Gitmo saved! by whozit

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

You are irrelevant and pathetic, nothing more. I would laugh at your ignorance and ugliness, but I feel more pity for you than anything else.

Oh, hey, you don't want to blame this on Olbermann? You're slipping...

And oops, you missed the REAL reason it's not being closed down, which was right there in your link:

Quote:
And Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who also supports shutting it, said the effort is “on life support and it’s unlikely to close any time soon.” He attributed the collapse to some fellow Republicans’ “demagoguery” and the administration’s poor planning and decision-making “paralysis.”

The administration has done its part, including identifying the Illinois prison — an empty maximum-security center in Thomson, 150 miles west of Chicago — where the detainees could be held. They blame Congress for failing to execute that endgame.

“The president can’t just wave a magic wand to say that Gitmo will be closed,” said a senior administration official.

The politics of closing the prison have clearly soured following the attempted bombings on a plane on Dec. 25 and in Times Square in May, as well as Republican criticism that imprisoning detainees in the United States would endanger Americans.

So it's not just the administration's fault, a REPUBLICAN politician points to the Republicans as well.

Ooops, you missed on that one.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 8:28 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

You underlined the wrong part of the sentence...

Quote:
the administration’s poor planning and decision-making “paralysis.”

Is what should have been the main focus.

Lindsay GrahAMNESTY never ceases to amaze, walking the right path on some issues, while being so far off into the wilderness on others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 8:37 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

No, I highlighted the parts that proved my point. The rest of the sentence I have no disagreement with, and was his initial point. But I fail to see it as the "main focus", given Obama WOULD close Gitmo if it were possible, I have no doubt.

He has Baghram, after all, if you want to get all nefarious about it, and Gitmo is a black eye. Yes, the administration hasn't focused enough on closing it, but I think they've had slightly more important things to focus on, and if the Repubs had been even slightly open to closing it, it would have been done by now.

The administration's fault has been in not pushing it more forcefully, but it's the Repub that are NECESSITATING their pushing and are the actual stumbling block to closing Gitmo. I know you RWAs need to blame Obama, in spite of any facts, or opinions of a REPUBLICAN on the matter, so there's no use further trying to put perspective into the discussion.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 9:28 AM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You are irrelevant and pathetic, nothing more. I would laugh at your ignorance and ugliness, but I feel more pity for you than anything else.

Oh, hey, you don't want to blame this on Olbermann? You're slipping...

And oops, you missed the REAL reason it's not being closed down, which was right there in your link:
Quote:
And Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who also supports shutting it, said the effort is “on life support and it’s unlikely to close any time soon.” He attributed the collapse to some fellow Republicans’ “demagoguery” and the administration’s poor planning and decision-making “paralysis.”

The administration has done its part, including identifying the Illinois prison — an empty maximum-security center in Thomson, 150 miles west of Chicago — where the detainees could be held. They blame Congress for failing to execute that endgame.

“The president can’t just wave a magic wand to say that Gitmo will be closed,” said a senior administration official.

The politics of closing the prison have clearly soured following the attempted bombings on a plane on Dec. 25 and in Times Square in May, as well as Republican criticism that imprisoning detainees in the United States would endanger Americans.
So it's not just the administration's fault, a REPUBLICAN politician points to the Republicans as well.

Ooops, you missed on that one.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

AHHAHAHAHAHA!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 11:08 AM

The whozit has a point, it's pretty pathetic

Here's what's more pathetic: no coverage of the war, lib media still masturbating at a democratic victory. No peace protests, lefty public still blind to wrongdoings of a dem gov.

I recall back in late 1990s Steven Colbert referring to Clinton as "eight years of peace." alas, this was not an isolated incident of stupidity, it's a widespread democratic delusion "we don't want democrats to be seen as warlike, so we will ignore it when they kill people." Or planets.

Thing is, it wasn't always like this. When the left elected LBJ and then he stayed in Vietnam, the left was furious.

What happened to the whole caring thing? Oh, the dems moved to sucking on the blue pacifier. Yep, everythings okay here, nothing to see.

Honestly, the republican party is no better, but at least during the Bush years there was some right wing dissent. Now that the blue team has the ball, there are some indecent free associating groups protesting the wrong doing of the administration and their DOH! Right wing again. If I were the left at this point, I'd be a little ashamed

Here's a couple things that irk me about Obama right now

1) the gulf oil spill. There's been no change and BP is on the job. Seriously, WTF? IMHO, china house rules is one of the worst ideas ever. Don't let the people who broke it, fix it. Don't let them anywhere near it, and certainly don't sit there and ask them to fix, beg and plead and wait for them to fix it on their time with their stunning level of competence which broke it in the first place. Just get your ass down their and fix it. Kick out BP, send in some engineers and plug the damn hole.

2) the war. I mean the whole staged thing with mcchrystal, sending in Petraeus, to "win the hearts and minds" of the people with "more ordinance."

Okay, seriously, how many lib gullibles have passed on this hearts and minds garbage to me verbatim, forgetting how they ridiculed it when bush said the exact same thing. Also, ordinance are bombs, more ordinance is more bombs. I don't think that's how you win the hearts and minds unless your in the organ business.

3) parrot act. Patriot act, but parrot act is a good name. More totalitarian state. Surveillance society is on the rise.

4) globalism still out of control.

5) Obama has not only kept torture, he has upped it with assassination. Official now. Assassination is no longer a black op, it's okay to assassinate Americans who run websites that criticize the administration, which is to say that's what obama is doing right now.

6) the healthcare bill. There really wasn't one. It was the you must buy health insurance law. That's not universal healthcare, that's a meaningless tax on the poor.

7) bailouts and spending and good god look at the debt. I have to say that Cameron's death to the debt program is not going to be that popular with everyone, but I have to salute the measure. What I wonder is, at this point, would it even be possible for the US?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 12:56 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Honestly, the republican party is no better, but at least during the Bush years there was some right wing dissent.

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

Oh yeah - there was LOTS of right-wing dissent. Just... y'know... not, like... OUT LOUD, or anything.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 7:34 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I recall back in late 1990s Steven Colbert referring to Clinton as "eight years of peace." alas, this was not an isolated incident of stupidity, it's a widespread democratic delusion "we don't want democrats to be seen as warlike, so we will ignore it when they kill people."

Clinton-Rockefeller and Gore bombed Iraq every day for 8 years, and genocided 500,000 Iraqi kids, according to jew Mad Albright.

Barry is CIA so of course he'll keep the torture chambers full at Gitmo and 100s of other death camps.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 8:22 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Gitmo's been a real painful festering wound of crushed hopes and promises for the Left to endure. How could their blessed Obama fail to deliver on that so-proclaimed slam-dunk George Soros item? I suppose Liberals live with themselves by just knowing that when Bush was President, there were packs of frothing rabies-infected Dobermanns around damaging the poor terrorists' calm at every turn; but now Obama gives them each a friendship gift package consisting of a condom, a golden Koran with PageBright attached, one 5-stick pack of S.O.A. Martyr Gum, a pre-paid ACLU Membership Card, and an 8 x 10 glossy of he and Michelle holding hands strolling through the crime-ravashed neighborhoods of Chicago where he once did a lot of organizing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2010 3:01 AM

Mike

What planet were you on? Planet clinton-was-a-good-guy? The blindness of dems never ceases to amaze me. It's part of why I can't support them. Almost all the resistance I heard to the bush agenda came from the right. You had like a couple of dems who actually knew what was wrong, like Dennis kucinnich and Russ feingold. Most of the dems criticized bush by saying "the war, he's doing it wrong, he should have more troops there, and more bombs, and we should be attacking more civilians, and more countries." yes, I heard all of those things from kerry and murtha and pelosi, Reid, Clinton, even Obama, basically everyone who had any sway on the left. Ditto for the patriot act and homeland security the war on drugs, the war on terror, etc.

How about the Ron Paul revolution? You know why college students were becoming republicans and protestinng from the right?

Because the left wasnt offering real opposition to bush.Polls consistently showed 1/3 of the right was mad as hell at bush for the *right* reasons: the war, the deficit, civil liberties, globalism, the environment, war on drugs, and sure, a couple things I don't personally support like border patrol (an issue that bush created for people to get upset over, instead of the issues at hand, I'm sure john and frem have a name for this tactic.)

Anyway, flash forward to the nearly identical Obama admin, and where's the outrage from the left? Sure, democrats opposed bush, but they did it because he was republican, the same thing the GOP is doing now with Obama. Everyone does this all the time, they get no credit for it, on either side. You only get credit for opposing your own guy, or opposing the opposition for something unusual, something that your own side supports. Likewise, you get no credit for "he's executing the war all wrong."

It's not mainstream to protest the NWO, the FED, stuff that neither party opposes, so when people do it, they represent real opposition. I really don't see a lot of opposition coming from the left. Remember the 60s? I think today's radicals may be the tea party. Sure, the tea party standard might be Wulfie, no offense man, but if you went back to the 60s you'd find most of those people to be just there to toke up and chase tail. If 90% of the population are sheep you have to expect that.

And sure, I'll readily give you match McConnell and bill Frist and all those lapdogs, but there were a fair number of republicans even in congress who gave bush hell for rendition, domestic surveillance, homeland security, bushs heathcare bill which everyone has conveniently forgotten about, which I also opposed, the spending , the war, etc. Are we getting this kind of resistance from inside the democratic congress? IIRC, Obama just went ahead with extraordinary rendition, ie, outsourcing torture, adding a policy of assassination, even of american citizens, a fairly major extension of extreme executive power, and are democrats calling for his head?

Hell... In the bush years even John McCain, who's a pretty loyal republican, maverick or no (yeah, been roped in now) gave bush hell over some of these things.

Give me time and I'll give the right for being asleep on the job about attacking the opposition, I don't want to hear any more about birth certificates, another ringer issue, I'd like to see a little more about our new debt. I had to dig through many anti-bush deficit pages to find this, a sign that the dems were more busy attacking bush, and the reps should get on the job attacking what's really wrong with Obama, which is not that his father was a Kenyan, that he's a secret Muslim who loves Mexican food, anyway, here it is:

The war bonds, WWII debt, never paid, thanks to FDR: $2 trillion
Clinton debt: + $1 trillion = 3
Bush debt: + $4 trillion = 7
Bailout ( bush+Obama) = 1 trillion spent (500 B waiting to be spent) = 8
Obama debt: + $5 trillion (18 months in) = 13
Congressional debt ceiling raised to 14 trillion, so one trillion left of deficit spending until they raise it again next year.

Next year the deficit is projected to pass 100% of GDP.

Just saying the right is alseep on the job if they're attacking obama's birth certificate and not this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:10 AM

CHRISISALL

This is silly. Bush said, "Invade Iraq!", and we did. Obama says "Close Gitmo!", and it doesn't happen.
That seem right to you?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2010 8:37 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
lib media still masturbating at a democratic victory

We must be watching different “lib” media—what I hear constantly is what trouble the Dems are going to be in at the midterms. I’m not even sure what “victory” you are referring to, as I haven’t seen any lately.

We must be living in a different world, too, given

Quote:
widespread democratic delusion "we don't want democrats to be seen as warlike, so we will ignore it when they kill people."

I seem to remember a LOT of protests about the Iraq war, the Vietnam war, and so forth.

Quote:
during the Bush years there was some right wing dissent

WHERE? WHEN? I’d LOVE to have seen it, but where was the uproar over the Patriot Act, Iraq, Afghanistan, ANYTHING Dumbya did??

I happen to agree with #1. But #2, are you joking?? McChrystal was WELL KNOWN for working with the Afghans, being respected by them, etc. How does Petraeus get sent in to do that?? If that’s what he’s supposed to be doing, it’s merely CONTINUING the policy McChrystal started..??

Darth instituted the Patriot Act. It’s 100% wrong that Obama hasn’t done away with it, but if you think surveillance society is just NOW “on the rise”, you’re deluding yourself and have had your head in the sand for eight years!

The rest is pure bullshit reflecting a partisan jihad and need to blame “libs” for everything, again ignoring the fact that liberals are individuals. Not worth reading, much less responding to.

Quote:
Almost all the resistance I heard to the bush agenda came from the right

Wow, how quickly history is changed. DEMS were the ones saying “more guns, more troops”, etc.? Damn, Dumbya’s right, he CAN change history just by repeating lies and getting his cronies to do the same. What an amazing country!

You guys truly blow me away. You represent so perfectly the RWA attitude, it’s disheartening. Despite ALL the things you’ve heard from the “left” here, you continue to make weird assumptions and outright falsehoods about “libs”, etc.

ou’ve heard us bitch and moan, diss Obama and his choices and actions over and over and over...yet you stick by your generalizations, and have no trouble finding rationalizations and falsehoods to back them up. Truly weird!

Quote:
It's not mainstream to protest the NWO, the FED, stuff that neither party opposes

Are you friggin’ KIDDING??? Don’t you hear one “party” decrying both virtually every day, saying “do away with the Fed” constantly? The Tea Party consider themselves best aligned with Republicans; most Conservatives are Republicans, and you don’t hear them crying “WHO!!!” and “do away with the Fed”??? Wow.

I’ve heard them go after CLINTON rendition, but never Dumbya’s. GOP threatens to investigate Clinton-era rendition. As to the Republicans: “Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era” (2009), “Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will question Mr. Panetta, chief of staff for President Clinton from 1994 to 1997, about what, if any, role he played in shaping the policy known as "extraordinary rendition," . As to Bush using it, however, I didn’t hear a peep until late in his Presidency. Rather, I heard “Partisan divisions were evident in the study. For instance, while 72% of self-identified Democrats opposed extraordinary rendition, only 54% of Republicans disagreed with the Bush administration practice of transferring detainees for interrogation purposes to countries where they might face torture.. Additionally, only 50% of Republicans thought it was wrong to threaten terrorism detainees with torture, while 67% of Democrats opposed the practice.” (2006); “the term "rendition" in the counterterrorism context means nothing more than moving someone from one country to another, outside the formal process of extradition. For the CIA, rendition has become a key tool for getting terrorists from places where they're causing trouble to places where they can't” (2007).

I’m damned if I can find anything about Republicans protesting rendition under Dumbya until the last couple of years, but there’s lots out there about them “investigating” Clinton rendition and repeatedly noting it started under Clinton (but not mentioning it rose humongously under Dumbya, and was coupled with torture).

Most everyone hates rendition, especially when coupled with torture, NOW. But during Dumbya’s administration, until the very end at least? I didn’t hear the Republicans squawking.

This is all crazy; it’s revisionist history. If Democratic POLITICIANS are defending Obama, that’s their job, that’s why the party got them elected, doesn’t mean they represent the rest of us. But spewing “dems” and “libs” around as if everyone who’s a dem or a lib is unanimously adoring of Obama is so far beyond disingenuous as to be disgusting.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2010 9:14 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2010 9:42 AM

Fine.

DT, Niki has a point in that none of the democrat political leaders are the same thing as the liberal constituency, in fact most of the dem politicians are the same thing as the neocons.

heh, damn politicians and new-cons.

Anyway.

Niki, DT is not a Republican or a RWA, although he is a little confused about who to blame about things. He sees socialists, you see fascists. Actually, they're both.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2010 10:01 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I don't think I see fascists. I'm sick of "you libs" and "you dems" generalities which don't state what I, as a liberal and previously a democrat, believe in or think. That is my main argument...that what the MSM and either party POLITICIANS say doesn't reflect all of us of either party or idology, yet it seems much more numerous that the RWAs here are quick to say "you ___" with whatever they complain about, and make nasty cracks to go along with the "you ___".

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see nearly as many nasty "you Republicans" or "you right-wingers" or "you conservatives" from the other side.

But yes, it IS the "who to blame" thing that pisses me off, in that Obama is to blame for EVERYTHING, whether he does it or not, whatever he DOES do, and we're all supposedly sycophants, adore him, make him our "god", and on and on. I'm just sick of it, is all, it's not important either way. I guess just venting frustration, if you will.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2010 10:45 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
...
given Obama WOULD close Gitmo if it were possible

But Barry PROMISED to close Gitmo, by the end of his first year!

He's The One! He even said as much himself ! Or, his teleprompter told him to day that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2010 11:20 AM

All right then. Instead of the usual "right wing people are fascists" argument, you use a "right wing people are authoritarian" argument.

Please tell me how yours is any better than the other one. Hell, in the common vernacular, people confuse the two. And tell me how that's any different from right wing people demonizing you as "libs" or "socialists."

Yea, you had a book, you can probably prove that there's a RWA mentality, which makes it easy for you to label anyone who disagrees with you RWA. Right wing people also have written many books about how all liberals are socialists. That doesn't necessarily make either statement true.

But, another ball-through-the-net-swish-score for you, the comments/competition about "which side thinks for themselves the most" is generally pointless. And ironic. Very ironic.

You certainly have been outspoken against Obama, as has Kwicko and most of the other strongly left-aligned folks who visit the board.

I wasn't around during the time when Bush was in office. But I'm seeing the right wing willingly overlooking the disputes you have with Obama to push your buttons, manipulating you into defending your side (and therefore Obama) with "but Bush!"

The thing is, from this, I suspect during the Bush years, the left wing people on this board looked at the right wing, and saw them as a unified front, and that the people on the left overlooked objections people on the right might have, pushing their buttons and manipulating them into defending their side (and therefore Bush) with "but Clinton!"

Am I mistaken? I suspect I'm not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2010 12:32 PM

Byte,

Yes, I know. Actually it was addressed at mike, who should know better, IMHO. Mikesd traditionally a middle of the roarer like me, and lately I think he's been listening to too much from the left, which causes ones view of reality to become tinted due to the filter. Currently he's seeing things through a blue lens. He'll get over it, I was just giving him a shove back towards center.

Chris

Your analysis seems to indicate that bush actually does what he says and Obama doesn't, but since I generally don't care for wha they say, that would favor Obama, but since I like what they do even less, it might favor bush.actually, I find the depressingly similar. Bush put all his resources into attack Iraq, Obama into attacking Afghanistan. They both spent us into a world of debt, and massively curtailed civil rights in the process. Ah well, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I think its been pretty much 18 months, since Obama actually started in as acting president right after the election. At the moment, as it stands, Iam finally forming my opinion on Obama. As much as it surprise me to be saying it, whozit made the most convincing arguments. There are precious few changes, and those that there are, while I can believe them, I cannot believe *in* them. The man is somewhat reminiscent of Nixon. With any luck he'll pass a few decent environmental reforms and a telecommunication anti monopoly bill. Currently I'm trying to figure out if he just passed the next Federal Reserve Act. Meanwhile, his inherited Vietnam is dragging on, as is his toxic spill. I'm envisioning how Obama might say:

I am not...
A crook.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking the eighteen month thing works pretty well. What do you think of shortening the cycle to two years, voting in a compressed six week election cycle like the Brits, so start the campaign Semptember. We have primaries, so another six weeks, run those starting in early august, four term limit?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2010 6:54 PM

And you, DT, are seeing things through a red one.
No one is immune to bias, and sometimes you do let yours run off with you.

Oh, and Byte - initially the NeoCons *were* democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoop_Jackson#Influence_on_neoconservatis
m
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html

Ain't about party with them fuckers, it's about power, always was and always will be.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2010 2:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
'during the Bush years there was some right wing dissent'
WHERE? WHEN? I’d LOVE to have seen it, but where was the uproar over the Patriot Act, Iraq, Afghanistan, ANYTHING Dumbya did??

Google 'republicans oppose Iraq war' or 'republicans oppose patriot act'. You'll find plenty.

Edit to add: Also try 'democrats oppose Guantanamo'.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2010 4:52 AM

Frem

I'm just providing the counterpoint to the position. I offered bush a ton of opposition on this very board, and the dems were very big with the hate, and yeah, I can see their point on a lot of issues. But it irks me that they have, if you'll pardon the image, stuffed their mouth with donkey cock so full that they cannot attack or even question their own guy for the EXACT SAME POLICIES.

At the moment, the Ron Paul corner of the right appears to me to be offering stronger resistance to TPTB than the Dennis Kucnnich portion of the left. If that creates the impression of a red tint, than my apologies, but you can see where one migt get that idea.

Truth to tell I'm fed up at the GOP for a number of reasons, but they're not in power. I have a set of positions I favor overall which come from a wide swath of the political spectrum. I'd agree with the democrats on gay marriage and immigration, but this seems like relative small talk compared to the larger question.

I voted for Cynthia McKinney last election for basically one reason: she gets it. I voted in favor of supporting her many lunatic rants because whether or not shes right in each case, the line of inquiry is correct: TPTB are subverting the entire dialogue. I'm aware that shes a far left candidate. It's definitely more important to have NWO out than to have politicians who support my particular beliefs.

So, yes, there are shadow operatives on the right, and right now theyre trying to take ove rhte tea party and steer it back to the GOP so it doesnt become a third party, split the vote, and reelect obama. I mention this from time to time. I can see that they are there.

And sure, mike has some left learning views, its not really my business what mike believes. But a fair number of people on the left have allowed themselves to be blind to NWO manipulations on the left because they cannot see evil when it's wearing blue.

That was my point.

At the moment, the president is killing people who disagree with him. Just thought it was worthy of note.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2010 6:53 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I don't think I've used any "argument". What you're seeing me do is refer to the RWAs HERE, and Republicans and Conservatives out THERE by those names. The people here I see VERY often reflecting the mentality I read in that book, so it's a way for me to speak of them specifically, not Repubs or Conservatives or "right-wing"--when I use those words, I mean them; when I use RWA, it's in response to something posted by someone here. And in that, I maintain that they DO reflect that attitude, almost verbatum.

That's quite a bit different from someone using libs and dems and socialists or fascists or something...those words have generic meaning, as do all the above except RWA. If someone shows me a book which nails the thinking of those more on the left here and gives me a name for it, I'll call it that when I see it. Meanwhile, I see an amazing blindness to the fact that NOBODY HERE is totally pro-Obama, yet we get slammed over and over for adoring him, his being our “Messiah”, and on and on infinitum. Ergo my choice of wording. I could also quote passages from that book which describe precisely the mentality when I refer to an RWA comment, but nobody’s interested in that I’m sure. It’s a verbiage I have chosen to delineate between the actions/mentality of politicians and the words/mentality of some of the people here, when I see it.

We can all choose to refer to each other any way we want; I tend to think mine is less irrational because I’ve found something which fits so precisely and because I recognize that calling people names the way it’s done to me is a generalization that is not apt. That’s my decision. I’m not trying to “score” anything, I’m trying to communicate more clearly. I shoot for perspective, if anything, and some semblance of reality—AS I SEE IT. I’m well aware that my view is my own, and necessarily subjective, and that it goes against a lot of those here. But when I see them aggressively generalizing or reflecting what I believe is RWA mentality in another way, I call it that.

I cannot speak to what went on here before, nor am I responsible for it. That’s one reason I used to defend certain people and say I try to only take people as I see them; over time, I’ve come to agree about certain people, but it’s because of MY experience of them. Ditto the past of this board. I can’t speak to it, only to my person experience of the Bush Administration. Per that; yes, Republicans CAME TO disagree with Bush, but that took years, and until then they defended him staunchly.

Bearing in mind that we were a frightened, angry country, AND were sold a bill of goods as far as invading Iraq, it’s not surprising that both sides backed Dumbya at the time; however, the opposition before we went in and from that day forward was vastly on the Dem side; backing of the invasion was vastly on the Repub side.

Regarding your suggestion, I could find little showing that Republicans opposed Dumbya or his actions prior to 2005, into his second term.

Even by 2002, BEFORE the invasion, Democrats were against it.

Quote:
Leaders of the Washington State Democratic Party have voted unanimously to condemn a unilateral attack on Iraq or a war to force a regime change in that country without congressional approval.

It wasn’t until the war had raged for years before Republicans began to pull their support. I can’t find much before 2007, and even THEN the divide was strongly on the Dem side. All this is from:2007:

Quote:
Conservative Kansas, the place that gave Bush back to back landslide majorities - is turning against the Iraq war. Kansas Democrats are quicker to oppose Bush, but growing numbers of Kansas Republicans also are rejecting his plan.

Quote:
Perhaps even more important, a majority of 52 percent of self-described Republicans say the war is going at least "somewhat" badly – a whopping 16 percent increase from mid-April

Republicans and Democrats see the conflict much differently, according to the poll. More than 90 percent of Democrats oppose the war, compared to 24 percent of Republicans. In contrast, four years ago, 55 percent of Democrats and 91 percent of Republicans supported the war. That partisan divide stands in stark contrast to the nation's last bitterly divisive war, a generation ago in Vietnam. In 1971, when public opposition to the war in Vietnam was about the same as today's opposition to the Iraq war, both Democrats and Republicans opposed the conflict in nearly equal percentages.

Quote:
A dozen Republicans arrived in the House chamber on Wednesday to set aside their party allegiances and lend their names to a resolution intended to rebuke President Bush for his Iraq policy. For a time on Wednesday, an unusual scene played out on the House floor, with some Republicans coming forward one by one to speak against the Iraq policy while fellow party members argued against them.

The same holds true, and more, for the Patriot Act.

As to the Patriot Act, opposition from Republicans came even later, and in 2005:

Quote:

(numbers are Dems, Repubs, Independents)
Extending Patriot Act? 43% 80% 54%
Expanding record searches 17 42 32
Copying outside of U.S. Mail 36 60 37
There are similar ideological divisions on extending and expanding the Patriot Act, with conservatives most likely to support continuing and augmenting the law.

Quote:
Forty-four Democrats joined 207 Republicans in voting to renew key provisions of the act, with some modifications, for four years. Eighteen Republicans, 155 Democrats and one independent voted against it.

As to opposing the closing of Gitmo, if you google you’ll find that even now, almost half Americans OPPOSE closing it, so trying to do so is an uphill battle for Obama.

As to “the president is killing people who disagree with him”, that’s just plain nuts.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2010 7:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
'during the Bush years there was some right wing dissent'
WHERE? WHEN? I’d LOVE to have seen it, but where was the uproar over the Patriot Act, Iraq, Afghanistan, ANYTHING Dumbya did??

Google 'republicans oppose Iraq war' or 'republicans oppose patriot act'. You'll find plenty.

Edit to add: Also try 'democrats oppose Guantanamo'.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Anyone got a list of which Senators voted against the Patriot Act, either in 2001 or in 2006?

Oh. Here it is.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

Not seeing a whole lot of opposition there from the Republicans in the Senate. Or in the House, for that matter, where a total of THREE of 214 Republicans voted against it in the House, and none in the Senate. So that great opposition y'all speak of amounts to somewhat less than 1.5% of your party.

"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2010 7:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

At the moment, the president is killing people who disagree with him. Just thought it was worthy of note.

The notable part of it being its sheer insanity.

PN is still here, still alive. As are you, DT. As am I. All of us have disagreed with this President at various times, to varying degrees, and yet here we still all are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2010 12:02 PM

Is Obama still using Blackwater, and various seedy affiliate groups under different names for "security?"

Quote:
What the United Nations independent investigator on extrajudicial killings would like is for countries that employ surprise drone attacks to first prove they have attempted to capture or incapacitate suspects. The investigator, Philip Alston, issued a 29-page report Wednesday that the New York Times termed "Highly Critical" of such attacks by the U.S. and, says the Associated Press, "called on countries to lay out rules and safeguards for carrying out the strikes." By going after terrorist networks, Alston warned, the U.S. example "could quickly lead to a situation in which dozens of countries carry out 'competing drone attacks' outside their borders against people 'labeled as terrorists by one group or another,'" Charlie Savage reported for the Times. "I'm particularly concerned that the United States seems oblivious to this fact when it asserts an ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe," Alston is quoted as saying. "This expansive and open-ended interpretation of the right to self-defense goes a long way towards destroying the prohibition on the use of armed force contained in the U.N. Charter," Alston pointed out.

Quote:
The CIA's key role in carrying out what academic critics call international crime, raises troubling questions about who actually is running the United States of America. It should be recalled that Obama---who was employed after graduating Columbia University as a business writer for CIA-front Business International Corp.---wrote a letter to the CIA on April 16, 2009, that stated, "It is a core American value that we are a Nation of laws, and the CIA protects and upholds that principle under extraordinarily difficult circumstances every day." "Laws?" When Obama has declined to prosecute CIA thugs for torture (in violation of U.S. law), officials who obstructed justice by destroying taped recordings of torture sessions! By contrast, Pentagon jailers accused of torturing in the Middle East have been tried and convicted. Bluntly, CIA officials appear to be above the law. The bottom line today is that CIA officials seated at computers in Langley, Va., can decide who lives or dies most anywhere on the planet without regard for international law or fear of prosecution from Obama's Justice Department. And we have a president formerly employed by the CIA who is empowering its crimes, including assassination, which Webster's defines as "to kill suddenly or secretively, especially to murder a politically prominent person."

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/sherwood-ross/29279/usa-acronym-fo
r-united-states-of-assassinations

I mean, those are all kind of assassination, and I remember hearing people mention in passing something about assassination of American dissenters or something. The people making the claims would have to elaborate.

But I would say that Obama's hands are pretty bloody a year and a half in.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2010 12:08 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"PN is still here, still alive. As are you, DT. As am I. All of us have disagreed with this President at various times, to varying degrees, and yet here we still all are."

Besides when its the your boy in charge it isn't horrible, right, you hypocrite?

Btw, Gitmo is still open cus Bama has yet to raise his pinky and turn it into Grape Kool-Aid.

Hasn't stopped the progs from having millions of gallons to drink tho.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2010 12:09 PM

Mike

I was referring to the assassinations program. The thing is, I don't think Obama is a monster, he just doesn't seem to want to scale back his powers, those that used to bushs. Those bush created. I'm just settling into my 18mos evaluation, which is essentially: meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

On the subject of the patriot act, ALL of the senate with the exception of mr. Feingold voted for the patriot act, without reading it, to their eternal shame. Some cred goes to the guys who, after the fact changed their minds, opposed it, and won some concessions. Largely these people were republicans opposing a republican admin, a republican congress, in both houses, who were supporting a republican bill. That's not a comfy position to be in. Craig, sununu, specter, et co. Hats off to them, they saved a few of our freedoms from the fire.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2010 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike

I was referring to the assassinations program. The thing is, I don't think Obama is a monster, he just doesn't seem to want to scale back his powers, those that used to bushs. Those bush created. I'm just settling into my 18mos evaluation, which is essentially: meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

On the subject of the patriot act, ALL of the senate with the exception of mr. Feingold voted for the patriot act, without reading it, to their eternal shame. Some cred goes to the guys who, after the fact changed their minds, opposed it, and won some concessions. Largely these people were republicans opposing a republican admin, a republican congress, in both houses, who were supporting a republican bill. That's not a comfy position to be in. Craig, sununu, specter, et co. Hats off to them, they saved a few of our freedoms from the fire.

Both times the Patriot Act has come up (first for passage, then in 2006 for renewal), the ONLY Senate votes against it came from the Democrats and Independents. Not one single Republican ever voted against it in the Senate. Spare me your "all the opposition came from the right" spiel, because that truly is some partisan crap your selling. I ain't buying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2010 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"PN is still here, still alive. As are you, DT. As am I. All of us have disagreed with this President at various times, to varying degrees, and yet here we still all are."

Besides when its the your boy in charge it isn't horrible, right, you hypocrite?

Btw, Gitmo is still open cus Bama has yet to raise his pinky and turn it into Grape Kool-Aid.

Hasn't stopped the progs from having millions of gallons to drink tho.

Care to try that again, in English?

I've been pretty clear on my opposition to Gitmo, the CIA assassination programs, torture, the wars, and more. Sorry you missed it, but hell, you missed the entire eight years of the Bush administration (you were "asleep", I believe is how you put it). Hell, if Gitmo doesn't bother me as much as you'd like it to, it's probably because I've seen beyond the lip service to what this administration is REALLY saying and doing, and it makes my blood boil. Last I heard, they're now saying that they want to shut Gitmo down and move that whole operation to Bagram, thus MISSING THE FUCKING POINT ENTIRELY. In other words, they don't want to stop torturing people; they don't want to stop indefinitely detaining people (with no evidence, no charges, and no representation); they just want to change where they're doing it to them.

The funny thing is, you think McCain would have done something different. And you never voiced even the slightest displeasure when it was "your boy" Bush doing this shit. THAT is the true measure of hypocrisy, kid, and it's all yours.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2010 1:39 PM

Quote:
The thing is, I don't think Obama is a monster, he just doesn't seem to want to scale back his powers, those that used to bushs. Those bush created. I'm just settling into my 18mos evaluation, which is essentially: meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

That sounds very like a monster to me.

I find Obama disappointing, sometimes deeply disappointing. But there's never been a second where I said, "Gosh, I wish I'd voted for McCain." And it wasn't like there was a third choice...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2010 1:49 PM

Dream ?

Quote:
I offered bush a ton of opposition on this very board, and the dems were very big with the hate, and yeah, I can see their point on a lot of issues. But it irks me that they have, if you'll pardon the image, stuffed their mouth with donkey cock so full that they cannot attack or even question their own guy for the EXACT SAME POLICIES.

I call bullshit - there's a difference between "hate" and being seriously pissed off about some completely monstrous policies, or did you not notice we have a "Department of Homeland Security", a regular fucking KGB, cause that is what KGB means in english, thanks to that asshole and his jackboots ?

And no, the dems woulda never done it, well, not that way, but sure they're happy to have that fall right into their hands along with that 15% "electronic advantage" on election day, and be damned if they'll dismantle it, but don't be calling it hate when folks told you this'd be the result - and really is it so wrong to hate a policy that is in itself, inhumane and hateful ?

And don't even get me started, to use your own provocative phrasing, your own mouth is so full of elephant cock you can't seem to pry your eyes open to see reality, chug chug - most of the Dem leanin folk on this board are PISSED and they're gettin angrier, but that takes more time, they're not ignorant, obedient, push button drones like the red lever pullers and so more inclined to rationalize or appeal to reason before acting, which is a damned good thing, cause here's the deal, dude...

So you drop shot Obama/Biden - and then wind up with ANOTHER incompetent/evil ticket from the republicans like BushJr/Cheney...

AND. THEN. WHAT ?

At that point, I'd be lookin for an exit route from this *country*, dude, and you know why, not that it'd matter when they blow out the fuckin biosphere into a radioactive hell rather than hand that power back.

Didn't this mess in Afganistan, in Iraq, show you the cursed STUPIDITY of charging in without an exit plan ?

And then there's this - Obama might be just another chunk of the chicago political machine, a hell of a lot less competent, and not so very inclined to undo the abuses, especially when his own party can make use of em while laying mosta the blame on the GOP, sure...

But YOUR answer to it is to throw the issue of solving it back on the FOLKS WHO COMMITTED THOSE ABUSES IN THE FIRST PLACE ?

Dude, what are you fuckin smoking?

And don't - DO. NOT. - play that shove the goalposts shit with me, pretending oh-god-oh-no like we're sliding off the left end of the political table when you know damn well Obama is centrist-moderate-conservative, and only LOOKS a bit liberal cause he talks a good game to them and happens to not be a totally fuckin insane rightwingnut jackboot - you just wanna move the starting point closer to your "side" to cheat an extra length, so don't bullshit me, ok, stick with what you know.

Sorry to be so brutal about it, but you did kinda need that kick in the head considerin the ONLY option your offering is handing us on a plate right back to the fuckers who DID the damage, cause you're mad at the weasel who's captializing on it.

That. is. insane.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2010 2:47 PM

I wish I'd voted for neither, but this was back when I still believed voting could make a difference.

Wonder what else it has two of... Hey, if we want to talk fellatio, we're deepthroating the entire broken system, all of us. Pointing fingers isn't gonna help, we need to either spit out or bite down, or we're going to choke.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:20 AM

Ah, the imperial aquila from WH40K, how ironically appropriate.

Hey, I'm all for spittin - right in their damn eye besides, but too many fools think it would magically get all better if only THEIR side was in charge, which is bullshit, but it's comforting bullshit, and doesn't require the drones to DO anything but pull the other lever, back and forth, round and round...

But try tellin em that it ain't gotta be that way and see what it gets you.

-Crazy Eddie.
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ah, the imperial aquila from WH40K, how ironically appropriate.

Hey, I'm all for spittin - right in their damn eye besides, but too many fools think it would magically get all better if only THEIR side was in charge, which is bullshit, but it's comforting bullshit, and doesn't require the drones to DO anything but pull the other level, back and forth, round and round...

But try tellin em that it ain't gotta be that way and see what it gets you.

-Crazy Eddie.
I do not serve the Blind God.

Hell, my "side" *IS* in charge, and things didn't magically get better overnight.

'Course, I wasn't fool enough to think they would, any more than I was fool enough to think they'd give back all the dictatorial powers the previous regime granted unto itself, which is WHY I argued against giving them those powers in the first place. But I was *assured* that nobody would ever misuse such power, because America is simply not capable of wrongdoing...

People, generally speaking, aren't politically bright enough to realize that you don't do a 180-degree turn on a dime when it comes to steering the ship of state. You change direction slowly, and by degrees, and you HOPE you can steer clear of the rocks.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Both times the Patriot Act has come up (first for passage, then in 2006 for renewal), the ONLY Senate votes against it came from the Democrats and Independents. Not one single Republican ever voted against it in the Senate. Spare me your "all the opposition came from the right" spiel, because that truly is some partisan crap your selling. I ain't buying.

I'll also point out that the ONLY opposition to the Iraq war came from Dems, as did the support for closing Gitmo.

Rethugs line up in such a complete daisy-chain of butt-fucking it could stretch unbroken across the country. But many Democrats DO break free to point out the kool-aid.

The reality is, if you want to make a change, you gotta identify who's REALLY on "your side", and not dismiss or accept them whole-cloth under a party banner. While I NEVER support the Democratic Party... never give it money... I DO support many Democrats. And I suspect that most left-leaning peeps here do the same. Because we're not interested in lining up en brochette.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 10:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Because we're not interested in lining up en brochette

I like that, Sig! I do believe Dems are more independent-thinking than Repubs. If that wasn't so, why would "like herding cats" be such an old saw when it comes to Dems? You don't hear it about Repubs.

And you DO hear how Repubs almost always present such a solid front, are more effective in getting their agenda through because they tolerate no dissent, etc.

"Old saws" become old saws because there is truth in them.

Unfortunately, both sides are in the process of narrowing their "tents"--admittedly begun by the Repubs/Tea Partiers, but the Damns are doing it now, too. Does NOT make for good government (such as it is...)

By the way, why bother trying to get an RWA to recognize that a) we libs/dems/whatever have arguments with Obama or b) that the only alternatives was a worse one? Something about hitting your head on a wall...

I do, by the way, for the most part dismiss just about any vote regarding war or the military from 9/11 for the next couple of years. We were a frightened, angry country, as I said before, and we had the wool pulled over our eyes. Even the Damns fell for that one. So I look at votes from say 2003 onward, when the first people began "waking up". The reauthorization, however, is valid--all Repugs.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
the Damns are doing it now, too. Does NOT make for good government (such as it is...)

I hadda save that ironically appropriate typo for posterity - damned indeed they are, you do not save a castle by razing it to the ground, nor do you stand against something nasty by becoming yourself something even worse.

They do indeed, damn themselves, more with every passing day - still don't mean I wanna pass the torch to the guys who started it, neither.

Had I my way, I'd smack both their hands and send em to the rooms without dinner, cause even on a grand scale, they're acting like a pair of four year olds fighting over a toy, the difference is real peoples lives and livelyhoods on the line, and they just don't seem to care.

So I say we MAKE them care.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 12:40 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wish we could...make 'em care. Doubt it will ever happen, certainly can't envision it the way things are going. Something seems to get wiggy with people once they get into a place of power in the government.

I agree, and it wasn't a typo. Sometimes "Damns" and "Repugs" fits, for me.

I will continue to maintain, however, that despite the "he did it first" mentality now, if the Repugs had started out Obama's administration by making ANY effort to work with them, it might well not have gotten so bad.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 4:48 PM