we have these things called "aircraft carriers"

[redbreegull]

I mean the central pillar of the MAD theory is that all actors are rational. Rational actors do not assure their own destruction. No one in this situation was prepared to act rationally. Luck prevailed, not human reason.

Castro to McNamara in 1992

Now, we started from the assumption that if there was an invasion of Cuba, nuclear war would erupt. We were certain of that ... we would be forced to pay the price, that we would disappear.... Would I have been ready to use nuclear weapons? Yes, I would have agreed to the use of nuclear weapons.…

armscontrol.org – Cuban Missile Crisis

read up on just how fucking lucky we were

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

Name the policies. My guess is that you'll repeat some kind of wingnut lie

Progressives have been very vocal about the handful of items that Obama has either dragged his feet on our reversed position. It's a short list. he's been very consistant on the issues he campaigned on

I'll start with wiretapping and end with:
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html

[redbreegull]

but you probably agree with most of those policies anyway. I do like how you have the gall to search out an outlet with whatever ideological bend happens to support your point at the moment though

[redbreegull]

YOU WHELP

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I'll start with wiretapping and end with:
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html

your link doesn't address your statement or my question.

You said dems SUPPORTED policies that Obama campaigned against when they were Bush's. IE. that they're hypocrites.

But the wiretapping you mentioned has been criticized by liberals and progressives. They overwhelming do NOT support it.

try again

[redbreegull]

he's referring to moderate liberals mostly who tune out the uncomfortable stuff

[MyOneAndOnly]

I still don't buy it. If it's a fraction of conservative or moderate dems it doesn't support his statement.

nimrod's problem is that he has a narrative in his head that justifies his hatred of non conservatives. It includes stereotyping obama supporters as uneducated poors and mindless socialist followers.

The democratic base has been at odds with Obama on a number of issues where he's slid from his or the party's positions. If anything, Obama has had a rough ride when it comes to the support of his base, compared to type of uncritical support that GOP voters gave Bush for 8 years.

It's insightful that people are already forgetting the propensity of democrats to turn on their own candidates when they don't deliver the Progressive agenda that the base demands. That history of progressives failing to stand behind their own candidates when they flip flop is at odds with Nimrod's statements of hypocrisy.

[redbreegull]

what he really doesn't understand is how a progressive can disagree with these policies and still think obama is a far better candidate. I think it has something to do with absolutist thinking but I have no idea

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

but you probably agree with most of those policies anyway. I do like how you have the gall to search out an outlet with whatever ideological bend happens to support your point at the moment though

You really haven't been paying attention if you thought I'd ever be in favor of privacy and civil loberty violations and needless aggression

[redbreegull]

well I dunno, you sat on your high horse and called me a whelp for not knowing history and then proceeded to state a blatant falsehood about an extremely well-known and deeply-studied historical event so I don't know what goes on in your head. You're trying to convince us that Obama is just like Bush and liberals are turning a blind eye when I think it is pretty obvious that a huge amount of Obama supporters are deeply unhappy with some of his defense and surveillance policies. Despite this, Obama still has more differences than similarities with George Bush, which I guess you don't think is true because you are cherry-picking policies instead of looking at his whole platform?

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

is this where rbg tells you that Obama is the greatest bad president we've ever had

I don't understand what he is upset about. He's voting for the guy, and the odds are in Obama's favor for another win.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

I love how republicans now hate Obama for most of the reasons they said they loved Bush.

I'm not a republican. I've been a registered dem since I was 18.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

Yes, I am against keeping any nuclear warheads.

Yes, Obama's drone policy kills innocent people, I am also against that as I have made known on many occasions, it is my least favorite Obama policy. I don't believe we have any cause to be over there anymore, it seems like you are shaking the tree to see what will fall out. Keep in mind that 50 civilians for every combatant killed is probably in line with or less than the ratio of innocent people killed through the regular operation of the Bush wars. Every President kills innocent people. I'm against the drone assassinations but it puzzles me how people think this is like a really clever attack against Obama, cause other presidents haven't killed innocent civilians before. Really sets him apart, you know.

Then why are you voting for him, when you don't agree with what he does? I don't need to shake anything out to find what is wrong with his presidency. Since Obama got in, we have problems with TSA, NDAA, his banksters, strengthening Bush's policies and adding to them, his lies about Libya, lies and more lies. Since you are against nukes, then that means you are a pacifist, correct? A pacifist would not be voting for a war president. You don't make any sense.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

Name the policies. My guess is that you'll repeat some kind of wingnut lie

Are you kidding me? Where have you been the last four years?

[Starla]

Iraq - We should have known in 2008 that we wouldn't see any real change from the Obama Administration. Despite campaigning for the U.S. Senate in 2004 on a platform of voting against Bush's war budgets, when he became a Senator, Obama voted for every single one of Bush's requests to continue funding war in the Middle East. Apparently, his streak of broken promises started long before campaigning for the White House (and we'll get to those later down the list).

Then right off the bat in February of 2009, a mere month into his administration, President Obama revealed a phony withdrawal plan that would take three months longer than promised, and leave a whopping 50,000 troops in Iraq (out of the 135,000 that were there when Obama assumed office). Eight months later in October 2009, 131,000 troops remained in Iraq, and Obama sent another 1000 at the request of theater commanders in Iraq. Seriously.

First Surge in Afghanistan - Think Iraq was bad? It gets better! Mr. (Blind) Hope and (Regime) Change kicked off his presidency with a 17,000 troop surge to Afghanistan in February of 2009. 17,000! Don't defend him. Don't say it was necessary to help win the war there. You would not have defended Bush and you know it. Mr. Obama started his presidency by radically escalating Bush's war.

Second Surge in Afghanistan - But wait- there's more! By December of 2009, less than a year into his presidency, Obama decided to outdo even himself and send another whopping 30,000 troops to Afghanistan! By this point, Al-Qaeda was scattered and devastated. Our troops were overseas fighting someone else's civil war, not defending our freedoms or our safety.

Phony Afghan Withdrawal - In June of 2011, Obama announced a "troop withdrawal" from Afghanistan, and true to form, it was as phony as his Iraq withdrawal. Even if he stays on schedule and makes the most "radical" withdrawal on the table by the end of 2012-- 30,000 troops-- there would still be more than twice as many troops as there were in January 2009 when Obama took office. Only in the Orwellian world of U.S. foreign policy could something like that be called a withdrawal.

The Rise of Drone Warfare - The Obama Administration's continued and extensive use of weaponized aerial drones to bomb enemy targets in countries throughout the Middle East (sometimes resulting in the deaths of dozens of civilians at a time when the drone operators or intelligence make a mistake) has touched off a drone arms race with the rest of the world, most notably China. Great. Just great.

Bombing Campaign in Yemen - Bush bombed in Yemen, but Obama's really been stepping it up.

Bombing Campaign in Somalia - In Somalia too!

Bombing Campaign in Pakistan - Under Obama, there have been more drone strikes in Pakistan than there ever were under Bush, and they're also claiming more civilians lives, Pakistanis claim, leading the country into uproar and protest against the United States.

Bombing Campaign in Libya - In March of 2011, President Obama took America to war in an entirely new country, Libya, taking sides with insurgents in a civil war against a dictator that Washington has supported for years up until now. Expanding Bush's old wars wasn't enough it would seem; Obama had to start some new ones of his own, against a country that had not attacked us and did not threaten us. And get this: in all likelihood, we've been fighting on the same side as Al-Qaeda in Libya's civil war!

Defense Spending Levels - "Defense" spending has only gone up during President Obama's first term from $616 billion under Bush in 2008 to $768 billion in 2011, and Obama still wants even more. We were promised change. Why are we spending even more on bombs and bullets?

Record Casualty Levels - Under Obama, the wars haven't just gotten bigger, more numerous, and even more legally dubious than under Bush (more on that later)-- they've gotten deadlier. According to the most up-to-date figures as of this publication, under Obama, the U.S. casualty rate in Afghanistan is five times greater than it was under Bush.

"Overseas Contingency Operations" - Despite ramping the Global War on Terror up to unprecedented levels as detailed above, the Obama Administration decided to seriously downplay its title by renaming it "Overseas Contingency Operations." Chillingly Orwellian, isn't it? And quite typically Obama: make no substantive changes at all (other than to make things worse and accelerate the damage done by Bush), but do make a big deal about changing a name or a logo!

The Patriot Act - A favorite target of Bush critics, the Patriot Act violates the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments of the Constitution. Passed and renewed over and over again with little debate or deliberation, this gargantuan bill gave the federal government sweeping new powers to police its citizenry while ignoring the constitutional restrictions our Founding Fathers created to protect us from tyranny.

It should be no surprise that after the failed efforts of one honest Republican senator to prevent its passage, Obama renewed the Patriot Act (from across the Atlantic Ocean by autopen) as president-- he voted for its renewal as a senator. On one of the most important issues of our era, Obama is indistinguishable from Bush. He supports the (un)Patriot(ic) Act.

The TSA - Created by an act of Congress during the Bush Administration, and organized within the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA has been annoying and harassing passengers at airports for a decade now. But under President Obama, it has become more aggressive and oppressive than it ever was under Bush, with the installment of dozens of radiation-emitting "naked body scanners" throughout the country and directives from the DHS to use "enhanced" pat downs that many critics say amount to sexual assault. Under Bush, the TSA was merely annoying. Under Obama, it is horrifyingly out of control.

Habeas Corpus - The Obama Administration also continued Bush's suspension of the long-standing legal tradition of habeas corpus, insisting that it has the right to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial.

You Do Not Have The Right To Remain Silent - The Obama Administration actually had the gall to ask "the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights."

and more: http://www.humblelibertarian.com/201...a-is-just.html

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I'll start with wiretapping and end with:
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html

Can you imagine if Bush had signed NDAA? Or done even half of the things that Obama has done?

[redbreegull]

Why is it not possible for you to understand that he is still a better candidate than Mitt Romney

[redbreegull]

From the front page of Politifact

Obama campaign promises broken: 17%
Obama promises kept: 38%
Obama promises compromised on: 15%
Obama promises stalled: 9%
Obama promises in the works: 21%

I don't know where you are getting this idea that he is somehow a bigger liar than any other person in politics. If you look at Politifact's statement rankings, Romney is a much worse liar.

Also your belief that Obama has somehow committed worse acts in terms of war and defense than Bush is inexplicable

[redbreegull]

Jesus Christ a bunch of shit from that site is not even factually accurate

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

Why is it not possible for you to understand that he is still a better candidate than Mitt Romney

They are both awful. Is this the first election you will be voting in? Just curious. I think as you get older your views will change.

[FutureBoy]

someone post some Greenwald in here

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Starla

They are both awful. Is this the first election you will be voting in? Just curious. I think as you get older your views will change.

no it's not, and the candidates aren't similar at all on social issues, tax policy, and foreign diplomacy so please spare me the they are just as bad as each other horseshit. no, they aren't. obama is not my platonic ideal of a progressive candidate but fuck yeah I am going to vote for him against the marketeer cowboy who wants to throw 2 trillion extra to the pentagon, slash government revenue thus further spiraling the debt into an unpayable oblivion, overturn roe v. wade, return us to Bush's neocon bully our allies diplomacy, and cut crucial spending to education and health services for the poor. not the same. not as bad as each other.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

no it's not, and the candidates aren't similar at all on social issues, tax policy, and foreign diplomacy so please spare me the they are just as bad as each other horseshit. no, they aren't. obama is not my platonic ideal of a progressive candidate but fuck yeah I am going to vote for him against the marketeer cowboy who wants to throw 2 trillion extra to the pentagon, slash government revenue thus further spiraling the debt into an unpayable oblivion, overturn roe v. wade, return us to Bush's neocon bully our allies diplomacy, and cut crucial spending to education and health services for the poor. not the same. not as bad as each other.

we don't always see eye to eye but this is pretty much spot on.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Starla

You Do Not Have The Right To Remain Silent - The Obama Administration actually had the gall to ask "the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights."

also this is just flat out false.

let's all just make shit up though so we can feel better about a romney presidency.

jesus.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

also this is just flat out false.

let's all just make shit up though so we can feel better about a romney presidency.

jesus.

I'm not going to feel better about either of them being president. You guys want to ignore what Obama has done fine. No one wants to talk about NDAA, strengthening Bush's policies. I'm not voting for either of these people and for some reason rbg is going nuts over that.

And you can't be completely against nukes, then turn around and defend someone that kills innocent people every damn day in this "fight against terror".

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

no it's not, and the candidates aren't similar at all on social issues, tax policy, and foreign diplomacy so please spare me the they are just as bad as each other horseshit. no, they aren't. obama is not my platonic ideal of a progressive candidate but fuck yeah I am going to vote for him against the marketeer cowboy who wants to throw 2 trillion extra to the pentagon, slash government revenue thus further spiraling the debt into an unpayable oblivion, overturn roe v. wade, return us to Bush's neocon bully our allies diplomacy, and cut crucial spending to education and health services for the poor. not the same. not as bad as each other.

Worry about the turning over of roe vs wade? Not even Romney would have any power over that, and I don't think they will get to nominate another judge in four years. The things that you worry about, are nothing in comparison to the things that you *should* be concerned about. I don't get it.

[redbreegull]

if Obama was running against Kucinich, yes, I would vote against Obama. But no, I am not going to vote against Obama because I have major problems with him when the alternative is a woman-hating, poor-hating, rich, white privilege piece of shit who embodies everything that is sinking this goddamn country, and the parts he doesn't embody he brought along Paul Ryan just to cover his bases. He will be worse than Obama on all the things I dislike Obama for, plus he's a shit eating used car salesman opportunist who will go as far right as necessary to gain political capital, plus he's going to wreck the Supreme Court for decades, plus if spending is your issue, HE WILL SPEND MORE than Obama (who actually has increased spending in literal dollars at a slower pace than any pres. in 6 decades and has been subject to a vicious pack of lies about his spending habits) while crippling government tax income, so if you ever wanted the deficit solved, you can kiss that dream goodbye as well. Also doesn't believe in civil rights for LGBT people, also doesn't believe women have the right to an abortion. I mean what the fucking fuck makes Obama equally as bad? You can piss your vote away on a third party candidate, but as long as the electoral college exists, the system has already decided that's the same as not voting.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Starla

I'm not going to feel better about either of them being president. You guys want to ignore what Obama has done fine. No one wants to talk about NDAA, strengthening Bush's policies. I'm not voting for either of these people and for some reason rbg is going nuts over that.

And you can't be completely against nukes, then turn around and defend someone that kills innocent people every damn day in this "fight against terror".

i am absolutely concerned about obama. i'm really disappointed. but that doesn't change the fact that romney would be much worse. period. end of fucking discussion.

[Eulogy]

also way to ignore the fact that some of what you're spreading is false. there is no rule that says someone can't be questioned without a lawyer present. it's a lot more nuanced than that.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Starla

Worry about the turning over of roe vs wade? Not even Romney would have any power over that, and I don't think they will get to nominate another judge in four years. The things that you worry about, are nothing in comparison to the things that you *should* be concerned about. I don't get it.

yeah but you're an all or nothing libertarian nut, you are quoting some list of evils Obama has committed and some of them are blatant lies