Reply With Quote
neocons are essentially Cold War liberals, rewarmed.
WTF do you think the word Neocon means, anyway?
HAWK SPENDER
neocons are essentially Cold War liberals, rewarmed.
You Lie
I don't love the blue, but I really, really, really HATE THE RED and how they have ed up the country.
I don't care which party runs the country FOR THE PEOPLE, but both parties run the country for the 1% and UCA.
Fair enough.
And see, that was an actual answer, and a good one at that. If you'd just remove the overly dramatic, political, "you lie" type of bull that you insist on adding, you'd be taken more serious from all the people in here you are trying to "win over".
LOL celebrities. Maybe you should get your political commentary from somewhere other than US Weekly.
Firemen inherit messes too. They generally don't pour gasoline on them.
A call A LIE as I see it.
Indeed. I wouldn't give a bucket of warm spit for their preferences.
What gasoline has the supposedly all-powerful Obama with a gas can poured on what fires?
Syria seems to be working out well for him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19345629
When the UN authorized the Syria bombing and the US joined the coalition, I said I was ok with it as long there were no troops on the ground... you simply can't do effective nation building without a full blown invasion, that's why I don't consider a bombing run that.
But if they want to find an excuse to send troops...
The chem line has been drawn in the sand.When the UN authorized the Syria bombing and the US joined the coalition, I said I was ok with it as long there were no troops on the ground... you simply can't do effective nation building without a full blown invasion, that's why I don't consider a bombing run that.
But if they want to find an excuse to send troops...
Hopefully the weapons are visible and we don't need to wait for the translation of do ents, tbh
This just in: CIA confirms existence of "Stealth" chemical weapons!
lol @ boutons getting pissed off after being completely owned...again
I just laugh at Obama lovers and supporters that are delusional and think he is a great president and is nothing like Bush. That ignorance is fascinating, amusing, and comical in my opinion.
Russia and China drew theirs too. You're an idiot if you think you're going nation building in Syria without running into big trouble.
Saber rattling is all that will happen. When it comes down to it, they ain't that in bold. They'll back off Syria.
Since when?
I know, The Mirror and a totally anonymous source but someone's gotta be arming/training the FSA and foreign salafists, right?
R2P, per Sec'y Clinton . . .
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...tinger-1266487
I would rather vote for Romney in hopes there might be a change. We already know what the other guy did. No hope, no change, a huge failure mixed in with a ton, I mean a ton of lies, (broken promises for those die hard blue bloods like my brother, George) so I'm going for the only alternative. Our system of blue vs red will not change anytime soon.....keep knocking the current seat holder out until it does. If anyone has a better solution let me in on it. I refuse to vote for someone we know is a failure. God bless
I find it disturbing and not a little ominous.
Conor Friedersdorf echoes the thought in The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...licies/261399/Barack Obama did win in 2008 running on a platform more liberal than the one he has pursued in the interim. Perhaps he couldn't move any farther left on immigration or health care and stay viable. But on national security, executive power, and civil-liberties issues, he campaigned and won handily repudiating Bush-era policies, only to govern to the "right" of the Bush Administration.
There wasn't a political imperative to do so. And I'm tired of that truth being obscured.
If liberals are going express horror at the GOP agenda as they enthusiastically support Obama's reelection, it's time for them to own his policies and stop trying to blame them on George W. Bush, or intransigent Republicans, or the financial crisis, or corporate campaign donations, or the desire to compromise, or an electorate that wasn't ready for the allegedly "knighted" Obama.
Barack Obama wasn't pressured to be executioner-in-chief. He asserted himself asarbiter of which human beings to kill without trial, at times far from any battlefield, sometimes without even knowing their iden ies. He decided to limit congressional oversight and totally exclude the judiciary.
House Speaker John Boehner didn't define militants as all men of military age that American drones kill. The Obama Administration did that.
Voters didn't clamor for an unprecedented war on whistleblowers. The Obama Administration decided to wage it.
An intransigent Congress didn't force the Obama Administration to make frequent use of the state-secrets privilege, or to keep Bradley Manning in solitary confinement, or to keep secret the legal memo that outlines the theory behind his extrajudicial assassination of American citizens.
No one made Obama violate the War Powers Resolution in Libya.
The president wouldn't suffer politically if he ordered the CIA to stop firing on rescuers who rush to the scene of drone strikes, or instructed the NSA to stop spying on the communications of American citizens suspected of no wrongdoing, or stopped turning military equipment over to police.
The American public wasn't clamoring for the naked body scans and genital pat-downs at the airport.
If liberals like Auster think that President Obama is preferable to Mitt Romney, even given all his flaws, they've got a plausible argument. But when liberals who describe the right's transgressions against civil liberties during the Bush era as horrific -- a label that is absolutely justified -- and nevertheless describe Obama as man with "knighted" notions, think his major problem is political ineptness, talk of respect for him, and desperately want him to win, I can't understand it.
Is his manner so agreeable that his actions count for nothing?
If Mitt Romney is elected, I foresee a liberal establishment that suddenly rediscovers the problems with executive power, the alarming precedents being set in the War on Terrorism, and the legal arguments against various national security policies. Whereas if Obama wins a second term, I fully expect many liberals to keep on presuming that he is a well-intentioned man who must be doing the best he can on these issues (given Republican intransigence and political constraints).
It took conservatives until several years into George W. Bush's second term to see that their champion wasn't in fact doing as well as could be expected given the cir stances. Liberals have a chance to confront the excesses of the man they've empowered sooner. The facts are right there.
Seeing them is uncomfortable but vital.
Hopenchange!I would rather vote for Romney in hopes there might be a change.
The only thing Willard will ever change is his opinions on the campaign trail, tbh... Ron bless
These liberals just crack me up on their blind obedience and loyalty to Obama. Their loyalty and obedience is worse than the kind that Bush ever had. They come off like they're so paranoid and literally scared to death that if Romney becomes president, he's going to ban abortion and gay people in America. Really? Do you honestly think that will happen? Obama promised to close Gitmo. How'd that work out? Didn't Obama promise to have all the troops out of Iraq within the first two years of Iraq? How'd that work out?
It's false promises, dumbasses.
Won't be any change under Gecko. NatSec is a govt and nation unto itself
Who's Watching the N.S.A. Watchers?
IN March 2002, John M. Poindexter, a former national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan, sat down with Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the National Security Agency. Mr. Poindexter sketched out a new Pentagon program called Total Information Awareness, that proposed to scan the world's electronic information - including phone calls, e-mails and financial and travel records - looking for transactions associated with terrorist plots. The N.S.A., the government's chief eavesdropper, routinely collected and analyzed such signals, so Mr. Poindexter thought the agency was an obvious place to test his ideas.
He never had much of a chance. When T.I.A.'s existence became public, it was denounced as the height of post-9/11 excess and ridiculed for its creepy name. Mr. Poindexter's notorious role in the Iran-contra affair became a central focus of the debate. He resigned from government, and T.I.A. was dismantled in 2003.
But what Mr. Poindexter didn't know was that the N.S.A. was already pursuing its own version of the program, and on a scale that he had only imagined. A decade later, the legacy of T.I.A. is quietly thriving at the N.S.A. It is more pervasive than most people think, and it operates with little accountability or restraint.
The foundations of this surveillance apparatus were laid soon after 9/11, when President George W. Bush authorized the N.S.A. to monitor the communications records of Americans who analysts suspected had a "nexus to terrorism." Acting on dubious legal authority, and without warrants, the N.S.A. began intercepting huge amounts of information.
But the N.S.A. came up with more dead ends than viable leads and put a premium on collecting information rather than making sense of it. The N.S.A. created what one senior Bush administration official later described as a "mirror" of AT&T's databases, which allowed ready access to the personal communications moving over much of the country's telecom infrastructure. The N.S.A. fed its bounty into software that created a dizzying social-network diagram of interconnected points and lines. The agency's software geeks called it "the BAG," which stood for "big ass graph."
Today, this global surveillance system continues to grow. It now collects so much digital detritus - e-mails, calls, text messages, cellphone location data and a catalog of computer viruses - that the N.S.A. is building a 1-million-square-foot facility in the Utah desert to store and process it.
What's missing, however, is a reliable way of keeping track of who sees what, and who watches whom. After T.I.A. was officially shut down in 2003, the N.S.A. adopted many of Mr. Poindexter's ideas except for two: an application that would "anonymize" data, so that information could be linked to a person only through a court order; and a set of audit logs, which would keep track of whether innocent Americans' communications were getting caught in a digital net.
The N.S.A. sorely needs such restrictions now. Under current law, it isn't allowed to monitor the communications of an American citizen or permanent resident without a court order. But it can collect data if one party to a communication is believed to be outside the United States. Recently, the office of the director of national intelligence admitted that on at least one occasion, the procedures that shield citizens' and legal residents' private information from spying eyes had been deemed "unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment" by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees such monitoring.
Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, has questioned whether "backdoor" monitoring of citizens' communications is occurring. Intelligence officials told Mr. Wyden that they couldn't determine how many people inside the United States had their communications collected because checking the N.S.A.'s databases to find out would itself violate the privacy of those people. In other words, the protection of privacy rights is being invoked to cover up possible continuing violations of those same rights.
Why have we not seen the same level of public outrage as in 2003? Many Americans seem willing to give up their digital privacy if it means the government has a better chance of catching terrorists. Consider the revealing intelligence that millions of us give to Facebook - willingly. These days, we are more likely to be outraged by airport screening, and its public inconvenience and indignity, than by unseen monitoring.
Members of Congress rarely object because they don't want to be seen as obstructing legal surveillance. But whether this surveillance is legal, and verifiably so, is an open question, and depends upon a complex law that even most lawmakers don't understand. One can't easily mount an opposition to a confusing statute that governs a secretive process.
The law governing the N.S.A. can accommodate greater oversight, and if the agency thinks otherwise, it should be open to amending the law. Had the agency's leaders actually listened to everything Mr. Poindexter had to say, they might not find themselves telling the American people: "We're not spying on you. Trust us."
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=...ub=Contributor
OBL is laughing his ass off screwing all those virgins. He gave the USA a chance, an excuse to screw itself, and it did, and it can't stop. Bend over is all anyone can do.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
