Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Well, getting you to admit that both sides are evil is something of a victory, I guess.

---

NICE STRAWMAN. 'Cause certianly we've been posting criticisms of Obama all these years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Well, getting you to admit that both sides are evil is something of a victory, I guess.

---

NICE STRAWMAN. 'Cause certianly we've been posting criticisms of Obama all these years.

---

Hello,

I have to agree with this. The Liberals/Democrats on this board are typically willing and able to critique the failings of their own leadership. Time and again I've seen either criticisms posted or criticisms acknowledged.

I have not seen as much of this from the opposition camp. It happens, but not with the same routine regularity.

In my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

The guy I voted for would have our troops out of Afghanistan and stop drone strikes immediately.

So no matter if it was Obama or Romney who won, I lost.

---

Hello,

I voted for one such dude in the primaries, but it didn't go anywhere.

---

So you settled for what, in your opinion, was the lesser of two evils. I settled for what I considered the least of three.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Well, getting you to admit that both sides are evil is something of a victory, I guess.

---

NICE STRAWMAN. 'Cause certianly we've been posting criticisms of Obama all these years.

---

Hello,

I have to agree with this. The Liberals/Democrats on this board are typically willing and able to critique the failings of their own leadership. Time and again I've seen either criticisms posted or criticisms acknowledged.

I have not seen as much of this from the opposition camp. It happens, but not with the same routine regularity.

In my opinion.

---

You might have a point, if I considered Romney or the Republicans as my leadership.

Not sure how support of same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, legalizing pot, increasing taxes across the board, stopping drone attacks and getting out of foreign adventures associates me with Republicans.

Apparently, I'm guilty of not viscerally hating them hard enough.

---

Quote:

---

So you settled for what, in your opinion, was the lesser of two evils. I settled for what I considered the least of three.

---

Quote:

---

Besides, the criticism of Obama here is most always with the "But Bush...", or "But the Republicans in Congress...", or "But the Democrats in Congress..." modifier.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Who was your candidate, by the way? After Ron Paul lost the primary, I had no awareness of anyone who shared his views on war and intervention overseas.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... rabid personal attacks against anyone I don't support 100% to get your approval?"

AND ANOTHER STRAWMAN! DING! DING! DING! DING! Post one more on this and you'll win something!

Don't make me go back to the post where you tried to rub away the massacre of 400 civilians as an equivocal 'shade of gray' because it was a position supported by conservatives. There would have been nothing personal about attacking that, no matter how rabid.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Actually, I do have a point.

You claimed an accomplishment in getting someone to acknowledge both sides as being evil.

But that acknowledgement was already present, and much more frequent on the Liberal/Democrat side of things, in my opinion.

Getting the staunch Republican supporters to acknowledge their own side as evil would be a much greater accomplishment to my mind, since they less often acknowledge the blatant failings of their own.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... rabid personal attacks against anyone I don't support 100% to get your approval?"

For the record, I quoted this directly from Geezer. Now it's gone, along with all the supporting venom and illogic.

Yes, Geezer post-edited extensively. He did that thing he swears he 'never' does.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Actually, I do have a point.

You claimed an accomplishment in getting someone to acknowledge both sides as being evil.

But that acknowledgement was already present, and much more frequent on the Liberal/Democrat side of things, in my opinion.

Getting the staunch Republican supporters to acknowledge their own side as evil would be a much greater accomplishment to my mind, since they less often acknowledge the blatant failings of their own.

---

Then you should address your comments to a staunch Republican.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Then you should address your comments to a staunch Republican.

---

Quote:

---

As to Signym maybe noting both sides are evil... Signym's discussions with me about who's good and who's evil have covered a lot more than political parties, usually revolving around capitalist democracies vs. Socialist governments. I was hoping that perhaps she had come to the realization that life under Stalin or Mao might have been less that perfect. I know she already considers life here less than perfect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What I find peculiar, GEEZER, is that after I posted several VERY long posts* detailing our "interventions" which included anything from full-scale invasions/ occupations (Cuba, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq X2, Afghanistan) to assassinating elected leaders and/or training, arming, and funding brutal tyrannies everywhere (Iran, Indonesia, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras, Ecuador, Bolivia, and literally every other nation south of our border except Costa Rica).... interventions which cost millions of lives around the world .... you defended all of our past actions.

---

Quote:

---

That's what I meant by having in the past always chosen the greater of two evils.

---

Quote:

---

1) First of all, many of the nations we decided to "intervene" in had actually elected rather modest land-reformers or leaders who wanted to nationalize natural resources, but even THAT weak tea was apparently a little too strong for our bank/ latifundia/ corporate-loving leadership.

---

Quote:

---

2) Second, it is not up to US to "choose" for others by military might.

---

Quote:

---

So the "choice" I'm referring to is the "choice" to use force and violence to shape another nation. It is a choice which you have made, or supported, time and time again: the greater of two evils.

---

Quote:

---

What I don't understand is that - given your history of lauding ALL of our past military adventures, why you would suddenly stick at drone strikes.

---

Quote:

---

Well, no. I pointed out that in several instances you cited, it wasn't as black and white as the guy you were quoting painted it to be. Several of the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leaders mentioned were not, and many were put in place by the previous strong man. I did agree that in a couple of instances (Guatemala comes to mind, but it's been a while)the U.S. really overstepped. I also noted the wonderful fate of the places where the communist-supported 'liberators' won: Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba. Then again, while citing your screed, you never once mentioned the Soviet pacification of the Ukraine or the takeover of Eastern Europe, or the Chinese takeover of Mongolia. Or did those brutal takeovers that cost millions of lives not seem evil to you?

---

Quote:

---

Yep. and we continue to debate whether the U.S. or the Soviet Bloc was the lesser. I still think that, despite the mis-steps and heavyhandedness of the U.S., the actions of the Soviet Union and China against other nations and their own people trump even the H guy in evil.

---

Quote:

---

But your tacit support of the use of force and violence by Soviet Russia to shape Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Albania, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Latvia and Lithuania for half a century isn't support of evil? Or the force and violence in China's occupation of Tibet?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Well, no. I pointed out that in several instances you cited, it wasn't as black and white as the guy you were quoting painted it to be. Several of the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leaders mentioned were not, and many were put in place by the previous strong man. I did agree that in a couple of instances (Guatemala comes to mind, but it's been a while)the U.S. really overstepped.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This is the point you fail to connect with: Our "choice" isn't between what Mao or Stalin did and what we did: socialist tyrannies versus capitalist tyrannies. OUR real choice is between what we did and what else we might have done.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Yep. and we continue to debate whether the U.S. or the Soviet Bloc was the lesser. I still think that, despite the mis-steps and heavyhandedness of the U.S., the actions of the Soviet Union and China against other nations and their own people trump even the H guy in evil.

---

And because they did it, that makes our evil less? That's not the debate here.

---

Quote:

---

I guess you consider my lack of criticism as tacit support.

---

Quote:

---

But the fact is, I don't criticize because I have no power to affect their policies.

---

Quote:

---

You didn't hear me criticize South African apartheid much either.

---

Quote:

---

What I see that, time after time, we have chosen violence and destruction but could have chosen differently. In Afghanistan, for example, instead of arming the most regressive parts of society (the warlords, the Taliban, and the nascent al Qaida) we could have supplemented whatever development efforts were taking place in terms of schools and roads.

---

Quote:

---

Instead of overthrowing Iran's Mossadegh and setting the stage for a takeover of Ayatollahs, we could have let Iran nationalize its oil and traded with them on a different basis. Instead of imposing our own military dictatorships south of the border, we could have encouraged land reform and assisted with various development projects.

---

Quote:

---

They say that war is a poor tool of peace. It's also a poor tool of development. It seems to me that our real collective interest is peace, prosperity, and human rights around the world. Instead of squashing nations, we could have assisted development. And no, not just giving money to "development" projects which in turn supplied our corporations; I mean real, open-handed help. Kind of like we did with Germany and Japan.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Well, no. I pointed out that in several instances you cited, it wasn't as black and white as the guy you were quoting painted it to be. Several of the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leaders mentioned were not, and many were put in place by the previous strong man. I did agree that in a couple of instances (Guatemala comes to mind, but it's been a while)the U.S. really overstepped.

---

"I did agree that in a couple of instances (Guatemala comes to mind, but it's been a while)the U.S. really overstepped."

This says it all. The US has the RIGHT to impose itself around the world, except, apparently, where we are just TOO flimsy in our excuses and TOO blatant about our brutality. Yep, this is a keeper.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Well, no. I pointed out that in several instances you cited, it wasn't as black and white as the guy you were quoting painted it to be. Several of the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leaders mentioned were not, and many were put in place by the previous strong man. I did agree that in a couple of instances (Guatemala comes to mind, but it's been a while)the U.S. really overstepped.

---

"I did agree that in a couple of instances (Guatemala comes to mind, but it's been a while)the U.S. really overstepped."

This says it all. The US has the RIGHT to impose itself around the world, except, apparently, where we are just TOO flimsy in our excuses and TOO blatant about our brutality. Yep, this is a keeper.

---

Tell you what, Kiki. you just keep taking sentences massively out of context and making up what you think I meant and keep the conversation going without me, since you've obviously entered the "All right, children. Just move away from the nice crazy lady and let her talk to herself." zone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
since you've obviously entered the "All right, children. Just move away from the nice crazy lady and let her talk to herself." zone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Quote:

---

Then you should address your comments to a staunch Republican.

---

Hello,

Yes, that encapsulates my message perfectly.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

I guess you consider my lack of criticism as tacit support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, yeah. My insufficently rabid criticism of Romney seems to have convinced many folks here of my tacit support, so why not?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
"Prison changes a man, son." -The Legend of Zorro

I wonder how being President does. Is Obama the same optimistic man than before he took office? I do not believe so. And there are many things he's privy to right now that he cannot speak of.
I have never seen a President cry before so genuinely. And I suspect he was crying about more than what he was speaking about at the moment.

I think I must re-examine my harshness on Obama. Different Presidents clearly have a different scope of direct control allowed to them while in office. Bush could declare war on a sovereign nation in no way connected to the 9-11 terrorist attack. Obama could not close a base in Cuba. There is way more going on here than it seems, and anyone that doesn't see that is politically naieve. To put it nicely.
IMO, of course.

---

Quote:

---

And because they did it, that makes our evil less? That's not the debate here.-Signy

Then I've been wasting my time. If you're going to discuss what's happening right now, why do you bring up stuff that happened thirty to eighty years ago?- Geezer

---

Quote:

---

But the fact is, I don't criticize because I have no power to affect their policies.-Signy

So if you hear about female genital mutilation in Somalia, you won't say anything critical about it because you can't change it? If you had heard about the Russian tanks rolling into Prague in 1968, you would have ignored it since your criticism was pointless? Viet Cong torturing village chiefs and their families? "Ah, nothing I can do. What's on CBS?"- Geezer

You didn't hear me criticize South African apartheid much either. - Signy

You and the racists.-Geezer

---

Quote:

---

What I see that, time after time, we have chosen violence and destruction but could have chosen differently. In Afghanistan, for example, instead of arming the most regressive parts of society (the warlords, the Taliban, and the nascent al Qaida) we could have supplemented whatever development efforts were taking place in terms of schools and roads. -Signy

But there's nothing you can do about that now, so, since you don't criticise stuff you can do nothing about, why are you complaining? -Geezer

---

Quote:

---

I do note that we militarily defeated both Germany and Japan before providing them with development aid. Trying to provide real open-handed help in 1938 might not have worked out as well as you would have wanted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
The top three things on my list of Obama betrayals were entirely within his power to address in a better way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
I find myself fascinated by this: http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
The top three things on my list of Obama betrayals were entirely within his power to address in a better way.

---

Anthony, I'm starting to believe that it's all rigged... top to bottom.

I imagine..."So let's close Gitmo now."
"No, Mr. President."
"What's that 'No'? Just CLOSE it."
"Look at this file..."
"Oh. I didn't... oh..."
"See? It can't be done. Not now."
"BUT, we can at least prosecute the torturers..."
"U,mmmm, no, look at this-"
"NO WAY!! Who set THAT in motion??"
"Does it matter? It's there."
"But, what about limiting the drone attacks?"
"Remember Kennedy..."
"You're saying I'm basically powerless-?"
"Oh no sir, just.. limited in these instances."
"What if I go public?"
"You have children, sir."
"I..."
"Sir, do what you CAN, leave the suicidal decisions to a President with nothing of personal value to lose."
"This is all... something out of a spy novel or something..."
"No Mr. President, real life is more fantastic than that, and I think you see that now."

-Or something like that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

A compelling theory.


And so it doesn't matter if you elect Mother Teresa or Hitler. The result is the same.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

A compelling theory.


And so it doesn't matter if you elect Mother Teresa or Hitler. The result is the same.

---

Not exactly- Obama (or someone like him) serves to stonewall the progress of a total fascist takeover/makeover of America. A Bush or Romney would be free to do as they wish, being that world domination (financial) and domestic control (getting rid of pesky civil rights) are their main goals anyway.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Quote:

---

I guess you consider my lack of criticism as tacit support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, yeah. My insufficently rabid criticism of Romney seems to have convinced many folks here of my tacit support, so why not?

---

Hello,

This is a valid point.

But I do want to stress it is not rabidness which impresses, but rather consistency. I know some of your positions thanks to long association on this board, but I do not know you to critique the 'right' as often as the 'left.' It suggests a bias. I am prepared to believe there is no bias. Are you prepared to believe me when I tell you that there has been an inbalance in commentary?

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

So you perceive 'strivers' and 'gleeful givers in.'

I shall then continue to fault and condemn my Leaders for not striving mightily enough.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As Kiki said: to learn from the past. What made us more secure, and what didn't. After Germany was defeated in the first World War, reparations pushed Germany into a second. After Germany was defeated a second time (mainly by the Russians but we helped) we didn't make the same mistake. Instead, we poured in wealth and aid. Lesson learned. Looking back in history, I see a lot of things we might have done differently, had we admitted mistakes and learned from them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:


I don't hate the rich enough.

---

Quote:

---

Look at this thread. Who starts throwing insults? Who will throw more after reading this post?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
If 2/3 of the streets in the city where you live were suddenly reserved specifically for Lambourginis and Ferraries I think you'd find a voice for your irritation, but since it is MONEY being channeled to their favour and not traffic, you will not scratch at something that does not itch...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

So you perceive 'strivers' and 'gleeful givers in.'

I shall then continue to fault and condemn my Leaders for not striving mightily enough.

---

Good deal.
Anyway, it's just a theory... probably wrong. It's just hard for me to reconcile the man I see talking to his people in that video and someone willing to give away our civil rights & not go after torture creeps...

---

Quote:

---

Look at this thread. Who starts throwing insults? Who will throw more after reading this post?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Do you really think that only Republicans are rich, or that they're the only ones expecting favors from the guy they supported? I can hear Niki complaining about all the little contributors, but who do you think will be having lunch at the White House? Who do you think will get their problems heard?

It'd be the same if Romney won, but thinking there's that much difference...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
That's a valid point to make, Geeze, and I know it's not only Repubs that are rich, but you gotta know I have nothing against people who earn riches, I just don't like when already wealthy folk use their money to legitimately steal more wealth- and that's traditionally more a thing of the right than the left.
But yeah, give the candidate money, and you own his attention & support to a degree. And that's not right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

I'd have to see some data to convince me that rich folks from the left use their money to 'legitimately steal more wealth' significantly less than those from the right.

---