Log in

View Full Version : Country First


Marcus Bryant
06-18-2011, 10:25 PM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/17/country_first
boutons_deux
06-19-2011, 12:44 AM
Plenty of neo-cons still want to bomb Iran to payback for the Embassy takeover and get at their oil. Somehow, St Ronnie gets a pass for chickening out in Lebanon and not going after Iran (lends credence to the theory that the Repugs did a deal with Iran that US wouldn't retaliate if Iran kept the hostages until Reagan was in office).

If the Repugs were in the WH, they'd have troops and Halliburton all over Libya by now. There's no real change in Repugs towards isolation. They still will bomb the fuck out of any Muslim country. They use Libya to harass Barry, plain and simple.
Winehole23
06-19-2011, 02:01 AM
They use Libya to harass Barry, plain and simple.IS Congress somehow waging the war behind the president's back, OR IS IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND?? How is Barry "gettin harassed' here?
Winehole23
06-19-2011, 02:22 AM
MR pAWLENTY'S hefty TAX CUTS TO THE MEGARICH AND ROSE=TINTED PROGNOSTICATING SHADES, WERE NOTABLY NOT MENTIONE3D @ the link.
ElNono
06-19-2011, 02:44 AM
I heard McCain pretty concerned with what he calls a tendency to isolationism in these new candidates. I think he's up for an interview with Christiane Amanpour this Sunday where he touches on this. Thanks for posting.
boutons_deux
06-19-2011, 09:31 AM
"How is Barry "gettin harassed' here?"

Repugs, and some Dems, are supposedly pissed that Barry didn't "consult" them, stroke their egos and overweening self-importance, so they're harassing him with these bullshit votes and quotes.

UCA bombs Muslim countries with oil, Congress is really all for it (except the Repugs are pissed THEY didn't get the initiative and obstruct the Dems in EVERY case).
Winehole23
06-19-2011, 12:20 PM
Repugs, and some Dems, are supposedly pissed that Barry didn't "consult" them, stroke their egos and overweening self-importance, so they're harassing him with these bullshit votes and quotes. Obama went against the advice of his top lawyers on this one. He deserves the flames.
EVAY
06-19-2011, 09:50 PM
Thanks for posting the article, MB.

There is a section of the recent history that I think is missed, however, in the survey of who did what when. It is that after the USSR fell and the republicans took control of congress during the Clinton administration, they were quite in favor of pulling out of any military engagements, while they did (theoretically although not practically) support the idiotic SDI initiative. Specifically with respect to the Balkans and the Afghanistan arenas, Republicans argued against the 'policeman to the world' posture that they accused Clinton of pursuing in the Balkans and Afghanistan. Part of their argument at that time was that since the USSR was no longer a threat, we should be able to enjoy a 'peace dividend', whereby we shouldn't have to fund such activities.

So, whereas this article seems to present the Republicans as having a unified 'Reganesque' approach up until recently, that is simply not the case.

The Republicans want to be isolationists when a democrat is in the White House, and if a Republican is in the White House, they claim that any foreign military action on the part of the U.S. is right and just and anyone who disagrees is a traitor and uninterested in keeping America safe.

Obama deserves whatever he gets from anyone on Libya. While I agree that it is nice to get other countries (i.e. NATO countries) involved in helping to bear the burden, it is inconceivable to me that he thinks we should be involved in another military adventure while the economy is in such difficult straights. I wish Robert Gates were staying.

I wish Gates were running for President from either party. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
TeyshaBlue
06-20-2011, 08:37 AM
I wish Gates were running for President from either party. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

That would be an interesting option. Wonder what his criteria would be for a running mate?
EVAY
06-20-2011, 12:19 PM
That would be an interesting option. Wonder what his criteria would be for a running mate?

Anyone not named Sarah Palin.
Wild Cobra
06-20-2011, 12:23 PM
Anyone not named Sarah Palin.
Anyone not named Barack Obama...
boutons_deux
06-20-2011, 01:01 PM
"I wish Gates were running for President"

Here's a thorough trashing of Gates from an insider.

How Robert Gates' Lies and Cover-Ups Earned Him a Long, Prestigious Career -- At the Expense of the American People

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/151342
ChumpDumper
06-20-2011, 02:02 PM
Anyone not named Barack Obama...Why would a sitting president run for vice-president, WC?
2centsworth
06-20-2011, 02:08 PM
Why would a sitting president run for vice-president, WC?

Why troll?
ChumpDumper
06-20-2011, 02:10 PM
Why troll?Honest question tbh.
Blake
06-20-2011, 02:21 PM
Why troll?

Was Wild Cobra serious when he said


Anyone not named Barack Obama... ?
Wild Cobra
06-20-2011, 04:18 PM
It was a hasty post. I assumed the response was to Palin running for president.

My intent was to indicate I would vote for who ever runs against him.
clambake
06-20-2011, 04:22 PM
It was a hasty post. I assumed the response was to Palin running for president.

My intent was to indicate I would vote for who ever runs against him.

its not just him. you vote for the r period
Wild Cobra
06-20-2011, 04:25 PM
its not just him. you vote for the r period
Not true. there you go lying again. I vote for 3rd party candidates regularly. It's just democrats I very seldom vote for.
clambake
06-20-2011, 04:32 PM
Not true. there you go lying again. I vote for 3rd party candidates regularly. It's just democrats I very seldom vote for.

what 3rd party candidate for president got your vote?
Wild Cobra
06-20-2011, 05:35 PM
what 3rd party candidate for president got your vote?
None of them yet. I haven't been paying much attention. Too soon. I haven't picked a republican either. I just know I will not vote for Obama.
clambake
06-20-2011, 05:48 PM
None of them yet. I haven't been paying much attention. Too soon. I haven't picked a republican either. I just know I will not vote for Obama.

so...you've never voted for a 3rd party candidate for president. so, i'm not lying. thanks
Wild Cobra
06-20-2011, 06:52 PM
so...you've never voted for a 3rd party candidate for president. so, i'm not lying. thanks
I almost did twice, and have for other offices. Your statement wasn't exclusive to president anyway, and a fraudulent assumption of my character.
clambake
06-20-2011, 06:58 PM
My intent was to indicate I would vote for who ever runs against him.


Not true. there you go lying again. I vote for 3rd party candidates regularly. It's just democrats I very seldom vote for.


what 3rd party candidate for president got your vote?


None of them yet. I haven't been paying much attention. Too soon. I haven't picked a republican either. I just know I will not vote for Obama.


so...you've never voted for a 3rd party candidate for president. so, i'm not lying. thanks


I almost did twice, and have for other offices. Your statement wasn't exclusive to president anyway, and a fraudulent assumption of my character.

maybe you can follow this if you spit out your gum.
Blake
06-21-2011, 10:56 AM
maybe you can follow this if you spit out your gum.

still doubtful even without the gum
Wild Cobra
06-21-2011, 09:27 PM
maybe you can follow this if you spit out your gum.
Maybe you could follow it properly if you lost your negative prejudice against me.
ElNono
06-21-2011, 09:32 PM
Maybe you could follow it properly if you lost your negative prejudice against me.

What does this even mean? He posted the entire exchange. Do you still have problems following it?
Wild Cobra
06-21-2011, 10:32 PM
What does this even mean? He posted the entire exchange. Do you still have problems following it?
I followed it perfectly, but he didn't post the entire exchange.

I gave a general answer to a general question. When he changed the goalpost to meaning president, I changed the answer accordingly.

Why is that so hard for you to follow?


My intent was to indicate I would vote for who ever runs against him.


its not just him. you vote for the r period


Not true. there you go lying again. I vote for 3rd party candidates regularly. It's just democrats I very seldom vote for.
When he said "period" instead of specifying he meant president, I answered in general, not specific to presidential elections, but elections in general.

what 3rd party candidate for president got your vote?
Now he specify president. Changing the goalpost from a general statement to specific question.

None of them yet. I haven't been paying much attention. Too soon. I haven't picked a republican either. I just know I will not vote for Obama.


so...you've never voted for a 3rd party candidate for president. so, i'm not lying. thanks


I almost did twice, and have for other offices. Your statement wasn't exclusive to president anyway, and a fraudulent assumption of my character.
ElNono
06-21-2011, 10:37 PM
I don't need the subtitles. I understand the exchange was about voting for president. It's pretty clear from this statement:


My intent was to indicate I would vote for who ever runs against him.
Wild Cobra
06-21-2011, 10:45 PM
I don't need the subtitles. I understand the exchange was about voting for president. It's pretty clear from this statement:
Yes, but this is key:

its not just him. you vote for the r period its not just him. you vote for the r period
Who decides if the topic drifted to all votes, or just presidential votes. I was responding to all political votes in general. He wasn't specific, and i took advantage of that.

Haven't you learned my MO yet?

Gave me reason to call him a liar, which I probable wouldn't if he didn't actually make slanderous statements of me from time to time.
ElNono
06-21-2011, 11:15 PM
Moving goalposts? It's been clear for a while... :lol
Wild Cobra
06-21-2011, 11:16 PM
Moving goalposts? It's been clear for a while... :lol
But the room was clearly given to move it!

We all take advantage of situations at times.

He gave me a clear move option, but I didn't give him a clear move option.
ElNono
06-21-2011, 11:30 PM
No, you moved the goalposts and got defensive as soon as it was pointed out to you that you were talking out of your ass. Par the course, tbh.
Wild Cobra
06-21-2011, 11:35 PM
No, you moved the goalposts and got defensive as soon as it was pointed out to you that you were talking out of your ass. Par the course, tbh.
I'm always a jerk to clambake when given the opportunity. It had nothing to do with the content, but that the asshole gave me an opening.
DMX7
06-21-2011, 11:51 PM
The only thing TeaBaggers hate more than being called a racist is black people.
clambake
06-22-2011, 09:04 AM
one of the weakest men on the planet.
Wild Cobra
06-22-2011, 09:06 AM
The only thing TeaBaggers hate more than being called a racist is black people.
Can you support that contention with evidence?
Blake
06-22-2011, 10:29 AM
When he said "period" instead of specifying he meant president, I answered in general, not specific to presidential elections, but elections in general.

Now he specify president. Changing the goalpost from a general statement to specific question.

Most of us got that he implied president from the get-go.

It was blatantly obvious he specified 'president' in the next post to clarify the dialogue, not to 'change' the goal post.

The miscommunication has been cleared up and your point has now been made.......but you declaring victory, thanks in part to your sloppy communication skills, is out loud laughable.