats would do the same to get Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.
And I don't even want to think about what any Republican would give up for 5 minutes alone with a tied-up Barack Obama, or what any Democrat would give up for 5 minutes with a tied-up George W. Bush.
why can't the women be alone in a room with the men and visa versa? that is the strangest political correctness i have ever read.
On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote: We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably.
Mark Leibovich is a pretty cool guy, and that book isn't half bad, but it doesn't come anywhere close to proving the previous claim.
What it does prove is that people in Washington only care about themselves and their immediate surroundings. It's a state within a state, completely detached from the rest of the country and not giving a damn about it. It's sole purpose is the endless spiral of mutual benefit and enrichment. All they really do is make money for each other and the corps backing them. Lobbyists and media people are living off them too and are a part of this structure (news reporters earning $12 mil a year?). Also, there are no republicans and democrats, it's all the same people just wearing different badges for show and to make you think that you actually have a choice between different things.
This "illusion of choice" shit is the worst kind of hipster-enlightened garbage. It's embarrassingly ignorant. If Barack Obama's presidency hasn't clued you in to the deep and viciously held differences between the parties, there's really no hope for you, you're never going to get it.
I see no real difference between US foreign policy during Bush and Obama.
That is because you do not study US foreign policy. There are real continuities, and there are real differences.
On September 01 2013 04:39 DeepElemBlues wrote: ... let's be honest here: any Republican would give his left nut to be alone in a room with Harry Reid for five minutes with no consequences for whatever he did, and any Democrat would do the same if they could get Ted Cruz alone in that same room with the same conditions. Unless we're talking about Republican or Democrat women, then the Republican ones would give their left tit to be in a room alone with Nancy Pelosi or Elizabeth Warren for 5 minutes, and the Democrats would do the same to get Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.
And I don't even want to think about what any Republican would give up for 5 minutes alone with a tied-up Barack Obama, or what any Democrat would give up for 5 minutes with a tied-up George W. Bush.
why can't the women be alone in a room with the men and visa versa? that is the strangest political correctness i have ever read.
Because that wouldn't be proper. A woman must never be unsupervised and alone in a room with a man who is not her husband. What would everyone think.
On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote: We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably.
Mark Leibovich is a pretty cool guy, and that book isn't half bad, but it doesn't come anywhere close to proving the previous claim.
What it does prove is that people in Washington only care about themselves and their immediate surroundings. It's a state within a state, completely detached from the rest of the country and not giving a damn about it. It's sole purpose is the endless spiral of mutual benefit and enrichment. All they really do is make money for each other and the corps backing them. Lobbyists and media people are living off them too and are a part of this structure (news reporters earning $12 mil a year?). Also, there are no republicans and democrats, it's all the same people just wearing different badges for show and to make you think that you actually have a choice between different things.
This "illusion of choice" shit is the worst kind of hipster-enlightened garbage. It's embarrassingly ignorant. If Barack Obama's presidency hasn't clued you in to the deep and viciously held differences between the parties, there's really no hope for you, you're never going to get it.
I see no real difference between US foreign policy during Bush and Obama.
That is because you do not study US foreign policy. There are real continuities, and there are real differences.
I dont study politics but. In super simplified Teamfortress2 class terms I'd say bush used HEAVY (clumsy ,brute force) and obama uses SPY policy (intrigue, assassinations etc) .
On September 01 2013 03:55 Zarahtra wrote: [quote] You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably.
Mark Leibovich is a pretty cool guy, and that book isn't half bad, but it doesn't come anywhere close to proving the previous claim.
What it does prove is that people in Washington only care about themselves and their immediate surroundings. It's a state within a state, completely detached from the rest of the country and not giving a damn about it. It's sole purpose is the endless spiral of mutual benefit and enrichment. All they really do is make money for each other and the corps backing them. Lobbyists and media people are living off them too and are a part of this structure (news reporters earning $12 mil a year?). Also, there are no republicans and democrats, it's all the same people just wearing different badges for show and to make you think that you actually have a choice between different things.
This "illusion of choice" shit is the worst kind of hipster-enlightened garbage. It's embarrassingly ignorant. If Barack Obama's presidency hasn't clued you in to the deep and viciously held differences between the parties, there's really no hope for you, you're never going to get it.
I see no real difference between US foreign policy during Bush and Obama.
That is because you do not study US foreign policy. There are real continuities, and there are real differences.
I dont study politics but. In super simplified Teamfortress2 class terms I'd say bush used HEAVY (clumsy ,brute force) and obama uses SPY policy (intrigue, assassinations etc) .
Without a doubt congress is going to reject it and that's exactly what Obama wants. Obama got stuck hard in between a rock and a hard place when te uk rejected intervention. He needs the political support especially because people at home don't want to intervene. To think Obama cares about the congress or how it's supposed to keep him in check is absurd.
Why didn't he call congress in from the start? Why after the British rejected intervention. Secondly why didn't he call them in for libya if it was really about principles.
As much as I disliked bush at least he wasn't a conniving 2-faced faced snake. Obama is seriously one of the worst US presidents.
On September 01 2013 09:05 sekritzzz wrote: Without a doubt congress is going to reject it and that's exactly what Obama wants. Obama got stuck hard in between a rock and a hard place when te uk rejected intervention. He needs the political support especially because people at home don't want to intervene. To think Obama cares about the congress or how it's supposed to keep him in check is absurd.
Why didn't he call congress in from the start? Why after the British rejected intervention. Secondly why didn't he call them in for libya if it was really about principles.
As much as I disliked bush at least he wasn't a conniving 2-faced faced snake. Obama is seriously one of the worst US presidents.
On September 01 2013 09:05 sekritzzz wrote: Without a doubt congress is going to reject it and that's exactly what Obama wants. Obama got stuck hard in between a rock and a hard place when te uk rejected intervention. He needs the political support especially because people at home don't want to intervene. To think Obama cares about the congress or how it's supposed to keep him in check is absurd.
Why didn't he call congress in from the start? Why after the British rejected intervention. Secondly why didn't he call them in for libya if it was really about principles.
As much as I disliked bush at least he wasn't a conniving 2-faced faced snake. Obama is seriously one of the worst US presidents.
Then what happens if Obama backs off from any kind of military strike and this emboldens Assad/rebels (whomever is responsible for chemical attack although I personally suspect the latter), to use chemical weapons again on Syrian populace (or worse, Israel), knowing that Obama is too afraid to stop them?
On September 01 2013 09:05 sekritzzz wrote: Without a doubt congress is going to reject it and that's exactly what Obama wants. Obama got stuck hard in between a rock and a hard place when te uk rejected intervention. He needs the political support especially because people at home don't want to intervene. To think Obama cares about the congress or how it's supposed to keep him in check is absurd.
Why didn't he call congress in from the start? Why after the British rejected intervention. Secondly why didn't he call them in for libya if it was really about principles.
As much as I disliked bush at least he wasn't a conniving 2-faced faced snake. Obama is seriously one of the worst US presidents.
Then what happens if Obama backs off from any kind of military strike and this emboldens Assad/rebels (whomever is responsible for chemical attack although I personally suspect the latter), to use chemical weapons again on Syrian populace (or worse, Israel), knowing that Obama is too afraid to stop them?
It's not that he's afraid, it's that he's bound to what congress wants.
On September 01 2013 09:05 sekritzzz wrote: Without a doubt congress is going to reject it and that's exactly what Obama wants. Obama got stuck hard in between a rock and a hard place when te uk rejected intervention. He needs the political support especially because people at home don't want to intervene. To think Obama cares about the congress or how it's supposed to keep him in check is absurd.
Why didn't he call congress in from the start? Why after the British rejected intervention. Secondly why didn't he call them in for libya if it was really about principles.
As much as I disliked bush at least he wasn't a conniving 2-faced faced snake. Obama is seriously one of the worst US presidents.
Then what happens if Obama backs off from any kind of military strike and this emboldens Assad/rebels (whomever is responsible for chemical attack although I personally suspect the latter), to use chemical weapons again on Syrian populace (or worse, Israel), knowing that Obama is too afraid to stop them?
It's not that he's afraid, it's that he's bound to what congress wants.
Maybe he'll realize that public trust in a government is at an all time low due to the NSA spy program, the Iraq war eque run up to this action 'WE DEFINITELY HAVE TOTAL PROOF...which we cant really share except for youtube video clips', and the general disinterest in the Middle East.
On September 01 2013 09:05 sekritzzz wrote: Without a doubt congress is going to reject it and that's exactly what Obama wants. Obama got stuck hard in between a rock and a hard place when te uk rejected intervention. He needs the political support especially because people at home don't want to intervene. To think Obama cares about the congress or how it's supposed to keep him in check is absurd.
Why didn't he call congress in from the start? Why after the British rejected intervention. Secondly why didn't he call them in for libya if it was really about principles.
As much as I disliked bush at least he wasn't a conniving 2-faced faced snake. Obama is seriously one of the worst US presidents.
Then what happens if Obama backs off from any kind of military strike and this emboldens Assad/rebels (whomever is responsible for chemical attack although I personally suspect the latter), to use chemical weapons again on Syrian populace (or worse, Israel), knowing that Obama is too afraid to stop them?
It's not that he's afraid, it's that he's bound to what congress wants.
But he could've gone ahead with the attacks without congress' approval, albeit making an unpopular decision amongst most Americans.
I fear that if the rebels are indeed responsible for the recent chemical attack, then who's to say they don't have more chemicals in reserve to plot another attack? Or if Assad was responsible, what's stopping him from gassing more ppl if Obama complies to a no-go vote from congress?
On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote: We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably.
Mark Leibovich is a pretty cool guy, and that book isn't half bad, but it doesn't come anywhere close to proving the previous claim.
What it does prove is that people in Washington only care about themselves and their immediate surroundings. It's a state within a state, completely detached from the rest of the country and not giving a damn about it. It's sole purpose is the endless spiral of mutual benefit and enrichment. All they really do is make money for each other and the corps backing them. Lobbyists and media people are living off them too and are a part of this structure (news reporters earning $12 mil a year?). Also, there are no republicans and democrats, it's all the same people just wearing different badges for show and to make you think that you actually have a choice between different things.
This "illusion of choice" shit is the worst kind of hipster-enlightened garbage. It's embarrassingly ignorant. If Barack Obama's presidency hasn't clued you in to the deep and viciously held differences between the parties, there's really no hope for you, you're never going to get it.
I see no real difference between US foreign policy during Bush and Obama.
That is because you do not study US foreign policy. There are real continuities, and there are real differences.
That one needs to study US foreign policy, before one can see the 'differences' between presidencies, simply says enough about said matter. When policy has changed substantially one needn't have studied it to see its differences. Fact of the matter is that policy has changed only in such miniscule details that for the untrained eye it's practically the same.
On September 01 2013 09:05 sekritzzz wrote: Without a doubt congress is going to reject it and that's exactly what Obama wants. Obama got stuck hard in between a rock and a hard place when te uk rejected intervention. He needs the political support especially because people at home don't want to intervene. To think Obama cares about the congress or how it's supposed to keep him in check is absurd.
Why didn't he call congress in from the start? Why after the British rejected intervention. Secondly why didn't he call them in for libya if it was really about principles.
As much as I disliked bush at least he wasn't a conniving 2-faced faced snake. Obama is seriously one of the worst US presidents.
Then what happens if Obama backs off from any kind of military strike and this emboldens Assad/rebels (whomever is responsible for chemical attack although I personally suspect the latter), to use chemical weapons again on Syrian populace (or worse, Israel), knowing that Obama is too afraid to stop them?
It's not that he's afraid, it's that he's bound to what congress wants.
But he could've gone ahead with the attacks without congress' approval, albeit making an unpopular decision amongst most Americans.
I fear that if the rebels are indeed responsible for the recent chemical attack, then who's to say they don't have more chemicals in reserve to plot another attack? Or if Assad was responsible, what's stopping him from gassing more ppl if Obama complies to a no-go vote from congress?
US going in would lead to world unstablitiy without a certainty that the region will be stable for the next x years or so even if chemical weapons are fully eliminated. right now it's still simply a middle east conflicts and major powers are trying to see what they can get from it. But if US/France goes in, Russia, China and Iran will have their own resolution to consider.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/meast/syria-iran-china-russia-supporters/index.html Honestly, Russia's worries are real, political states are dangerous and has been only promoting more unstablity in the region. China's as well, to solve these issues long term, a military intervention is just a temporary resolution, the long time is to solve the region's political issues (which is hard due to religion and political states)
The world simply isn't ready for another military intervention. Economy hits will be far too great, stock market had already been dropping for days everywhere. If this continues to hit China's economy, we don't know how big of a scale we will experience onto the global economy because the GFC damage is still not gone, a lot of countries are only starting to take away those excessive hot money they poured in to rescue their economy and trying to balance their budget balance. Even if it doesn't lead to World War 3, it will very likely to lead to global depression which would lead to more riots and more problems globally.
Ongoing: FSA Units, JAN, and elements of the Ahrar al Sham assaulting the Aleppo Central Prison complex. Been going on for months but the Walls have been breached.
Jabhat Nusra is reportedly leading an assault on Aleppo Central Prison. Other FSA brigades also involved, chatter indicates walls breached.
#Syria #Aleppo Fierce clashes at central prison
Rebels Lay Siege to Aleppo Central Prison 1-Aug-13
On September 01 2013 04:39 DeepElemBlues wrote: ... let's be honest here: any Republican would give his left nut to be alone in a room with Harry Reid for five minutes with no consequences for whatever he did, and any Democrat would do the same if they could get Ted Cruz alone in that same room with the same conditions. Unless we're talking about Republican or Democrat women, then the Republican ones would give their left tit to be in a room alone with Nancy Pelosi or Elizabeth Warren for 5 minutes, and the Democrats would do the same to get Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.
And I don't even want to think about what any Republican would give up for 5 minutes alone with a tied-up Barack Obama, or what any Democrat would give up for 5 minutes with a tied-up George W. Bush.
why can't the women be alone in a room with the men and visa versa? that is the strangest political correctness i have ever read.
Because that wouldn't be proper. A woman must never be unsupervised and alone in a room with a man who is not her husband. What would everyone think.
The dude was implying that said individuals would beat the living shit out of the respective politicians mentioned. I dont think its THAT politically incorrect to simply side step the imagery of a man beating the fuck out of a women, even if she is a scumbag the likes of pelosi.
On September 01 2013 04:56 Aveng3r wrote: holy conspiracy theories batman! can ANYBODY who has been talking for the last 2 pages or so provide an example of this corruption.. or even a solid piece of evidence?
Lobbyist and special interest groups who finance presidential campaigns?
“Man, I wish Bush was the president,” he said. “He would have reacted right away. He may have invaded Cyprus or Jordan instead of Syria by mistake, but you know he would have done something at least.”
Edit: From the same article, one of the consequences of signaling the attack in beforehand:
Abeer Basal, a Damascus resident, had waited with clenched anxiety since word of an American strike began to circulate, along with reports that the government was moving political prisoners to military bases or leaving them in security offices that could be targets. Her brother was arrested eight months ago, and her family feared he could be killed, one of the many potential unintended consequences of a strike.
On September 01 2013 03:55 Zarahtra wrote: [quote] You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably.
Mark Leibovich is a pretty cool guy, and that book isn't half bad, but it doesn't come anywhere close to proving the previous claim.
What it does prove is that people in Washington only care about themselves and their immediate surroundings. It's a state within a state, completely detached from the rest of the country and not giving a damn about it. It's sole purpose is the endless spiral of mutual benefit and enrichment. All they really do is make money for each other and the corps backing them. Lobbyists and media people are living off them too and are a part of this structure (news reporters earning $12 mil a year?). Also, there are no republicans and democrats, it's all the same people just wearing different badges for show and to make you think that you actually have a choice between different things.
This "illusion of choice" shit is the worst kind of hipster-enlightened garbage. It's embarrassingly ignorant. If Barack Obama's presidency hasn't clued you in to the deep and viciously held differences between the parties, there's really no hope for you, you're never going to get it.
I see no real difference between US foreign policy during Bush and Obama.
That is because you do not study US foreign policy. There are real continuities, and there are real differences.
That one needs to study US foreign policy, before one can see the 'differences' between presidencies, simply says enough about said matter. When policy has changed substantially one needn't have studied it to see its differences. Fact of the matter is that policy has changed only in such miniscule details that for the untrained eye it's practically the same.
Well, there are plenty of people who do not study US foreign policy and see real differences between the two. My point was that looking at their respective policies superficially can lead one to both extremes (they're exactly the same/they're completely different), while taking the time to study both thoroughly will make it clear there are (major) continuities and (major) differences.
On September 01 2013 09:05 sekritzzz wrote: Without a doubt congress is going to reject it and that's exactly what Obama wants. Obama got stuck hard in between a rock and a hard place when te uk rejected intervention. He needs the political support especially because people at home don't want to intervene. To think Obama cares about the congress or how it's supposed to keep him in check is absurd.
Why didn't he call congress in from the start? Why after the British rejected intervention. Secondly why didn't he call them in for libya if it was really about principles.
As much as I disliked bush at least he wasn't a conniving 2-faced faced snake. Obama is seriously one of the worst US presidents.
Then what happens if Obama backs off from any kind of military strike and this emboldens Assad/rebels (whomever is responsible for chemical attack although I personally suspect the latter), to use chemical weapons again on Syrian populace (or worse, Israel), knowing that Obama is too afraid to stop them?
As sad of a state as at it is but this is politics. To put it bluntly Obama doesn't really care about it being a precedent just like bush didn't really want to bring "democracy" to Iraq. They use it as a justification to have a moral reason so the people back it up when in reality most of their interventions have been in self-Interest.
The report came out 6 days ago how the USA helped Saddam use CHemical weapons on the Iranians. Kind of how the afghan population used to be freedom fighters but today they are all terrorists because their invader changed. /politics
EPT
