Except that "separate group" was effectively one and the same as the Government. That "separate group" provided many of the troops used by that Government, was there at the invitation of that Government and was provided with safe harbor from that Government. I rather doubt that non-violent pressure would have worked even if the American people had been inclined to wait long enough to find out. You are talking about a Government that cared so little for global opinion as to not be concerned by the fact that they were recognized by a grand total of THREE nations (two after the Saudis dropped their recognition) out of nearly two hundred. You are talking about a society that is effectively living in the dark ages and which has no meaningful trade with the outside world aside from narcotics exports. What "non-violent pressure" do you suppose would have been effective?
There is also the political aspect. If the Bush Administration had sat on it's hands and tried "non-violent pressure" the American people would have marched on Washington wielding torches, pitchforks and AR-15s. The AUMF against terrorists passed with similar margins (only one nay vote in the House and unanimously in the Senate) as the declaration of war against Japan (also one nay vote in the House and unanimous in the Senate) after Pearl Harbor. The American people would not have long tolerated their Government doing nothing against the organizations that murdered thousands of their countryman.
Bush could have glassed Kabul in the months after 9/11 and the majority of the American people would have supported him. I'm glad that wasn't on the table but your notion that we should have tried non-violent pressure is equally absurd and unworkable.
"We don't need a permission slip to defend ourselves," is a sentence that did an enormous amount of damage to the world.
Obama did the same fucking thing! He just opted to cut the representatives of the American people out of the decision making process instead of the United Nations.
I'd actually argue that what Obama did was worse. He denied my representatives in Washington any meaningful chance to weigh in on the decision to drag my country into it's third war. Bush never tried to do that. You can hate him for Iraq all you want but he convinced a majority of the US Congress to go along with him. Obama couldn't be bothered.
We nearly elected a senile old man and his bimbo VP to presidency.
Nearly? He lost with the largest margin of defeat in the electoral college since 1992. 1988 if you want to look at the popular vote. McCain didn't "nearly" win. Gore nearly won in 2000. Kerry nearly won in 2004. McCain didn't even come close.
Unjustly, you mean by getting the consent and approval from congress
Thanks for pointing that out. I neglected to do so in my posts on the matter. What do you suppose the reaction would have been from the left if Bush had launched the Iraq War without securing the AUMF? Think the 'I' word might have come into play a few times?
One wonders if Obama thinks the UN outranks the US Congress in these matters. He refused to launch the war without getting permission from the UN but couldn't be bothered to do the same from the US Congress. You know, the folks represent the American people, control the purse strings of the Federal Government and whom are constitutionally empowered to declare war. Why would we do something silly like involve them in the decision making process?
Don't the American people deserve to see the school accomplishments of the "smartest President ever"?
I don't recall claiming he was the "smartest President ever". I recall saying that it's pretty pathetic to mock the intelligence of someone that was enough to navigate our political system to win the highest office in the land. I'd like to see you manage that same feat.
That same logic could be used to justify a repeal of the bankruptcy code and return to debtors prisons. Freeloaders whom can't pay their debts drive up borrowing costs for the rest of us.
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." -BHO, one of his first acts was to sign legislation increasing the Federal excise tax on cigarettes. The major achievement of his administration (if you can call it that) was the ACA, which contains new taxes on people that decline to purchase health insurance
“Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it,” Obama said in a Feb. 28, 2008 appearance on Ellen DeGeneres' television show. “So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t." -BHO successfully leveraging the individual mandate against HRC, he later signed legislation containing such a mandate
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." -Obama for America spokesman Bill Burton. Senator Obama later voted in favor of telecom immunity in the FISA bill
Yep, I'm glad Liberals don't spend all day lying. They are totally different from the other corporate owned party in this regard.
And in Libya we went in with an international coalition
Bullshit. The United States is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting. We went in with two allies making real contributions (France and the UK) and twenty five providing moral support (the rest of NATO). If that's a "coalition" then GWB arguably had one for Iraq.
Oh that's right, they would rather go it alone into an unnecessary and immoral quagmire like Iraq.
This is such an amazingly hypocritical position that it defies belief. Our stated reason for intervening in Libya is the protect the civilian population. Care to venture a guess as to how many Iraqis died at the hands of the Saddam regime? I don't recall Gaddafi ever using WMDs (gas) on his own people. I don't recall him invading two of his neighbors. I don't recall him trying to assassinate any former US Presidents.
You could at least be consistent about it. If you oppose intervention (as I do) then you need to condemn Obama's intervention in Libya. If you support humanitarian intervention then you can't very well condemn GWB for deposing Saddam. Only an idiot could claim the Iraqi people are worse off for having him removed from power and held accountable for his crimes.
You know I never really cared for GWB either but mocking the man's intelligence when he was smart enough to get elected Governor of one of the largest states in the Union and then beat the best the Democratic Party had to offer twice in a national election is pretty pathetic.
Actually we to kill health care "reform" because it takes away the individual right to choose and represents a frightening expansion of Government. Few people would argue in favor of the status quo. We just don't think a 2,200 page rube goldberg piece of legislation that claims the power to regulate economic inactivity is the best way to go about fixing what is broken.
Have you actually read the legislation that your party rammed down the throats of the American people? Did you know it makes it illegal to start up new hospitals? Did you know that it sets minimum standards of insurance that will preclude people from buying high deductible policies even if those policies make economic sense for them? Do you know they helped to pay for it by imposing excise taxes on medical devices (everything from pacemakers to breast implants) that will increase the cost of those devices and further inflate health care costs?
This legislation stinks. Sorry that you are too busy hating the GOP and gloating over your supposed victory to see that.
Might I ask how either of those are factually important?
My interpersonal skills and networking abilities have secured job offers for me. Can't say for sure what would have happened without them but it was definitely to my advantage to have them.
I don't understand why someone in their teens finds it so challenging to interact with other adults regardless of age.
I know people in their 20s and early 30s who don't interact well with other adults unless it's via SMS, Twitter or Facebook. They literally have no concept of how to carry on a face-to-face conservation. No idea of the importance of looking someone in the eye, having a good handshake or listening to someone for more than 140 characters without interrupting them. These same people then proceed to whine about their lack of a social and love life.
Honestly I can't wrap my head around it. I was a child of the internet age and spent my formative years on IRC but I still know how to carry on a face to face conservation. I still understand the importance of eye contact and body language to human communication. How the hell do people make it to their late 20s/early 30s without learning these skills?
So does Canada but we haven't invaded them yet. That might have something to do with the fact that they don't support terrorist organizations that kill thousands of American citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
US should be utterly beholden to the UN.
As long as we have the 2nd amendment and/or our nuclear arsenal that's never going to happen. Enjoy living in your fantasy world though.
Except that "separate group" was effectively one and the same as the Government. That "separate group" provided many of the troops used by that Government, was there at the invitation of that Government and was provided with safe harbor from that Government. I rather doubt that non-violent pressure would have worked even if the American people had been inclined to wait long enough to find out. You are talking about a Government that cared so little for global opinion as to not be concerned by the fact that they were recognized by a grand total of THREE nations (two after the Saudis dropped their recognition) out of nearly two hundred. You are talking about a society that is effectively living in the dark ages and which has no meaningful trade with the outside world aside from narcotics exports. What "non-violent pressure" do you suppose would have been effective?
There is also the political aspect. If the Bush Administration had sat on it's hands and tried "non-violent pressure" the American people would have marched on Washington wielding torches, pitchforks and AR-15s. The AUMF against terrorists passed with similar margins (only one nay vote in the House and unanimously in the Senate) as the declaration of war against Japan (also one nay vote in the House and unanimous in the Senate) after Pearl Harbor. The American people would not have long tolerated their Government doing nothing against the organizations that murdered thousands of their countryman.
Bush could have glassed Kabul in the months after 9/11 and the majority of the American people would have supported him. I'm glad that wasn't on the table but your notion that we should have tried non-violent pressure is equally absurd and unworkable.
"We don't need a permission slip to defend ourselves," is a sentence that did an enormous amount of damage to the world.
Obama did the same fucking thing! He just opted to cut the representatives of the American people out of the decision making process instead of the United Nations.
I'd actually argue that what Obama did was worse. He denied my representatives in Washington any meaningful chance to weigh in on the decision to drag my country into it's third war. Bush never tried to do that. You can hate him for Iraq all you want but he convinced a majority of the US Congress to go along with him. Obama couldn't be bothered.
We nearly elected a senile old man and his bimbo VP to presidency.
Nearly? He lost with the largest margin of defeat in the electoral college since 1992. 1988 if you want to look at the popular vote. McCain didn't "nearly" win. Gore nearly won in 2000. Kerry nearly won in 2004. McCain didn't even come close.
Unjustly, you mean by getting the consent and approval from congress
Thanks for pointing that out. I neglected to do so in my posts on the matter. What do you suppose the reaction would have been from the left if Bush had launched the Iraq War without securing the AUMF? Think the 'I' word might have come into play a few times?
One wonders if Obama thinks the UN outranks the US Congress in these matters. He refused to launch the war without getting permission from the UN but couldn't be bothered to do the same from the US Congress. You know, the folks represent the American people, control the purse strings of the Federal Government and whom are constitutionally empowered to declare war. Why would we do something silly like involve them in the decision making process?
If funding is all it took we'd all be talking about the accomplishments of President Perot.
Don't the American people deserve to see the school accomplishments of the "smartest President ever"?
I don't recall claiming he was the "smartest President ever". I recall saying that it's pretty pathetic to mock the intelligence of someone that was enough to navigate our political system to win the highest office in the land. I'd like to see you manage that same feat.
Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (absolutely unjustly, in my opinion)
Afghanistan was unjust? Really? I take it you've never been to Lower Manhattan or Arlington, have you?
No, I'm talking about an insane level of deregulation of the financial industry, which Republicans pushed for and got.
If only we had a Democrat in office back in the 90s when all of that deregulation happened. He could have vetoed it or something.
That same logic could be used to justify a repeal of the bankruptcy code and return to debtors prisons. Freeloaders whom can't pay their debts drive up borrowing costs for the rest of us.
Liberals don't spend all day lying
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." -BHO, one of his first acts was to sign legislation increasing the Federal excise tax on cigarettes. The major achievement of his administration (if you can call it that) was the ACA, which contains new taxes on people that decline to purchase health insurance
“Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it,” Obama said in a Feb. 28, 2008 appearance on Ellen DeGeneres' television show. “So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t." -BHO successfully leveraging the individual mandate against HRC, he later signed legislation containing such a mandate
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." -Obama for America spokesman Bill Burton. Senator Obama later voted in favor of telecom immunity in the FISA bill
Yep, I'm glad Liberals don't spend all day lying. They are totally different from the other corporate owned party in this regard.
And in Libya we went in with an international coalition
Bullshit. The United States is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting. We went in with two allies making real contributions (France and the UK) and twenty five providing moral support (the rest of NATO). If that's a "coalition" then GWB arguably had one for Iraq.
Oh that's right, they would rather go it alone into an unnecessary and immoral quagmire like Iraq.
This is such an amazingly hypocritical position that it defies belief. Our stated reason for intervening in Libya is the protect the civilian population. Care to venture a guess as to how many Iraqis died at the hands of the Saddam regime? I don't recall Gaddafi ever using WMDs (gas) on his own people. I don't recall him invading two of his neighbors. I don't recall him trying to assassinate any former US Presidents.
You could at least be consistent about it. If you oppose intervention (as I do) then you need to condemn Obama's intervention in Libya. If you support humanitarian intervention then you can't very well condemn GWB for deposing Saddam. Only an idiot could claim the Iraqi people are worse off for having him removed from power and held accountable for his crimes.
It's the moderates who like him
Then why did they flee his party in droves in the mid term elections and hand the vast majority of battleground congressional districts to the GOP?
You know I never really cared for GWB either but mocking the man's intelligence when he was smart enough to get elected Governor of one of the largest states in the Union and then beat the best the Democratic Party had to offer twice in a national election is pretty pathetic.
Actually we to kill health care "reform" because it takes away the individual right to choose and represents a frightening expansion of Government. Few people would argue in favor of the status quo. We just don't think a 2,200 page rube goldberg piece of legislation that claims the power to regulate economic inactivity is the best way to go about fixing what is broken.
Have you actually read the legislation that your party rammed down the throats of the American people? Did you know it makes it illegal to start up new hospitals? Did you know that it sets minimum standards of insurance that will preclude people from buying high deductible policies even if those policies make economic sense for them? Do you know they helped to pay for it by imposing excise taxes on medical devices (everything from pacemakers to breast implants) that will increase the cost of those devices and further inflate health care costs?
This legislation stinks. Sorry that you are too busy hating the GOP and gloating over your supposed victory to see that.
So, exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?
Because...... change!
I was asking for a logical reason.
You are looking for logic where anthropology is concerned? Sucker ;)
Might I ask how either of those are factually important?
My interpersonal skills and networking abilities have secured job offers for me. Can't say for sure what would have happened without them but it was definitely to my advantage to have them.
I don't understand why someone in their teens finds it so challenging to interact with other adults regardless of age.
I know people in their 20s and early 30s who don't interact well with other adults unless it's via SMS, Twitter or Facebook. They literally have no concept of how to carry on a face-to-face conservation. No idea of the importance of looking someone in the eye, having a good handshake or listening to someone for more than 140 characters without interrupting them. These same people then proceed to whine about their lack of a social and love life.
Honestly I can't wrap my head around it. I was a child of the internet age and spent my formative years on IRC but I still know how to carry on a face to face conservation. I still understand the importance of eye contact and body language to human communication. How the hell do people make it to their late 20s/early 30s without learning these skills?
Manbearpig
I thought you were a pothead? Doesn't the munchies help you with weight retention? :D
So does Canada but we haven't invaded them yet. That might have something to do with the fact that they don't support terrorist organizations that kill thousands of American citizens.
Disagreeing with you != trolling, much as you would like to believe otherwise.
No, you only had to "smoke" if you chose to go somewhere that allowed smoking.
Yeah, but we can't buy Cuban cigars.... :(