Andrew Breitbart dead

[quote name='Spokker']You sound a bit like Rush Limbaugh with that vitriol.

In any case, I will not conduct a literature review for you without payment. I did such work in the past and was compensated.[/quote]
If your posts are any indication of your ability to think critically, you ripped them off and the free market fucked up because there are smarter poeple that would've worked for less money.

To point out that the Democratic party is not the anti-war party. When they are in power, they will continue to wage war. This includes Democratic Congressmen and the president. Anti-war campaign promises should not be believed. You cannot be anti-war and continue to participate in the two-party system. Some third-party candidates who are anti-war may emerge. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
Who the fuck said that Democrats were anti-war? Or maybe you can tell us more about yout thought experiments.
 
[quote name='Spokker']You sound a bit like Rush Limbaugh with that vitriol.

In any case, I will not conduct a literature review for you without payment. I did such work in the past and was compensated.[/QUOTE]

Well, the quality of your citations in this thread are indeed supporting evidence for meritocratic standards, you're right about that much.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Fancies and lack of will??? How is that a serious answer?[/QUOTE]

I laid out the rationale behind the idea that the president does have the authority to pull troops out whenever he wants, and that he is, in essence, the emperor of the country.

And here I thought I was giving him the benefit of the doubt by using fancies and lack of will. Obama never had any intention of leaving Iraq or anywhere else. He was a hawk all along on Afghanistan, voted for sanctions every time they came up in the Senate, voted for war funding something like a dozen times and never voted against defense authorization bills... I think the point's made. Won't bother with going further.

Since when do decisions happen in a vacuum?
Click to expand...

Things are going to be a mess until we stop dropping bombs and killing civilians. Using this line of argument will have us there forever. "things are bad, we must stay" is a greater rejection of reality and more resembling of a vacuum than saying "things are bad, we should stop creating chaos and violence".

It's too bad the MIC media grilled Kucinich with nonsense questions about aliens and UFOs and otherwise treated him like one of Snow White's dwarves.
 
[quote name='Spokker']You sound a bit like Rush Limbaugh with that vitriol.

In any case, I will not conduct a literature review for you without payment. I did such work in the past and was compensated.[/QUOTE]

So you're full of shit. Got it.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I laid out the rationale behind the idea that the president does have the authority to pull troops out whenever he wants, and that he is, in essence, the emperor of the country.[/quote]
So the mere existence of a choice proves that it operates free of any influence? That's your argument?

And here I thought I was giving him the benefit of the doubt by using fancies and lack of will. Obama never had any intention of leaving Iraq or anywhere else. He was a hawk all along on Afghanistan, voted for sanctions every time they came up in the Senate, voted for war funding something like a dozen times and never voted against defense authorization bills... I think the point's made. Won't bother with going further.
Click to expand...
Uhhh...did you NOT notice that Obama took a hawkish turn in his late in his campaign because people were calling him weak on foreign policy and on nations that weren't going to go along with the US hegemon?

Things are going to be a mess until we stop dropping bombs and killing civilians. Using this line of argument will have us there forever. "things are bad, we must stay" is a greater rejection of reality and more resembling of a vacuum than saying "things are bad, we should stop creating chaos and violence".
Click to expand...
How are those vacuums when you just argued that a president can just invade a country depending on his mood carte blanche?

It's too bad the MIC media grilled Kucinich with nonsense questions about aliens and UFOs and otherwise treated him like one of Snow White's dwarves.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about here?
 
[quote name='camoor']They are now playing his "best hits" and his rants are filled with this directionless, apoplectic rage.


Breitbart is a tragic figure in the same sense as Joe McCarthy or Darth Vader. Men that were so filled with hatred that it consumed them and caused their death way before their time.[/QUOTE]
Eh, Vader at least tried to redeem himself and do the right thing....lol.
 
[quote name='dohdough']False equivalence. Obama didn't order a full scale military mobilization based on fabricated evidence and NATO isn't the United States. Try again.[/QUOTE]

dohdough, You know NATO is de facto the US. We all know the game Obama was playing. And the "no-fly zone" was not really meant to stop there once we starting bombing there. And yes we did bomb many innocent civilians. And was there no fabricated evidence?

The dust has barely settled and already there are many questions coming up as to why were there. Who the hell was it that we supported? Was this really a civil war? Look at Libya now. It's hardly a singular will of the people that we often used to justify our invasion. It looks to me that we initially fomented insurrection and manufactured "indiscriminate bombing of civilians."

As a matter of what has occurred under his reign, Obama is an imperialist. Just like Dubya.

Check out this post. Libya looks more like US SOP rather than the nonsensical "humanitarian intervention" line.
http://politicsistheshadow.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-was-libya-campaign-all-about.html
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']dohdough, You know NATO is de facto the US. We all know the game Obama was playing. And the "no-fly zone" was not really meant to stop there once we starting bombing there. And yes we did bomb many innocent civilians. And was there no fabricated evidence?

The dust has barely settled and already there are many questions coming up as to why were there. Who the hell was it that we supported? Was this really a civil war? Look at Libya now. It's hardly a singular will of the people that we often used to justify our invasion. It looks to me that we initially fomented insurrection and manufactured "indiscriminate bombing of civilians."

As a matter of what has occurred under his reign, Obama is an imperialist. Just like Dubya.

Check out this post. Libya looks more like US SOP rather than the nonsensical "humanitarian intervention" line.
http://politicsistheshadow.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-was-libya-campaign-all-about.html[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree about imperialism and bombing of civilians; it's kind of our "thing," if you know what I mean. But, we do have to look at the scale of the incursions and theater of it all in order to make a more accurate assessment of the situation especially when arguing that Obama is exactly the same as Bush, of which I was arguing against in my quote.

Less evil IS less evil, but I'm not saying that one is good and the other is bad as they're both bad, just that one is less bad than the other.

As for NATO, I think it's less de facto US and more of an international paramilitary group as they're not one state's military force. Unless I'm mistaken, and I might be, but I was under the impression that NATO acts more on Western European interests.
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']
As a matter of what has occurred under his reign, Obama is an imperialist. Just like Dubya. [/QUOTE]
On the Political Compass he has moved very far to the right. He could be a bonafide and quite good Republican candidate, so the Republican uproar over his administration and his policies is all talk. You've got the NRA bitching and bitching when the president has been more than fair on gun control, to give one example.

The whole situation is quite damning.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals.Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders.

We list these because many of Obama’s detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.
Click to expand...
 
I had never thought of it before in terms of "few fixed principles" but that's a pretty good description.

He seems more out to save his political hide than to actually fix any of our current problems. Then again, national prayer and funny undies don't seem to offer much by way of anything other than maintaining status quo or even making things worse.
 
[quote name='nasum']I had never thought of it before in terms of "few fixed principles" but that's a pretty good description.

He seems more out to save his political hide than to actually fix any of our current problems. Then again, national prayer and funny undies don't seem to offer much by way of anything other than maintaining status quo or even making things worse.[/QUOTE]
I strongly suggest you read the link. It's nothing more that LOLbertarian bullshit once you get past the first two paragraphs.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I strongly suggest you read the link. It's nothing more that LOLbertarian bullshit once you get past the first two paragraphs.[/QUOTE]

:lol: this kid fears the power of true libertarianism.
 
[quote name='SgtMurder']:lol: this kid fears the power of true libertarianism.[/QUOTE]
Libertarianism is a thought experiment.

You keep calling me "kid," "pussy," and "bitch," yet you're the one that keeps posting like one. Why is that?
 
[quote name='dohdough']I strongly suggest you read the link. It's nothing more that LOLbertarian bullshit once you get past the first two paragraphs.[/QUOTE]

while that may be the case, the principles statement isn't terribly far off. I'll get around to reading it within the next couple of days, though perhaps tonight if there aren't many clients and I can go home early.
 
[quote name='nasum']while that may be the case, the principles statement isn't terribly far off. I'll get around to reading it within the next couple of days, though perhaps tonight if there aren't many clients and I can go home early.[/QUOTE]
The site seemed to be maintained by someone in the UK, considering some of the terminology, but leans libertarian. Eventhough the site is well written, you can kinda tell which way the author leans. It comes of as little patronizing and reads like political theory junkfood to me. Either way, it's only a couple more paragraphs.

late edit: The guy seems to have no idea about something called the Overton Window.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
who knows, not many people read ghostwritten books under the name of Glenn Beck. I kid, I kid.

So now the big uproar is that Obama associates with radicals and that was Breitbart's last big expose. Of course Frontline beat him to it by three years and the same clips have been on PBS' website as well as You Tube for the world to see, but the liberal mainstream media buried the story. Wait, what? Ok, doesn't pass the paranoia check so let's continue anyway.
Anyhow, Obama praised Derrick Bell at one point which is bad. Obama also went to Jeremiah Wright's church which is bad. And then there's that unrepentent terrorist Bill Ayers guy. And he's bad too. So Obama only hangs out with bad people, which means he's bad.

I had a bad sandwhich yesterday, I'll probably have a good one within the next couple of days, nevertheless, all sandwhiches are henceforth too be bad.

How do these people even manage to tie their own shoes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top