But acts of war against an enemy that does not directly threaten the United States of America or its treaty allies must pass a tougher test.
I smell a rationalization coming on.
That’s not a bad idea. NATO has done this for Yugoslavia. But NATO is confined to Europe.
In the Middle East, we have a convoluted set of alliances and forms of “antagonistic cooperation” with the US as the linchpin. If the US does something weird, like invade Iraq, the system is strained. But if the US goes AWOL, the region is probably headed for breakdown and war.
So what’s the goal? Start a war? Prevent a war? Stop an ongoing war? Bring that war to a successful conclusion?
The answer to that question is where it all starts.
The USA and Canada are members of NATO! We are treaty-bound to support NATO actions, and should await a NATO decision (the UN is an anti-American menagerie, and OECD too widespread). Article I Section 8 suggests that the President does not have the authority to decide what represents an “Offense against the Law of Nations”. Hopefully Congress will recognize that we are not the World’s policemen.
It’s not obvious that starving children (and let’s be honest, that is what sanctions do) is any more moral than bombing government buildings.
USA is going to bomb Syria because Syria bombed Syria. Got it. Any valuable contributions
from our beloved Jeremiah Write?
“…the constitution does place limits on executive power, and regular consultation with Congress about important foreign policy problems is probably a good idea.” WRM, the above is both appropriate observation and mindful advise going forward; but today we are where we are sour spot and all.
The only good thing to come of this is to expose the total hypocrisy and unseriousness of politicians, as we now watch the spectacle of liberal Democrats who spent years slamming W for “shredding the Constitution” and “lying us into war” rolling out a host of very neocon-like arguments to back Obama.
Let me know then there are boots on the ground. Conservatives took us into Iraq for nothing…not a single reason that was defensible. Conservatives borrowed and spent 2 trillion on that war, killing 4400 US troops.
Most parisan liberals convenient forget that Kerry, Reid, Biden, and Hillary Clinton all voted for and supported the Iraq war (until it got ugly of course). If Obama had been in the Senate at that time, he may have supported the Iraq war resolution as well. Senator “present” was not known for taking bold independent positions
Your fearless leader has managed to dismay and/or antagonize all our allies and delight our enemies with his Syria cluster policy. Knee jerk supporters do Obama no favors.
You conservatives are SO SMART!!! Yessirree Bob! Holy cow your knowledge of history is astounding
Astoundingly ignorant that is. Bush lied about Iraq. No one expects a president to blatantly lie about WMD’s to take us to war. But Bush did.
THAT is why liberals voted for the war; conservatives did what conservatives do:
Your inability to distinguish between lying and groupthink is truly impressive.
Especially given that it was a liberal who was impeached for perjury.
Number of soldiers killed by Clinton’s wardrobe malfunction?
Number killed by conservatives in Iraq
Number of Sudanese kids killed by blowing up a pharmaceutical factory: thousands. At least.
Number of women raped by Clinton: 3 (?)
Number of women sexually harassed by Clinton: countless
Number of progs who care about women: 0
Rather funny considering conservatives think women’s wombs are federal govt property.
Progs think women’s wombs, bodies, men’s bodies, children’s bodies, their food, their education, their thoughts, their cars, their homes, their money, their lives are all federal govt property.
Really? Progs are pushing for a federal ‘pro life’ amendment?
Conservatives do care about the weakest and most vulnerable among us.
Progs think the definition of womanhood is to kill a baby. If you don’t want to kill your baby (right up to severing its spinal cord while it is out and crying) then you are not a woman.
I’m not a woman. I can’t have a baby. What a woman does with her body is not a govt matter
And the right voted to eliminate food stamps. So you force a woman to have a baby then let it starve
No one, except Democrats with their Obamacare and endless regulations care what a woman does with her body. It is her baby we protect while you try to severe the spine or vacuum out the brains.
Your ignorance is showing. All the western intelligence services thought that Iraq had WMD’s. You have heard that “Bush lied” from the media so much that you accept it as truth. Poor gullible you.
Wrong. The French said he didn’t which is why they argued against war
And Blix found none. There was no need to go to war for WMD’s when NONE were found by people on the ground
You’ve heard that ‘intelligence services’ knew lie so often you actually believe it, while ignoring the real evidence
Another dangerous example of conservative epistemic closure.
Man, you haven’t been playing attention. It turned out that the French were illegally trading with Iraq – they knew they would get found out once the invasion occurred. And Blix did find modest numbers of WMDs. Of course most had been shipped to Syria and other outlying states.
What Blix found were 200 rusted shells that were non functional. And where’s the proof they were shipped to Syria? More guesswork on which conservatives destroyed our budget all the while screaming about moochers in the middle class
I think the proof has already played out in the recent newspaper headlines. Pay attention. BTW, no response on the French collusion?
Again, where’s the proof? And I’m not here to defend the French. Bush simply lied about WMD’s. He just decided not to wait for Blix to finish his investigation
Any reason he HAD to go to war? Nope. None. Except for his lies
Bill Clinton, Hillary, and Pelosi all had access to the same intelligence as Bush and all said the same thing as Bush.
Bush didn’t lie.
Actually what they had was access to the CIA data Bush had the CIA manufacture
At least that’s what Colin Powell said when he described his UN presentation as a mistake.
Bush lied. He thought Iraq would be a cake walk.
4400 US troops paid for his lies with their lives.
So I will assume you are also outraged that of the 1,912 U.S. military personnel who have died in the now nearly 11-year-long war in Afghanistan, 1,343 have died since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009.
Seventy percent of the Afghan War casualties have happened on Obama’s watch.
Wasn’t he supposed to dial these wars down and make everything right? The man has had FIVE YEARS.
Don’t look to humble our resident embarrassment by pointing out logical inconsistencies in his positions. First of all, hypocrisy is a freebee for libs/progs/Dems like him. Second, reason is beyond him. So is humility.
The war should have been over long before Obama took office. Conservatives went out to save the world for Iraqis and never got around to winning in Afghanistan
So once again… Barack Obama. Involved in everything, responsible for nothing. The liberal way.
Liberals can only clean up after conservative disasters so fast. You guys produce so many catastrophes, tragedies and nightmares it’s hard to keep up with you.
Have you even watched the news for the last 12 months? I mean something besides Colbert and Jon Stewart?
I watch sources other than Fox.
Which explains why I know what’s going on and you don’t.
Yeah, I hear Chris Matthews is fair and balanced.
The only time I’ve ‘seen’ him is on a Family Guy parody.
That’s B.S. He had the same intelligence EVERY western nation possessed. They ALL believed Saddam had those weapons. Memos in his own regime showed Saddam himself thought he had them. EVERY current democrat leader, who had access to that intelligence, made public statements about the threat those weapons posed. Most, in fact, voted to authorize force against Saddam.
You’re lying when you misrepresent the historical record so willfully.
You go ahead and prove your statement. They didn’t ‘all’ believe he had WMD’s because the French clearly did not agree which is why they stonewalled an attack.
And the intelligence that the dems saw was thoughtfully provided by Bush.
Which is why Colin Powell said his UN presentation was a mistake.
Please. You live in your fantasy world.
Clinton was President before Bush was even there and he said Sadaam was a threat because of his WMDs (which were shipped to Syria).
You don’t live in reality.
Gee. Did Clinton go to war?
Hmm…you have a problem…
Kosovo, where Muslims were started butchering people (yet again) and then started getting attacked.
Do you know anything?
SSHHH! No one tell him the topic is WMD’s in the middle east
You have a 2 note song. Bush lied and critics of Obama are racist. I think that we all get it. So let’s check your first note. Bush lied about Iraq and WMD? He knew for a fact that Iraq did NOT have WMD and then said that they did? Have you read UN Resolution 1441? Passed unanimously by the Security Council? And was WRM’s column entitled “Obama sucks, Bush was terrific?” Bush wasn’t great, Obama is now. Come on.
Where are the WMD’s? Why didn’t Bush wait for Blix to finish his work? Why the rush to go to war?
There was absolutely NO need for Bush to invade. None.
And you guys have a 1 note song: Obama’s a commie.
Fine. You want to chant that? I’ve been trained in Gregorian chant. I can sing my own song about your racism.
“Why didn’t Bush wait for Blix to finish his work? Why the rush to go to war?”
Finally! You made a good point. But I was talking about “lying.”
“you guys?”, Obama’s a commie?” ADD?
You might try something other than old, tired, stale comments. The tediousness of childish repetition and your simpleminded thoughts make Cindy Sheehan sound deeply intellectual.
And, Obama is a Marxist, racist, incompetent and a pathological liar, among other character flaws and personality disorders. Educate yourself, think outside your collectivist prison and see things and people for who and what they are.
Or, continue your delusions, blindly repeating what your told to think. You make the call buddy.
Blah blah. You guys trot out ‘Obama’s a commie’ at the drop of a hat, scream about Obama’s not yet declared war, then completely ignore your OWN RECORD on the destruction your own policies cause.
Obama’s as much a marxist as you are nazi. The nazis were racist. as you are.
Jeez, the dropping hat hardly left your head when you started calling all your opponents racists.
That two note song of your was boring years ago; it’ll never be a hit now.
I call racism when I see it. Saying Obama is anti American is, primae facie, evidence of racism since there’s NO proof of it whatsoever; NONE
So such a charge is based on some OTHER feature of Obama. Given the problem the right’s had with racism in recent times (e.g. John Derbyshire; Ron Paul’s newsletter; Rand Paul’s campaign mgr), racism DOES exist on the right.
And no racism exists on the left? What BS. Admit it, you’re just using the “racism” term to silence critics. I didn’t say Obama is anti-American, but his Marxist leanings are pretty clear. The documentary 2016 does a good job of analyzing the man. But I personally think the man is more “pro-Obama” than even “pro-Marxist.”
The right uses ‘marxist’ like the left uses ‘nazi’
Both are evidence of shallow and weak thinking.
Respectfully disagree. Nazi is another term designed to inflame because it implies hate and supremacist ideals. Marxist merely means, “one who follows the teachings of Karl Marx,” which promotes increased state control at the cost of personal liberty. They’re not polar opposites.
Garbage. Total right wing trash. “Increasing state control’
I’m in favor of laws against rape
OMFG!!! I’m a marxist!
No one says there shouldn’t be laws. The point is where to put the stake in the sand.
And THAT is a liberal position. The conservative position is that almost NO Laws are legit.
I suppose an unenlightened liberal mind would believe that. Look at Sabanes-Oxley, passed by Congress to prevent “another Enron.” I make money on this law, but it’s a stupid law, putting onerous reporting requirements on companies without any real benefit. No wonder American companies are now going public on foreign exchanges.
It deserves repeal. Likewise, so does Obamacare.
Oh and any solid libertarian would say that rape is a crime against the individual. Your argument example is incongruent with what you’re trying to prove.
And poisoning children’s drinking water via industrial effluent is the same. Racist segregation is the same
Rambling argumentation isn’t helping your case.
So you’re saying libertarianism is inconsistent?
Yeah…I agree.”line in the sand’
Talk about a meaningless statement.
Yeah, especially when they’re in red, and in Syria.
So Bush could bomb whatever country he wanted and you wouldn’t complain? It was just boots on the ground that was the problem?
It was Bush actually committing the resources necessary to complete his objective that was the problem?
Obama promises he will just do a drive-by shooting in Syria and won’t actually accomplish anything and that is what progs like you call “SMART POWER”.
I’m already complaining. Obama bombing Syrian would be a mistake.
And what did Bush accomplish in Iraq? 1000 dead in bombings last month, courtesy of Al Qaida
How about deposing Saddam Hussein, extirpating his dynasty, and instilling a democracy that has regularly scheduled elections with voter turnout higher than in the US? Oh, and killing tens of thousands of Al Queda operatives.
Last month, Al Qaida in Iraq killed 1000 people
You were saying.
And why was that our responsibility?
Obama’s friends are just doing what Muslims have done for centuries.
Racists like to call Obama a foreigner…Muslim…black…whatever.
Racist is what progs have to vomit out when they can’t argue anymore.
La Raza, the New Black Panthers, the Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, the KKK, and all the other Democrat Party groups built upon race and racial hatred all scream racist as they stoke racial hate themselves.
CPAC just had a nice meeting on the benefits of slavery
KKK was conservative…since most racists used to be democrats in the south…
I know you don’t know history but try to learn.
You don’t know anything other than what you were fed.
The Democrats created the KKK. The Democrats of that time loved Wilson, Planned Parenthood, FDR, and communists.
The Democrats of TODAY love the same things. That is because the Party hasn’t changed.
You guys still have groups based on skin color and race and hate. There is no difference between the KKK of old and the NBP of today. Same Democrat hate. Same skin color groups.
Stand back as his head explodes
CONSERVATIVES USED TO BE DEMOCRATS
Yep. Southern racists used to be democrats until 1948 when Truman put a civil rights plank into the democratic platform
Southern racists then jumped to the GOP.
So the people who voted in FDR and Wilson and loved Planned Parenthood are now Southern Republicans? Are you serious?
You think Southern Republicans love Planned Parenthood, FDR and Wilson? Well they don’t. Democrats do.
You guys still have groups based on skin color and race and hate. There is no difference between the KKK of old and the NBP of today. Same Democrat hate. Same skin color groups.
The south has traditionally opposed social welfare programs. The south has been traditionally conservative and racist. You have a problem
Southerners USED to be democrats. So did they used to support PP? You tell me.
We know they’re racists. That’s why they had the KKK and opposed unions and supported Jim Crow.
And they’ve always been conservative.
Democrats have always been racist. They founded Planned Parenthood and segregated the military under Wilson and interned Japanese under FDR and segregated the house under Al Gore SR and the last KKK member of the Senate Byrd (a Democrat).
Democrats LOVE making groups based on hate and skin color. They did that then, they do that now.
EVERY GROUP BASED ON RACE ***TODAY*** is a part of the Democrat Party.
You live in a hate filled fantasy world.
Golly…if democrats were always racist
why was the first civil rights plank that of the Democrats in 1948? Why did southern democrats leave the democratic party and join the GOP? Why was the ‘southern ‘strategy’ so successful to win racists to the GOP?
The Republicans expelled black members in 1910 and the early part of the 20th century. They withdrew federal support for protecting blacks in the south. Barry Goldwater, the GOP presidential candidate, opposed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.
Southern conservatives left the democrats after LBJ signed the VRA. They were racists. 46% of white GOP voters in MS think interracial marriage should be outlawed.
Please, your “facts” are made up or ignorant of reality.
Most Democrats opposed “black” equality and the strategy of LBJ was to get racial leaders to rally blacks into their hate groups, get them dependent on the government but never actually make them equal.
Democrats have destroyed more black families than their KKK ever could. One only has to look at what lives the majority of black Democrats live (a life of poor education, broken families and filled with hate at whites) with that of black Republican, whom are almost universally in the middle / upper class, NOT filled with hate and have intact families.
The racist Democrats put black exactly where they wanted, and today they do nothing to help the blacks because, in the words of the head of the Teacher’s Union, “we can’t force blacks to value education…it would be racist to do so”.
Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights law for entirely different reasons than you could understand. Look how the DoJ uses it as a weapon to continue Democrat voter fraud.
Since most Democrats in congress voted FOR the VRA and the CRA, you’re wrong.
And your lie about making them ‘dependent’ on the govt is typical right wing racism.
Democrats in the south USED to be CONSERVATIVE. Your racist hatred of blacks drips out like some poison with every word you type.
Goldwater gave support to the racist right wing states rights supporters…just like racists do today.
So when the vast majority of black Democrats are having babies by themselves, are you pretending they DON’T depend on the government? Really?
You project your hate on me. All it takes is ONE black guy to talk bad about Democrats and people like you come out and call him racial slurs. It is like breathing to you.
You don’t care about black children because they wouldn’t be in the failed schools otherwise. Democrats LIKE uneducated blacks and they are trying to destroy Hispanic families now. It is what you do.
Yet you project your vile hate onto me. Sad. I help people stand on their own feet and don’t demand they think a certain way or I scream slurs at them. That is what Democrats like you do.
You keep saying Democrats used to be conservative, but you don’t answer my questions. Just answer this one:
If Democrats loved Planed Parenthood, Wilson FDR and LBJ IN THE PAST, and then switch to the Republican party, why is it *TODAY* Republicans in the south hate PP, LBJ, FDR and Wilson and Democrats in the south STILL love them?
The obvious and simple truth is, no one switched parties except in the minds of Democrats.
Alot of white folks have having babies out of wedlock too. Funny we don’t see the right talking about loose morals in the white folk. Just the darkies.
THe right thinks that a woman’s body is federal property but once that kid crowns, you just deny medical care for it
Especially if its skin is a bit…dusky…
Psst, Spec Ops troops dress in local garb, so they’re wearing SANDALS. That’s why the admin is so confident there will NEVER be boots on the ground. And if you have any memory cells left, troops have been on the Syrian border for over a year (and I’m SURE none have crossed).
At least Iraq has strategic value because of it’s geographic location and resources.
This is shaping up as a contest between Barry and Vlad as to who can to a whiz the furthest. There is no US interest other than to save Obama’s face and no guarantees intervention will improve the conditions for those caught in the middle.
Obama generally does not let the Constitution get in the way of his desires. It has always been interesting to observe where presidents “take a stand” on humanitarian grounds. There is never a shortage of atrocities to choose from, but some seem to be placed above others when the same rationale could be used over and over. It makes you wonder what goes on behind the scenes. It is probably quite appalling.
“But what President Obama wants in Syria is a retaliatory strike.”
Obama is not promoting a ‘retaliatory strike.’ Syria has done nothing to provoke the United States. What Obama is advocating is nothing less than an act of war against a sovereign nation based on some nebulous humanitarian claim. It is a provocative and an irrational act he is proposing.
I have no love for Arab nations, but this smells of sanctimonious tommyrot wrapped in egoistic face-saving. We’re going to war to save the president from his own stupidity. You’ve got to be kiddin’ me!
“Especially when the stakes are high and the issue is complex, the President overthinks himself and tries to split the difference between tough policy choices.”
I fear ViaMead has not come to face the fact that affirmative action Obama has a rather low IQ. In place of actually thinking smart, Obama pours out meaningless hot air that the political correct media touts as “genius.”
I think Mead is one of those whose mind simply won’t accept the fact that we elected an anti-American president who was educated beyond his intelligence. He and others do their best to fantasize about what Obama “must” be doing because they can’t bring themselves to face the truth.
It’s a shame because it diminishes Mead’s writing and definitely calls his credibility into question.
Every time I see a right winger say Obama is anti American, I know it’s because he’s black. There’s no other way to explain it.
What has he done that’s anti American? They never say. But he took a job that traditionally belonged to white men and has now given the power of the presidency to a black man.
Racism. Pure and simple.
I am sorry, but your comments are seriously devoid of any coherant intellectual thought. Every time Ii hear a left winger like you cry rascism it makes me sad that I share this earth with a moron like you
So you CAN’T prove Obama’s ‘anti American’ (sic).
Thanks. I already knew that
My assertion stands. Claiming he’s anti-American is racist.
Your assertion stands. Agreed. It stands as the musings of an idiot.
Any proof of Obama’s anti-Americanism?
Nope. Insults. No logic.
Thanks, conservative. You keep proving my point.
The proof I demand is support your claim that opposition to Obama derives is racism. Try another strawman.
Tell you what. You quit putting words in my mouth and I’ll answer your objection
You’re conservative. You think you win arguments by making them up as you go along.
“You’ve taken a racist bumpersticker (sic) and turned it into a [leftwing] talking point.” applies to your assertion as well.
You guys keep racking up insults.
You COULD shortcircuit this entire conversation by proving Obama hates America
Lots of comments. NO PROOF.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Again you fail to address my challenge:
Prove this: “Every time I see a right winger
say Obama is anti American, I know it’s because he’s black… Racism. Pure and
Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipentis, in
Like I said…no proof that Obama’s anti-American.
Res ipsa loquitur? That’s a particularly stupid excuse to avoid accounting for your own assertions.
When you prove Obama hates America then you will have disproven my contention that’s a racist statement
So far you haven’t. Where’s your proof?
Words are so important that I would love to have an Orwellian nightmare find the right ones. Einstein said people are infinitely dumber than the universe. We won a cold war without understanding how Communists fundamentally transform countries. The audacity of hope and change is exploiting our incredible stupidity.
Marxism has never worked. Socialism requires “new” men and women who do not distinguish between earned and unearned success. After World War I, the Marxists were surprised that the workers do not unite and create heaven on earth.
The crazy Marxists decided civil societies were the problem. The solution was destroying the civil society before finding out nothing grows in a pile of dirt if you do not reward earned success. Since Marxism does not work, the Marxist has to replace religion with worship of the state and kill people to create heaven on earth. Words, names, and slogans are very important to the Marxist who wants the Marat media to worship a Robespierre in order to get a bunch of leeches to suck off Napoleon’s hemorrhoids. Mark’s legion is the ruthless mob of useful idiots. When the civil society is a pile of dirt, normalization begins.
If you show the guilty mercy, you punish the innocent after the fundamental transformation. Every systemic problem creates a constituency that the communist wants to expand to punish and demoralize the innocent while doing nothing about the guilty during the civil society destroying 10, 20, or 30 year period. The best defense is an infuriating offense. Frankfurt critical theory is simple. Criticize, criticize, and criticize your problem solving opposition with your intentionally created problems that you have no solutions for while preventing the opposition from solving the problem – pure madness.
Orwellian nightmares come up with politically correct wonderful names for awful things and awful names for good things. Lies are told again, again, and again by people who have no clue. Political correctness is important so the trouble makers can vilify without return fire. Orwellian nightmares put crazy narcissistic control freaks in charge of bureaucracies whenever possible then betray and condemn the useful idiots when the transformation is complete and the police state begins.
Cynicism is a double edged sword. On one hand it protects people from crushing disappointment. On the other hand it paralysis people from saying or doing anything constructive. Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals to honor the devil because the devil got his own kingdom. The communist super genius is a truly evil person. Karl Marx thought Big Government was a bad idea and Stalin killed Trotsky because he agreed. There is a 1963 book called the Naked Communist that outlined destroying our civil society.
Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery is just another of saying ridicule is the most sincere form of criticism. Who in their right mind would like to work for the Bureau of Pure Stupidity? Having the members of congress, who do not vote for a passed bill, name the bill, agencies, and programs would throw Orwellian nightmares for a loop. Planned Parenthood would be called the Extinction Center. Obama care would be called Push Grandma off the Cliff plan. Cash for clunkers would be called the Anti-Demolition Derby law. Obviously the innovative group of dissenters can come up with better names than I can.
If Government is the only golfing solution of last resort, the minority will come up with civilized names for civilized programs that improve our civil society even if they do not want to otherwise Republicans get to write the Democratic Party platform and vice versa. Our enemies will call us the United States of Absurdity but they won’t know what to about our intelligence.
A long diatribe to say nothing
Marxism has nothing to do with anything.
You took hundreds of words to say nothing.
Karl Marx was fat, lazy, and stinky bum who managed to do an unbelievable amount of harm with his extremely faulty intelligence machine. On page 64 of the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels outlined everything.
Welcome to Hotel Obama. No free speech and you can only travel via the Hotel shuttle. Please invite all your rich friends. All property is taken from the emigrants and anyone who complains about the service. We pay with counterfeit dollars and extra tax people who work harder to have more counterfeit dollars. If any of the other guests like your dress or suit, we all share at Hotel Obama. Next week, we are going up to your lake property but you can’t go until you are part of the collective. You are no longer the President of your company and all the machines are ours. Tomorrow morning your chain gang is farming and next week you will be doing factory work. The dupes check-in but they can never leave.
It’s pointless to argue with a racist nazi who thinks a black president is a commie.
It’s the area 51 of the intellectual death trap known as American conservatism
Why in the wide wide world of sports does Obama and company keep on trying to get everyone to dance around like a bunch of Kansas City Mullahs? Nowadays, the Jeffersonians all have color TVs in order to watch the Rodeo and the liberal news. The other day the liberal media facially and odiously profiled Duck Dynasty’s Willie. They thought he was Karl Marx.
You and I have something in common.
Neither of us understands what you’re talking about.
Up until the Wilson, the Democratic party of Thomas Jefferson. Even Andrew Johnson was a racist, he was very smart as far as the economy. When LBJ signed the civil rights law, he kissed the Jeffersonians good bye and the communists move in which lead to Nixon’s southern strategy and republicans not being for civil rights? In the 70s, Mel Brooks made a movie called Blazing Saddles about race relations. Rent it.
He spent 20 years going to a church pastored by an avowed hater of America. The proof is that silence is implied acceptance.
And yet he repudiated that church and you can’t cite a single example of ANYTHING he’s said that’s anti-American
It makes me thing of the little girl who, every time she doesn’t get what she wants sticks her fingers in her ears and wails to high heaven until her opponent relents.
Every time I see a Leftist complain that policy differences between conservatives and progressives are based on race, I know I’m reading a moron’s writings. Ignoring 100+ years of great policy differences between those two groups, the Leftist settles on the intellectually lazy idea that there are no blacks who oppose Obama’s policies, and that the only reason anyone could oppose the most Leftist President this country has every had, is because he’s Black. Did I say intellectually lazy? Yeah.
You know how to prove m e wrong?
Instead of bloviating and posturing about all the garbage your head is filled with
prove Obama is anti American
That’s all you’d have to do. Argument would be over
But you can’t. You’ve taken a racist bumpersticker and turned it into a conservative talking point. We even had someone here last week say Obama was like a ‘monkey’.
Racism exists on the right. Sorry.
So, if you want to make your case, make it. Otherwise you’re just proving my point.
The onus on you is to prove your extraordinary claim. Proving yourself right accomplishes all. Can you?
Uh, no it’s not. Proof of my claim is the prior assertion that Obama is anti-American.
Where’s the proof?
He might not be anti-American but he sure as heck doesn’t know how to act like a patriotic president. Which, BTW, includes constitutionally executing the powers of his office and respecting its limits and the powers of the other branches. So, without proof, we are faced with 2 choices. He is either patriotically bereft or he is anti-American. I don’t care which one you choose. Like Obama, I expect you to choose neither. Too hard.
Yeah no conservative president has ever violated the War Powers act or trampled on the constitution.
Wasn’t it Richard Nixon who said ‘if the president does it, it CAN’T be unconstittuional’?
Pity I know history and you know
Obama is anti-America because he wants to grab as much power over you as possible.
He gives weapons to drug cartels and then blames Bush when they use them in bloodbaths.
He says bombing Libya is “not a hostile action.”
He encourages people to take as much welfare and free stuff as they can.
He wants to take us to war in Syria on the side of jihadis.
He equates Muslm’s practice of burquas and oppression with women in America.
He lets in jihadis to America and then blames America itself when they blow up marathons.
He calls a jihadi attack at Ft. Hood “workplace violence”.
He is allies with communists, socialists, and islamists.
He uses the federal government to harass and oppress his political enemies.
He wants to keep kids in failing schools because Teacher’s Unions will lose power.
I could go on and on for hours.
Now THERE’S a vague generality: ‘grab as much power as he can’
And your BEST, LEADING example of that is a minor gun trading program that he himself did not initiate, and which was a continuation of Bush’s policies.
How does bombing Libya grab power, especially after Bush sent 4400 US troops to their deaths in Iraq? By your logic, we’d be a dictatorship by now under Bush.
And Bush was president on 9/11. You want to really go there?
Yeah you can go on and on, racist.
You just proved my point. Calling Obama a socialist is like calling Bush a nazi.
Both are terms used by the brain dead. Much like you
My BEST, LEADING example was Fast and Furious, a program conceived and started entirely by the Obama Administration.
Bush was involved in Wide Receiver. Totally different programs.
Obama LIED when he said Fast and Furious was begun under Bush. It started October 2009.
And to top it off, you call me a racist. Typical.
MOST Democrats voted for Obama for his skin color. Simple, hate filled, racist fact.
Democrats can’t argue the facts. They just know lies and name calling.
Hey go for it. If your best example is that Obama sold a bunch of guns to the Mexicans and that’s a power grab
Adjust your tin foil hat and have at it.
90% of Romney voters were white.
Good luck with that.
Really? That’s the only way to explain it? Lemme ask you: Did you ever hear anyone say that, say, Bill Clinton is anti-American? Be honest–you did. How about, say, John Kerry? Yes. Were they called anti-American because they are black and the person saying it was a racist? No.
There are certain beliefs and policies that Obama advocates and pushes that conflict with the American political tradition, with American national interests, and with American economic system. Examples: ObamaCare, his repudiation of military victory in wars undertaken in defense and national interest, his socialist economic policies. Those (and other things) lead some people to say he’s anti-American, with high plausibility. You can agree or disagree that those demonstrate that he is anti-American. What you can’t do is reasonably conclude from substantive, real opinions based on things other than his being half-black that the real cause is racism. It’s just your own bigotry and unfairness, your own unwillingness to think and reason, that makes you simply smear people as racists with no basis. How, in the end, is calling someone anti-American something that can be based on race? That’s preposterous as well as completely lacking in any kind of support. What you do–smear people as racists for no reason other than your own hatred–is what is truly, pure and simple, disgusting.
Quite frankly I never heard Clinton called anti-American.
Obamacare? Mitt Romney had a similar program. Richard Nixon wanted one. Are they anti-American? And what’s anti-American about universal healthcare?
And Obama’s as much a socialist as you are a nazi.
Face it, racist. You got called on your racism and you just don’t like it. The facts just slapped you in the face.
So you lie, and then smear. Despicable.
So let’s see…Obama’s a commie because he wanted universal healthcare…a program Romney embraced and which both Teddy Roosevelt and Nixon endorsed
Yet I’m the liar.
Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.
Your obnoxious stupidity is as epic as the trite meaningless life you obviously lead. Have you ever had a girlfriend in your life?
Funny how many racists complain about being called on their racism when they say Obama is anti American
We’re all just supposed to nod in agreement, with no proof whatsoever.
He may have a low IQ (doubtful, but a high or average IQ still doesn’t mean he’s smart or deeply intelligent–you’re right, he’s not). But that doesn’t mean he can’t overthink himself and come up with these self-deluded supersmart complexifications. He does overthink, though it’s thinking about how to put everyone on the hook but himself and how to appear smart. A genius he ain’t.
” It is almost impossible to defend whatever policy he actually has in mind at this point, yet the consequences of a congressional vote that opposes him are grave.”
When the world (and the American people) have to guess at “whatever policy he actually has in mind,” that pretty much amounts to an utter failure of leadership.
There should be no guessing.
If you’re going to take Vienna, take Vienna.
Democrats don’t care about policy or achieving anything. Sometimes Democrats just need to kill some people (Syria) or lynch a Hispanic (George Zimmerman).
After the blood spills Democrats feel better.
Number of US troops killed in Iraq by the war started by Bush?
Number of US troops killed in wars started by Obama?
Democrats and Socialists like him are responsible for tens of thousands of our dead and tens of millions around the world.
You don’t give a damn about war dead.
Obama said Afghan was a good war and there have been far more dead under him than Bush. You swallow whatever they give you.
People who use ‘socialist’ and ‘nazi’ are too brain dead to have a discussion.
You use the word nazi not me.
And Obama is a Socialist, or more like the fascists where companies own the means of production but the government controls them (regulations). This works out better for Democrats because when their meddling blows up all over the middle class then they just blame the bankers or whomever they were pushing around.
Democrats blew up our economy like their jihadi allies and then blamed bankers for doing what they were told.
You go ahead show m e where I used “nazi’. The right calls ANYONE who questions Wall Street a marxist or socialist or other nonsense.
“Obama’s as much a socialist as you are a nazi”
Yet you are a Socialist and it was the Democrats who were in love with Nazis (National Socialist Party) back in the day, with all of their healthcare from the government and groups built around race (just like the Democrats of today).
Sorry sport. The right supported the nazis since commies were being killed. Hard to support someone who’s killing you. Stalin ordered the US communist party to oppose hitler until he signed a non agression pact
Don’t know much, do you?
And conservatives used to be democrats. I know that makes your right wing head explode but the right left the democrats when Truman put a civil rights plank in the democratic party in 1948,
The racists then formed a ‘southern strategy’ to win racists for the GOP. Which was successful
Funny how you ignore your logical fallacies where you believe Planned Parenthood (founded to kill off blacks) is beloved by Republicans.
Democrats loved killing blacks in the past and Planned Parenthood’s mission lives on.
I also recall blaming Iraq ENTIRELY on Bush even though Democrats voted for it. Here you switch standards entirely, and although FDR (a Democrat) went to war, now you ignore your previous standard and somehow blame conservatives.
Yes, Hitler did fight Communists and yes he was as narcissistic as Obama is and wanted to rule them all, but that doesn’t mean that fascists and Communists were opposites because as soon as we defeated the darling of the Democrats (Hitler…he was look it up) we directly pivoted to opposing communists because they weren’t much different.
You really know little.
You DO realize that, when there was a moderate GOP
many PP leaders were REPUBLICANS, right?
WEB Dubois was a board member of PP in the 20’s.
And conservatives were lynching blacks by the thousands in the south.
Conservatives in gernany supported hitler..industrialists supported him there, just as conservatives here in the US did.
“Conservatives were lynching blacks” – absolutely wrong. Democrats were doing the lynching. I might point out that hundreds of white were lynched as well.
Watch his head explode:
The south was always conservative.
It USED to be democrat. But Jim Crow and lynching were always
conservative…states rights you know.
As a 4th generation Southerner, with family members on both sides of the political spectrum, I can candidly tell you that you’re full of it. Check your facts, and set aside the liberal/conservative component measures of today (which were a bit vague until the ’60s anyway), and you’ll see it was Democrats who felt the need to keep the black man down.
4 generations and still incredibly ignorant.
Hey genius…southern conservatives USED TO BE DEMOCRATS
I know you ignorant backwoods rednecks can’t hold more than 1 idea in your head at a time, so it just fries your synapses to try and understand ‘democrat’ and ‘conservative’ in the south used to be the same thing
It’s a bit tiresome to have to explain this to you ad nauseum.
You sure are good at hurling cheapshot insults at people you have no clue who you’re talking to.
You also obviously have no clue what a conservative is, other than someone you can mock back at Democratic Underground.
I guess the money the Democrats are paying you is to try to get people in conservative blogs in an irate state, but you’re not even in my league. So go waste your energy somewhere else.
It really is a sad little juvenile cretin isn’t it?
Your use of the words “conservatives” is meaningless.
The people who supported socialism and Planned Parenthood in the past are the people who support them today.
Democrats, the SAME ones who give blacks a crappy education and don’t care about it, the SAME ones who segregate them to their own areas of the city, are the SAME ones who wanted them uneducated in the past.
Who knew Mitt Romney and his wife were racists?
Mitt Romney attended PP events and his wife supported PP financially
So yes, you conservatives are racists, I guess, by your own admission.
Mitt Romney is no conservative. FYI.
And let’s follow prog logic here:
You identify ONE guy who may or may not support PP, you pretend he is your political enemy, you THEN project that ONE person onto EVERYONE.
Typical. I bet you believe man is causing the oceans to rise and we have global warming, or climate change, or climate wierding, or whatever silly name you need to call it now a days.
Cantcha just SEE garden on his knees BEGGING and PLEADING!!!
PLEASE PLEASE TELL ME ROMNEY”S NOT A CONSERVATIVE!!!
Hey genius. He ain’t no liberal.
And ‘one guy’? You mean the guy who the GOP put up for PRESIDENT?
AGW? Yeah tell me how evolution is a commie plot too.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have Power To…
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations…”
Article II, Section 3:
“…he [the president] may on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses [of Congress], or either of them…”
Hopefully, Mr. Mead’s “…Good Foreign Policy Fairy …”
will have read the U.S. Constituition because it is clear (Crystal Clear) that no one in the current Executive branch of America’s government has EVER read the Constitution of the United States that they ALL have sworn “… to preserve, protect, and defend…” as stated in Article II, Section 1.
NOT READING laws before enacting them and later enforcing them is the chapter heading of page one of the Democrat’s Political Handbook.
***…it’s hard to see anything good coming out of this epic policy meltdown beyond, perhaps, a useful reminder to future presidents…***
Well directed. The electorate is learning precisely nothing.
I don’t believe there’s a Constitutional basis for military intervention for humanitarian reasons. That kind of busy-bodiness and do-goody work is not part of America’s Constitutional concepts. The president has a duty and the authority to protect Americans in such situations, not to save the world.
People, including our favorite academic, should stop equating Obama’s credibility with that of the US. I think no serious thinker is confused about which is which.
You have put your finger on the crux of the issue. By what act of God (for surely it is not in the constitution) does Obama believe that the stupidity of empty-headed academics such as Samantha Power (she of “Responsibility to Protect”) provides a basis for employing American military forces in combat?
Any conceivable strike will involve attacks on weapons depots and delivery systems, all of which will have substantial quantities of highly toxic materials sure to be distributed by the attack. Since these attacks would occur in populated areas (Assad doesn’t have a convenient equivalent of North Dakota to stash his WMDs), even highly successful strikes will kill hundreds or even thousands of civilians, and contaminate a considerable amount of territory. Just EXACTLY how does this qualify as protecting anyone?
Whether or not one approved of Bush’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was able to enunciate what he was trying to achieve, and didn’t rely on airy rhetoric to rationalize his strategies. Obama seems willing to commit mass murder rather than acknowledge that he spoke stupidly, and accept that he has made a serious mistake.
This is about Obama, and his credibility (or lack thereof), not the United States. The notion that our enemies are incapable of divining the difference is precisely the same sort of nonsense that cost us 50,000 lives in Vietnam.
Bush’s trumped up Iraq war cost at LEAST 500,000 Iraqi lives
If that’s not mass murder…
Many of whom were killed not by us, but by the insurgents, who blew themselves up in markets and other crowded public places.
We were talking mass murder. 500k in a country we invaded for no good reason….that’s mass murder.
The Nazi murdered six million Jews, most of them after 11/12/1941. Does that make FDR responsible for Auschwitz?
How many US troops were in Poland on 11/12/1941?
Yet you want to pin 500,000 murders on Bush.
You guys claimed Obama wanted ‘mass murder’ (sic) in Syria by bombing.
I’m simply pointing out the facts to the intellectually challenged conservatives (yes, I KNOW that’s a redundancy.)
Care to talk about numbers of people killed by drone strikes since Obama took office? Drones on average kill 10 more civilians than manned planes and up to 50 civilians die in an effort to kill one terrorist? And we are supposed to believe this president is morally superior?
I don’t care how many relatives of Taliban fighters get killed
How about the wedding party members? The homes of innocents? The other errant strikes?You, my friend, have a very peculiar agenda.
My agenda is to protect America…not sure why conservatives don’t understand that.
No. We claim he’s not suited for National office. He knows it too. It shows so desperately.
What do you care? The subject here is your president’s criminal activities in the present. What are you trying to do, distract us? Focus Dude, focus.
Perhaps you should just stop asking questions you don’t like the answers to
Which, for conservatives, is every question there is
Your myopia is showing.
How much does the DNC pay you for this? How can we get on some of that sweet sweet DNC money?
Islamic jihadis doing what Islamic jihadis do is not anyone’s fault but the followers of Islam.
Were it not for corruption, the Democratic Party would never win a national election. While you pat yourself on the back for being better than everybody else, you’re actually supporting a crime syndicate, and you’re part of it.
I don’t give a damn about any alleged innocents in Syria killed by Obama’s “muscular enough not to be mocked” bombing campaign. The whole place is a cesspool. What I care about is the cost in *American* blood and treasure when there is no national security justification for intervening. The purpose of the U.S. military is to defend the U.S., not to be the world’s policemen or international social workers.
My post today is relevant to this topic: http://trotskyschildren.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-7th-century-solution.html
Biggest mess of his career? Funny…conservatives get us into decades long wars that they borrow trillions for, which blow holes in our budget and kill thousands of Americans
If this is the ‘worst’ mess of his career, so be it. No one is getting killed and it’s not costing us a trillion dollars.
I keep hearing this argument – it’s like just because Bush did something colossally stupid then it’s okay for Obama to do something that’s only hugely stupid.
Ah, no. I’m just commenting on the rabid hypocrisy, bordering on paranoid insanity of the right, which has led us into a string of unrivaled disasters, to lecture us on the perpetual apocalypse Obama is about to spring on us.
Which never happens.
By some estimates Syria has the world’s largest chemical arsenal. Please explain how lobbing a few cruise missiles will deter Assad and/or make him surrender his weapons.
Striking Assad will make the United States the de facto ally of the rebels. Does that include the substantial proportion of the opposition that are aligned with Al Qaeda?
If the opposition uses WMDs (some sources say they already possess them) will we attack them as well?
Nothing will change if Obama tosses in a few missiles. I’m not defending Obama’s position here; if he attacks I think it’s a mistake but not a big one. Certainly not like Bush’s catastrophe in Iraq.
So Obama will do a drive-by shooting of Syria just because he shot his mouth of when he didn’t stick to his carefully prepared remarks.
You progs are just insane.
Really? Number of wars with boots on the ground started by Obama?
Number of black on white hate crimes escalates alarmingly. Race relations set back decades. This is your Party’s doing. This is how your Party survives.
Meaningless. If conservatives hadn’t been fighting against equal rights for blacks, like they fight against equal rights for gays today, we wouldn’t have HAD a ‘race relatiions’ problem.
Equal rights for gays? Tell that one to Dick Cheney! You see, it’s more complicated than you imagine.
Even conservatives can learn!
Number of countries Obama took into chaos, three.
Your sanctimony is at toxic levels. How’s your breathing?
And, never forget, Hillary voted ardently to invade Iraq. Funny, she seems indisposed at the present moment…
Conservatives must all read from the same sunday school bulletin because
ALL of you say this
The fact she was lied to by Bush?
Guess you kinda forgot that portion of the bulletin.
All my friends are liberal, all of them Democrats and they all acted like a lynch mob as soon as the Travon Martin verdict was announced. They all listened to the same b.s. you do apparently and to my shock all of them, the whole van full, lovely people otherwise, and all of them once instantly turned into a lynch mob. That is what your Party does. It makes nice and smart people mean and stupid. And it shows. And the rest of us have to live it.
Who mentioned Trayvon Martin? Do you even TRY to make sense?
I am not a conservative. I also feel that Hillary voted for political reasons. Funny, Bernie Sanders and many other senators didn’t buy Bush’s snake oil. But, at this point, what difference does it make?
Aaaaaand here you are again. Aren’t you amusing? Dude, you have a problem. But don’t see a psychiatrist, you’d just wear him out. Come now, let’s be friends and all go listen to Susan Rice explain to us again why we have to go to Syria and kill some Arab babies to save Obama from looking stupid again.
Do you season Obama’s boots before you slobber your tongue all over them or do you like them in the raw?
Fuuny, idealogues bend facts to fit their ideas. Fact: LBJ (liberal, by any measure) left Nixon the keys to the Vietnam War, after overseeing the deaths of 40,000 Americans. Seems to me that both parties and idealogues of all stripes love to occassionally lead us into elective war. Perhaps you do not see the present, delicious irony that links Warriors like McCain and Graham with Feinstein and Pelosi. Enjoy your day!
Actually about half of all American deaths in Vietnam happened under Nixon. And, of course, LBJ had the disadvantage of laboring under the then current ‘domino’ theory of communism. Quite a change from Bush’s lies.
The figures can be looked up, they were off the top of my head. My central premise refuting your “conservatives start wars…” stands. FWIW: South Korea had the next largest casualties of a foreign country. In any event, LBJ owns that war and a majority of the casualties, period.
I agree with you. Again, it was a different world. And I never said ‘conservatives start wars’…whatever that means. You want to argue with yourself? Put your own words in you own mouth
Look at your original post, you said conservatives drag us into war. That’s akin to starting wars in anyone’s book. And, LBJ’s KIA is approximately 40. 000, Nixon, 18,000. Time for me to go back to work. By the way, I like Dick Nixon much more that I like Bubba Clinton, he of execrable conduct. That, of course, is personal opinion.
Wrong, pal. Try again. Conservatives drag us into decades long wars, like they did in Iraq. Why are we there? No one knows. Success? Nope.
And you liked Nixon?
Gee. He proposed universal healthcare. Was he a commie, too?
You see, bpuharic, you are supporting a criminal enterprise. With all your introspection one would imagine you to see that foremost, but no, like Obama it’s everybody else who’s at fault, never yourself, and certainly never you Party, you Party, your Party.
The right wing just presided over the biggest recession since 1929, and has, for the last 30 years, engineered wage stagnation for the middle class while tripling the income of the richest 1%
But they’re here to lecture us about ‘criminal enterprises’ while “too big to fail’ gets right wing support. All those bankers, you see, are fine, upstanding, moral kinda guys.
I can not believe that you think the financial disaster was solely right wing policy in action. Do you not remember “President Greespan” during the Clinton years opening the money faucet? This was added to by GWB and a most complicit congress. Blame anyone you wish, but my money (intended) is on both left and right for presiding over a fiasco.
Yes, the libertarian Greenspan who, until the very day the housing bubble blew up, insisted markets are rational. Just like conservatives do NOW, regardless of the evidence.
Clinton was the leader of the DLC…a centrist movement in the Dem party specifically formed to counter the influence of liberals. I agree; he shares some of the blame
Quite frankly I was in favor of moderate deregulation at that point.
NOT today, however. But conservatives haven’t learned their lesson.
At least Nixon finally ended a decades-long war Democrats got us into.
Just like Eisenhower ended the Korean War that Democrats got us into.
North Korea invaded South Korea, June, 1950. Truman was president, but he wasn’t to blame for this “police action.”
Oh. Please tell me who committed the US military to that “police action,” then.
ANd what’s worse about you and your misplaced loyalty and all the self-deception that entails is that your Party, your Party uber alles, does not have any moral leadership that visible to the rest of American voters.
To the right wing, ‘morals’ means putting a cop in your neighbor’s bedroom.
And that’s pretty much it.
Here you are again following the thread. I see this occasionally. Where occasionally means every day. Get used to the idea of the entire world speaking in terms of your beloved Party’s exile from the Executive branch for the next two generations, and how that happened because of Obama. It is clear that Democrats cannot govern nationally as their politics is entirely domestic.
If conservatives paid more attention to domestic politics they wouldn’t have lost the last 2 presidential elections while you whistle past the cemetery.
90% of Romney voters were white. Good luck with the demographics of the next election.
Well, I disagree with this statement on executive power. In 2007, Bush considered a request by the Israelis to bomb a nuclear reactor in Syria that was being built by the North Koreans, but declined (for many of the reasons cited above). Israel quietly took it out.
The President could have acted decisively, proportionally to this Iran client state right after they gassed their kids with WMD. This WMD does very much do pose a threat to the West. Go argue as to whether it is an imminent threat. No one’s going to the mat for the rights of the Assad regime. When you’re dealing with a failed state like Syria with 100,000 dead already, sometimes its better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
By waiting, going through this dance, and then downplaying what he actually wants to accomplish, if anything, he is likely to lose this vote. But, thinking positively, that might actually force him to take a harder line with Iran instead of inviting Iran to this peace conference in Geneva (dear lord, seriously?) so it might be a good thing, actually.
I read somewhere than Ambassador Powers told the Center for American Progress that they thought that Iran might flip on Syria when given information related to the chemical attack. I thought I read it in the Onion, but, unfortunately, it was actually news.
As usual WRM’s analysis, has me thinking of historical parallels.
The Bay of Pigs made Kennedy stronger in his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Perhaps (because I always want to see the U.S. succeed), this fiasco will make President Obama stronger in the soon-to-be-created Iranian nuclear crisis.
I really hope so. Iran is not North Korea — its terrorist cells are more robust and it wants to control the region through its proxies, rather than just survive. China has more control over North Korea than Russia has over Iran. And, most important, Israel is not South Korea or Japan — it will not tolerate an Iran with break out capacity.
I would have supported a quick strike of Syria (not reckless at all, our military has been wargaming it forever, and Israel and Turkey have begged for it). I mean Turkey is NATO, right, and it was hit by Syria, no?? But now it’s just too little, too late and distraction from the real threat in the Middle East which is, of course, Iran.
“yet the consequences of a congressional vote that opposes him are grave.”
What consequences? Don’t world leaders and peoples already have a pretty good read on how weak and incompetent Obama is? Their sneers and laughter seem to indicate that they do. Isn’t Iran going full speed ahead to build a nuclear bomb, just as they have been for many years?
Wouldn’t a no vote by congress reassure our allies that our system can deal with weak and incompetent presidents, and prevent them from making too much of mess? America does from time to time make a mistake, and elect’s someone unfit for the office? Won’t our enemies stop and wonder what would happen to them if they stepped over a line Congress wouldn’t tolerate? Mightn’t our enemies have to review their appreciation of us, to account for how some presidents are powerful, and others are not, and how difficult it is to anticipate what Congress might do.
Hmm…US popularity is now higher than it was during the Bush administration:
but to conservatives, facts are inconvenient distractions from a good argument
Hmmm….number of morons in America (like you) is now higher than it was during the Bush administration.
Then you can explain why the hated Bush could assembly a 40-nation “coalition of the willing” to oppose Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein, with many contributing troops for actual in-threatre deployment, while the popular Nobel-laureate Barack Hussein Obama can only muster one (Monsieur Hollande) who bring with him no commitment of actual forces?
With all due respect to our allies, most of the fighting was done by the US and the UK. Some, like Poland, were thanking us for years of support when they were under occupation.
And Obama hasn’t really asked for anything yet. He also has the support of the Japanese and a few other countries.
The difference is, of course, unlike Bush, Obama’s not willing to lie to make his case.
You think Obama isn’t asking? Are you crazy?
Obama lies all the time. Most of what he said on Syria is DIRECTLY the opposite of things he said while demonizing Bush.
Obama will say and do anything for power. The sad thing is jihadis are the ones that benefit from his lies and deceit.
That doesn’t make him a liar–that makes him a politician with power, or a hypocrite. Which are the same thing.
Let’s see…Obama campaigned on universal healthcare. We have it. He said he’d grow the economy. It’s growing at 2.5%.
Bush lied us into a worthless war that killed 4400 US troops and put a 2 trillion dollar hole in our budget.
Funny how conservatives ignore THAT. As to jihadis…
3000 Americans died on 9/11.
Bush was president.
You have your talking points down pat, so A+ for you on that, and you are as wearisome as ever. Your president is geopolitically retarded and it shows. Community organization and Chicago politics takes one only so far. Your project is nearly over. History is already regarding it as failure. But you do not read history, that is obvious.
You live in a fantasy world.
Obama destroyed the best healthcare in the world for his power grab. We are worse off.
The economy is in shambles. MOST jobs are part-time now because of Obamacare.
The Fed is printing money like never before which is artificially giving us the WORST “recovery” in our entire history thanks to your messiah, the Imbecile.
Democrats voted for the same war you keep ignoring.
Cute how you are now pretending 2 trillion dollars now. I thought all spending was “stimulative”! Didn’t WWII get us out of the Great Depression you pretend?!
You should worship Bush then!
Thanks to Clinton 9/11 happened.
Insanely, Obama now has imported more jihadis than ever bringing the horror of the Middle East here. Terrorist acts which have always been overseas are now regular here thanks to your jihadi lover.
Add to that we now have your Democrat allies parading their women in burqas here in America…you woman hater.
Ah, the Rush (PBUH) mantra about healthcare;
WE HAVE THE BEST!!
Why? We’re ‘Murricans and people get RICH off healthcare.
We’re worse off? Yep. The right wing devastated our economy to make the rich richer. The middle class has LOST ground while the richest 1% gained 11% in income in the last 2 years.
You guys with your supply side mythology started this recession in 2007
Obama didn’t become pres until 2009
I realize lies are what make conservatives conservative, but gimmee a break!
By the way, Bush was president on 9/11.
The rich mostly give money to Obama, if you haven’t noticed. They get it laundered back to themselves because that is what happens in corrupt Socialist economies.
Yes, the insane spending did start when the Democrats took over the House (they start all financial bills).
No one has been hurt more than when FDR, Carter, and Obama have been president. LBJ absolutely destroyed the poor’s hope for any future prosperity.
Obama’s as much a socialist as you are a nazi
Ridiculous name calling
Middle class incomes grow faster under democrats than conservatives:
The Federal Reserve is third and largest national banking experiment. The time span before the second and third grand experiment was called the free market gilded age. The six largest banks had no place to go except off the end of the free market diving board. The Federal Reserve was created on Jekyll Island. The second worst President of the United States thought the Federal Reserve was a good idea in 1914. Wilson blamed the bankers but liberals always promote their intellectual failures with their vulgar stupidity. Barack Obama is the Prince of Hyde Park.
Alexander Hamilton was the intellectual father of the Federal Reserve.
And arrogant conservatives just gave us the deepest recession since 1929, with their mythology of the ‘free market’.
You in possession of an extremely blinkered view. Conservatives gave you, it’s that simple to you. Your economic training ended apparently in Kindergarden, and yet we see you can type.
Fabian Keynes master plan is simple. If debt is money and the interest is more debt, the communist will own everything 50 to 100 years down the road while documenting big government does not work.
A Harvard (bad) Professor, who was the President of the IMF (double bad), wrote a book sarcastically called “It is Different this Time” (strike three). He studied fiscal crisis in 66 countries over 500 years. The following are the Central Banking, New World Order, or Masters of the Universe Equations and Relationships:
GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Exports – Imports
GDP= Money Supply x Money Velocity = Price x Transactions
GDP Delta= Population Delta + Productivity Delta
1% GDP reduction in taxes increases private sector 3% in GDP
1% GDP increase in Government Spending deceases private sector 1% GDP and vice versa without any change in GDP
Government is a monopoly that is 20% more expensive than the free market.
If we go from a 38% tax rate to 20% tax rate with a balanced budget the private sector will grow from $11 Trillion to over $16 Trillion. Tax revenue won’t decrease 48%. Tax revenue will only decrease 24%. Half of Washington won’t have to go on a permanent vacation, only one out four. Employment will increase 25% so displaced bureaucrats will have lots of new opportunities to contribute to society.
If we get down to a balanced 10%, $20 Trillion – more than a 60% increase in jobs if half of Washington goes on a permanent vacation, each dollar earned buys ($0.90/$0.62) 45% more, and hard America becomes a soft warm place.
Thanks to Thomas Jefferson and crew, we were a 10% tax country for more than 150 years. Switzerland, much of Eastern Europe, and Russia are 16% flat tax freedom lovers.
Hoover was a Wilson progressive who saved the communist in 1919. His 1929 stimulus was twice the size of Obama’s. After he screwed up Hoover became a conservative.
What you ignore, of course, is that Keynesian economics teaches debt spending in recessions and payback in growth periods
The right continuously borrows and spends no matter if the economy’s growing or not. Bush did it when we had 4% growth rates
Why would we BORROW money when the economy’s growing? Supply side economics has been tested and failed. THe right wing spent us into a recession
Hoover lived in a time when state and local spending dwarfed federal spending.
You conservatives own this tragicomedy you call an economy. You deregulated us into a depression.
RELATIVE TO THE ENTIRE ECONOMY HOOVER’S STIMULUS WAS TWICE AS BIG AS
OBAMA’S. GOVERNMENT SCREW UP EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES EXCEPT NEGATIVE RIGHTS AND LOCAL ISSUES.
YOU DONT HAVE TO SHOUT!!
And federal spending was a MUCH smaller proportion of GDP than it is today.
Perhaps you’re in favor of repealing laws against bank robbery and murder, too.
When you walk into Monticello (Thomas Jefferson’s place) there is a bust of Turgot. Turgot inspired Smith, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Jackson, and Friedman. Before the Fabian Keynes reopened Pandora’s box, the political economic debate was largely over and the Austrian School of Economics won. If the money supply does not change, all the Fabian Keynesian are funny. More than anything else, Adam Smith and our founding fathers were thoughtful reality based moralists.
John Nash’s beautiful mind recognized the importance of interactions in which the results of one person’s choices depend not only on his own behavior but also on the choices of another person. There is a related game called Ultimatum. You and your partner split $10. Less than $3 deals disgust and anger. The dealer has a pulpit.
The Laffer effect is no joke. Charles Adams, an international tax attorney and historian, wrote books on taxes. Once tax rates rise above the disgust and anger point, the expected extra tax revenue never shows up. A flat tax system is part of Constitution. Everyone has to pay taxes to keep as many people’s tax rate below the disgust and anger tax rate or make sure an overwhelming majority is disgusted with high taxes.
Along Carman and Kenneth, the King James School of Political Economy Dean sincerely believes dealers can routinely get an $8 to $10 deal by getting his or her partner work for a $3 to $5 deal. With each $3 to $5 of earned success the partner becomes a dealer that turns the $3 to $5 deal into $6 to $8 of earned success. Turning $10 into $13 is a win-win systemic solution that creates good people, great outcomes, and durable trust but when it rains, rainmakers show up and turn everything to dirt.
There will always be zero-sum losers who just accept less than $3 deals and think the key to success is being an abusive dealer. A $7-$3 deal isn’t better than a $6-$4 deal because $7-$3 deals turn into $6-$2, $5-$1, and $4-two bit deals. Rainmakers turn everything to dirt because they feel entitled to $7up and someone else has to pay for the diet $7up. A shared sacrifice life is the unknowing bully master plan and then you die.
It all boils down to feelings.
Too bad about the Austrian school, like so many others, being disproven, isn’t it? The Austrians were shrieking that we’d be in hyperinflation right now, with interest rates at 0% or lower
Those of us who went to Carnegie Mellon University have enormous respect for John Nash, for obvious reason as we do for Mogdiliani and Herbert Simon.
The Laffer effect isn’t a joke, it’s simply wrong. It’s not worth the paper it was written on. Empirical studies of the relationship between GDP growth and tax rates (e.g. Piketty and Saez 2013) have found that, even with tax rates at 80%, GDP growth is positive.
So the right wing has a mythology built around the Superman model of Ayn Rand, buttressed by Laffer curves and Austrian economics
Too bad all of those are mere fables. Which is why right wing economics does SO much damage.
Second place is the first place loser but a peek is worth 10 free market estimators. I am not a economist. I someone who estimated construction projects for 30 years. I am the dean of king james school of political economy because I turned into a basketball game. My “economic model” always works, lead me to chase a project delivery system dream. My project delivery system, that does a great job of aligning everyone’s interest, is transferable.
I have an no creditability but if you do take my project delivery thoughts and run with them. I’ll also never find the right word, Google “robin hood in reverse with a nba twist”. Because of the new relationships that my project delivery system requires, it will be a decade or so before my dream comes true and it will start in the Dakotas, and Kansas.
Liberalism is the idea that evil deserves the fair chance but you guys are more pulpit orientated than conservatives. In John Nash game, I don’t like being the dealer. It is more fun without a pulpit.
Obama is NOT the United States of America.
but to progs, facts are inconvenient distractions from a good argument
Yeah the president has NO effect on our image abroad.
Everyone loved Bush, you see. They just kept it a secret…
Obama is a joke. A world wide joke.
You think people don’t notice Mr.Peace Prize wants to start a war thanks to his big mouth but he wants to make sure everyone know what will happen (so Assad can prepare) and that it will be a tiny little thing that won’t actually do anything except “give a message” AT BEST!
And yet the US is more popular than we were under Bush
So other than the fact you have NO facts….
as to starting wars…you guys destroyed our economy with your Iraq war
hard to top that!
And Obama’s “right and necessary war” in Afghanistan went swimmingly when he took over correct? And please, you simple little twit, don’t even try to lecture about Afghanistan, because you know nothing about what is going on there. You’re pointless. You’re an idiot. You’re a pathetic little turd.
US popularity and Obama’s personal popularity (and US Government popularity) are two very different statistics…
Popularity! Good grief, you’re in High School.
Dontcha love the right wing
FIRST they scream that Obama is hated around the world and has caused the US to be despised
When shown they’re wrong, they take to the swooning couch.
You don’t have a real job, do you?
I absolutely revel in the sheer magnitude of “Bush did it too” defenders of the man who EXPLICITLY campaigned as the anti-Bush. What ever happened to that, rubes?
Syria, a sovereign nation, did not sign the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1996. The present conflict affects only Syrians. This conflict is not an international dispute; it’s a civil war initiated by insurgents and fought entirely in Syria.
An observation: there exist among some a vitriol towards President Obama that any cognitive analysis could correlate to unexamined prejudices – ethnic, regional, religious, personal, national origin,etc. For more nuanced context on president Obama see American Thinker.
The “sour spot” summed up: “not only is Barack Obama unprepared for the responsibilities that lie on his shoulders, he has no experiential base to use as a referent. So he is flailing, while the danger mounts and damage to America deepens.” (American Thinker)
George Washington never told a lie, created guerrilla warfare, and was our first President. Soon after the Fertile Crescent created the first city-state, someone else created guerrilla warfare.After winning, Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall and won’t leave. Useless third party Humptovation is folly of the elite until freely associating masses revolt.
Why in the wide wide world of sports does Obama keep on trying to get everyone to dance around like a bunch of Kansas City Mullahs? Nowadays, the Jeffersonians all have color TVs in order to watch the Rodeo and the liberal news. The other day Obama facially and odiously profiled Karl Marx!
When the Marat media worships a Robespierre, it inevitably leads to a bunch of leeches sucking off Napoleon’s hemorrhoids, death, and destruction. The only ones who wins a Waterloo is the international bankers. Who is this clown working for?
You seem to have pretty good idea who he is working for…
And yet the GOP wanted a Wall Street banker to run America
Guess they figured if a man owns something he should run it.
This is about Obama and his failure train. Try and focus.
Romney wasn’t a Wall Street banker. However, Wall Streeters did donate *overwhelmingly* to Obama. Guess they figured if a man owns something, they should donate to him.
Romney didn’t have the moral integrity to be a Wall Street banker. He was a leveraged buyout scam artist who screamed about the worthless middle class, while getting a $10M bailout from the FDIC.
And you’re a liar. in 2008, Wall Street gave more to Obama than to McCain
In 2012, they gave more to Romney than Obama. I’m mature enough, as a liberal, to admit the facts.
Actually, you are the liar here, Romney never screamed. It is quite impossible to imagine the man screaming at anything. Scam artist is your term for businessman who buys failed businesses and fixes them. You are too partisan to speak reasonably with, and again, this article is about the man you apparently voted for, this article is about the man you are attempting to protect by deflecting, by lying and mischaracterizing.
Oh..it was ANOTHER Romney who said the middle class was a bunch of moocher? Hmm…how many Romney’s were you guys running for pres?
And failed businessmen? Well there’s George Bush who went bankrupt in an oil company he started with his daddie’s pals bankrolling him, before he took up as TX Gov.
Partisan? You guys are here telling us Obama sings the “Internationale” before bed every night and I am partisan?
I am assuming you have never read a resume before.
Anyone with any perceptive skills at all would have compared Romney, the guy who has built companies, rescued the Salt Lake Olympics and amassed significant wealth through his own cunning is a far better candidate to run anything than an untested unaccomplished community organizer.
As it turns out, barry has lived up to his potential as spelled out in his resume, blundering incompetence.
So, to answer your question, yes Romney, and almost anyone short of micky mouse, and perhaps even him, would have been better than this moron.
In spite of the fact the right worships the rich and denigrates the middle class, there’s not a shred…not a scintilla of proof of what you say.
Romney’s specialty was the LBO. There’s NO proof these create jobs at all. In fact he and his ilk…the rent seekers…are a specialized form of welfare recipient, proof of which was his $10,000,000 FDIC welfare check. He got more welfare than any person I know
But he’s rich. And to the right wing, the rich are perfect or they wouldn’t be rich
Their special tax rates nothwithstanding.
Listen, this isn’t a difficult concept but I will try to dumb it down for you.
Successful people make more money than non successful. There are a lot of defining reasons for success but a couple that are general are intelligence and hard work. Two attributes I do not see in barry.
As to your comments about LBO’s, you clearly do not understand how business operates. These companies that Bain and others invest in are usually in dire straights, for what ever reason, they are about to go under eliminating ALL their jobs. Bain comes in, provides cash and guidance to overcome their problems and reap rewards if they are successful, not every investment is a success.
So using Obama’s definition of job creation, all those jobs at Staples are still here and not lost so job creation. In addition, had the company gone under without Bain, the growth did in fact create new jobs.
Stop accepting party talking points as gospel and use that grey matter between your ears.
HEY! Gather around boys and girls! Rush (PBUH) is going to be channeled with the Sacred Words of why the Rich are Perfect!
The fact the US has the WORST social mobility of ANY western country? Ignore it. Doesn’t fit the narrative. The fact we have the worst inequality? Ignore it.
Because if it’s TRUE that the no. 1 factor in how rich you are is not how hard you work but how rich your parents are, then everything Bee just told us is cesspool dripping.
And guess what! He’s wrong!
And if those companies were in ‘dire straights’
why was he able to load them up with borrowed money that he took as profit?
Why did he need a $10M FDIC bailout?
But you g’wan. You keep carrying the water for Wall Street. Let ’em do again for our economy what they did in 2007.
It’s what the right wing does.
The electoral system is setting for a cat-and-mouse game between the general part of the demoralized public and the professional politician. One of the many outcomes of it all is seen in the tax laws.
Richard Posner, perhaps the foremost public intellectual in America, comes out against an attack/war with Syria. Apparently, Professor Mead is wrong in asserting that serious people are uniformly in favor an attack.
“Syria is a dictatorship, but it is not a threat to the United States. On the contrary, it will become a threat to us only if Al Qaeda, which is prominent in the rebellion, takes over the country, or a significant chunk of it (for Syria may fragment). An irony of our threatened bombing of Syria is that it may strengthen Assad’s position by doing little damage and thus making it look as if he’s successfully defied the United States, and by inducing Russia, China, and Iran to increase their aid
to him in order to make us look ineffectual.”
“Conceivably our government
secretly desires survival of the Assad regime in a weakened state; even a Syria divided on ethnic lines. We were not troubled by the Syrian dictatorship before the rebellion broke out—we will be troubled if Al Qaeda takes over the country. Al Qaeda and affiliated extremist Sunni groups endeavor to commit terrorist acts inside the United States;
Assad and his Shiite allies do not.”
Richard Posner has a referenced and studied opinion but its subjective to categorized him as “perhaps foremost public intellectual in America.” There are many serious Americans reflecting on this horns of a dilemma – see Adam Garfinkle.
The total of his scholarly contribution in the areas of law, economics, and public affairs generally is unmatched by any scholar that I’m aware of.
Also, his fearlessness in attacking sacred cows on the right and the left give him the kind of credibility that most public intellectuals lack. He is an economic liberal – indeed his is one of the rock stars of the original Chicago school – who advocates a Keynesian approach to dealing with the financial crisis. He is a critic of the Warren Court, yet he has undermined the idea that the originalism of Scalia and Thomas will get you a “right answer” to the most vexing legal questions.
Here is a list of his books that are available on Amazon. Every one is first rate.
Again, I agree. Posner is, as you say, a very sharp critic of the right and left. His blog is worth the time investment.
I’m of the Chicago school so perhaps that’s why I’m less enamored. And definitely less impressed with left/right comparabllity (though cognizant of thrust).
“Richard Posner, perhaps the foremost public intellectual in America”
Look him up my friend. You’ll be glad you did. No joke.
And, as a liberal, I agree. He and the Nobel prize winner Gary Becker have a great blog. Truly worth reading, even for a liberal.
Wow, have you seen the latest approval polls? He’s dropping like a rock. The transparently unqualified, never-had-a-job emperor has just stepped out of his clothes. It is going to be very interesting to watch Hilly (Bill’s doormat) weasel around with this one.
The media will help her.
Love it. We endured years of “Bush is a stupid cowboy who thinks he is policeman of the world or whatever his stupid monkey brain uses for thoughts.”
Now you are lamenting, yes you were lamenting, that the US Constitution just doesn’t give The LightBringer the power to be the world’s policeman.
And I’m old enough to remember just how fake this is; the same arguments were used to say Clinton should be protector of the oppressed… so long as zero US interests were at issue. Yet Reagan/Bush were stupid cowboys who were going to start WWIII by trying to police the world.
A cynic would be justified in simplifying this to just political posturing. Counterarguments?
Counterarguments? No. . . I fear you’re mostly right, although the cynicism runs (as always) both ways. Silent now are all the shrill, outraged voices who demanded the firing squad for Iraq War skeptics for their “treasonous” undermining of our divinely chosen President in time of war. Silent too are the former advocates of the “Bush Doctrine,” whose central conviction was that even the 1% *shadow* of a threat must be dealt with as if it had already occurred. When it came to Saddam’s regime, no scintilla of evidence was too dubious to justify an attack under the Bush Doctrine. Here, though, it’s hard to imagine what level of proof could ever be enough to satisfy the inventors of the Bush Doctrine.
But so be it. ‘Twas ever thus, and so mote it be again when the political tables turn next.
What bothers me is that everyone seems to care about the symbolism and the political ramifications of a possible attack, and nobody shows more than a passing interest in the merits. America’s “credibility” is just fine, and it’s survived any number of loose-lipped Presidential statements, misstatements, and idle threats.
Not *all* our threats are idle, and the world knows this quite well.
What concerns me is whether Obama’s “red line” is a threat that *should* be idle.
Of course intervention in Syria is humanitarian only if you consider saving face for a feckless, juvenile, inept “president” and rescuing his anti-American administration from a political disaster, to be “humanitarian grounds”.
Obama overthinks things? Please. The problem is he doesn’t think at all.
We elected hopey-changey; we’re getting hopey-changey.
more like dopey-changey
kudos for bringing it up a notch!
gonna use that one at work tomorrow
To repeat what I posted elsewhere on this topic:
1. Even if a military response is called for, does anyone trust these fools to handle it properly, without making a bad situation worse?
2. If we had competent ADULTS executing our foreign policy, we might not even be having this debate right now.
we would have problems, but they would be Sheriff Andy problems, not hole in the floor Deputy Fife problems.
Sad to say, you are CORRECT Mr. Mead.