patrick.net

Putin is a leader, Obama is a mom jeans wearing joke.

Obamas problem is that he is tough on the wrong people, he acts tough with America. Outside of America he cowers.

FortWayne says

Putin is a leader, Obama is a mom jeans wearing joke.

Obamas problem is that he is tough on the wrong people, he acts tough with America. Outside of America he cowers.

Who is he too tough on? Osama? Khadafi? Somali Pirates?

FortWayne says

Putin is a leader, Obama is a mom jeans wearing joke.

Try protesting the government's actions in D.C. and then Moscow. Compare your hospital bills between the two, and let us know what kind of "leader" Putin is.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Compare your hospital bills between the two, and let us know what kind of "leader" Putin is.

Oops - you stepped into the wrong minefield. "As [American] Hospital Prices Soar, a Single Stitch Tops $500" Thanks, Obamacare!

Seriously, if you want to help Obama or the other Democrats, never mention anything related to healthcare, which he had campaigned originally on reforming.

curious2 says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Compare your hospital bills between the two, and let us know what kind of "leader" Putin is.

Oops - you stepped into the wrong minefield. "As Hospital Prices Soar, a Single Stitch Tops $500" Thanks, Obamacare!

Dang: I forgot that BenghaziCare is literally as bad as slavery and concentration camps. I cheerfully retract my remarks!

I don't really understand why the two are even being compared. Putin's a nut who, through some delusional belief, hopes to relive the Soviet glory days. And Obama has screwed his own people and proven that he isn't any more adept at foreign affairs than he is at domestic affairs. Who's the better leader? Neither of them.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

I cheerfully retract my remarks!

Thank you. Hemlock doesn't need to be as bad as being burned slowly to death, but it's bad enough.

"No, 't is not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but 't is enough, 't will serve."

turtledove says

proven that he isn't any more adept at foreign affairs than he is at domestic affairs

Really? Did he start a war or two, based on fictitious reasons? Dump a few trillion into it? Destroy the global economy? Stoke up bigotry to win elections?

What does good foreign policy look like to a Fox viewer?

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Dang: I forgot that BenghaziCare is literally as bad as slavery and concentration camps. I cheerfully retract my remarks!

True! I know a guy who has a policy but it only covered him like an HMO! It's like fucking Dachau!!

CL says

Really? Did he start a war or two, based on fictitious reasons? Dump a few trillion into it? Destroy the global economy? Stoke up bigotry to win elections?

Again, your basis for evaluating Obama is based on his relative performance against another person. That's a formula for setting the bar pretty low.

CL says

What does good foreign policy look like to a Fox viewer?

I wouldn't know. You do realize that our country isn't broken up into two camps: 1) Obama lovers; 2) Fox News Viewers, don't you?

curious2 says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Compare your hospital bills between the two, and let us know what kind of "leader" Putin is.

Oops - you stepped into the wrong minefield. "As [American] Hospital Prices Soar, a Single Stitch Tops $500" Thanks, Obamacare!

Seriously, if you want to help Obama or the other Democrats, never mention anything related to healthcare, which he had campaigned originally on reforming.

Cheering for healthcare reform helps Republican-libertarians too, since BenghaziCare is a Republican/libertarian proposal from pre-Kenyan Muslim days written into law.

You have a deep antipathy toward BenghaziCare. I have to ask: Why are you so against conservo-libertarian policies?

turtledove says

I wouldn't know. You do realize that our country isn't broken up into two camps: 1) Obama lover's; 2) Fox News Viewers, don't you?

You're correct.

There is also category 3: low-information folks who strike a pose of bemused neutrality while saying "both sides do it" over and over again.

Wow Iosef you really do insist on concentrating on your preferred party's weakness. When the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, they did not impose Obamneycare upon us all. Democrats did, although Romney and a Democrat legislature did impose the same thing in Massachusetts. If you think Obamneycare is libertarian, then you don't know the meaning of the word. I don't even want to guess who Liked your comment, you seem to have become lost in so many layers of sarcasm that you don't even know what you mean anymore.

turtledove says

I wouldn't know. You do realize that our country isn't broken up into two camps: 1) Obama lover's; 2) Fox News Viewers, don't you?

I do. What does good Foreign look like to you, personally?

curious2 says

although Romney and a Democrat legislature did impose it in Massachusetts.

The adjective is "Democratic." Grammar much?

Come out of the closet, man: you're a straight-up winger pretending to be above partisan concerns, yet you belch hard-right talking points all day on this board. Standard-issue faux-libertarian denial.

King Lear time:

There thou mightst behold the great image of authority: a dog’s obeyed in office.

Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand.

Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back.

Thou hotly lust’st to use her in that kind

For which thou whipp’st her.

CL says

Fox News and their Republican guests being "fooled by this guy's bullshit?" Stewart asked.

Oy vey, Jon Leibowitz Stewart ! Oy Vey ! Your scriptwriters must be working full time to distract the public from the ever increasing list of the Obama administration foreign policy and domestic failures.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

belch hard-right talking points

Actually, Iosef, you are the one who insists on repeating Faux Noise talking points. If you're belching, maybe you should switch from SodaStream to plain water.

Benghazi much? You are the one who introduced that topic into this thread and I've lost count how many others.

Democrat can also be used as an adjective, usually an epithet, which is entirely deserved on the subject of Obamneycare, which you insist on dwelling upon. You might not like the epithet, but it is correct grammar. If you're going to call everyone who disapproves of that legislation a "hard-right winger," then you've handed the "hard-right wingers" a clear majority of voters, with a 15% lead in national polls. Congratulations, you've succeeded where Karl Rove failed.

Putin has more healthcare experience, and has shown to be republican leader with conservative moral fortitude, that knows Right, from "That's just wrong". His no nonsense approach in dealing with the Liberal congress, and Obama, has been exemplified time and time again over the last 5 years. He doesn't belive and bailouts, and his Natural Gas exploits, has made Russia one of the world's largest exporter in natural gas...

...oh wait a minute, this isn't the Ames Straw Poll thread!

CL says

I do. What does good Foreign look like to you, personally?

I don't want this to sit, but I have to hurry. Dinnertime and hungry pets and kids...

My top two, on foreign policy matters only, would be Franklin Roosevelt and George H.W. Bush.

With FDR, you just cannot ignore results. He faced very serious challenges and dealt with them successfully. He took us from a position of great vulnerability (we weren't exactly prepared to defend ourselves at the time and many Americans held very isolationist views) to a position of strength. Though his efforts at helping the European Allies were split with his obligations against Japan, many have argued that earlier American involvement might not have been as successful. Did he know this or was he just lucky? Through his destroyer-for-bases deal, Lend Lease Act, among others, he was able to secure support for Britain. His efforts at building a post war peace are also noteworthy, though he (or his advisors) put a little too much faith in Stalin. However, the UN, IMF, and World Bank were all ideas under his watch. I'm not thrilled by the way these institutions ultimately turned out, but the ideas were very forward thinking.

George H.W. Bush became president the year of the Communist collapse. The reunification of Germany was a challenge, and he handled it well. He worked with Gorbachev to minimize bloodshed (the Soviet Union still had 300,000 troops in Eastern Germany and they didn't want to see Germany united). Bush also put together an effective international coalition to get Hussein out of Kuwait. His experience as head of the CIA, ambassador to the UN, envoy to China gave him tremendous strength in foreign affairs, and I think it showed.

Fair enough. Although I'd point out that you did not exactly tell us what good foreign policy is, but comparatively used others to illustrate what good policy looks like in hindsight. Not much different than using Bush to show what terrible policy looks like.

Enjoy your dinner.

Sadly, him and his ilk really don't.

turtledove says

CL says

What does good foreign policy look like to a Fox viewer?

I wouldn't know. You do realize that our country isn't broken up into two camps: 1) Obama lover's; 2) Fox News Viewers, don't you?

Iosef V HydroCabron says

turtledove says

I wouldn't know. You do realize that our country isn't broken up into two camps: 1) Obama lover's; 2) Fox News Viewers, don't you?

You're correct.

There is also category 3: low-information folks who strike a pose of bemused neutrality while saying "both sides do it" over and over again.

Sigh. It reminds me of the W administration: either you support the war in Iraq, or you're with the terrorists. Or, now, you're "low-information" (which is now somehow a hyphenated adjectival phrase from a pseudo-grammarian).

CL says

Fair enough. Although I'd point out that you did not exactly tell us what good foreign policy is, but comparatively used others to illustrate what good policy looks like in hindsight. Not much different than using Bush to show what terrible policy looks like.

Enjoy your dinner.

Thank you. Dinner is done; dishwasher is humming.

I think I did tell you what I think good foreign policy is by citing specific examples of what qualifies in my opinion. This is in contrast to the argument that Obama is a master of foreign affairs because GW did x, y, z. Obama isn't good because someone else wasn't. What aspects of Obama's terms do you think highlight his foreign policy acumen?

turtledove says

With FDR, you just cannot ignore results. He faced very serious challenges and dealt with them successfully.

I beg to differ. FDR created the great depression with his incessant meddling, he provoked our participation in the war. NO he was not successful.

indigenous says

turtledove says

With FDR, you just cannot ignore results. He faced very serious challenges and dealt with them successfully.

I beg to differ. FDR created the great depression with his incessant meddling, he provoked our participation in the war. NO he was not successful.

We were speaking about foreign policy aspects ONLY. On economic matters, I think he was a disaster.

turtledove says

We were speaking about foreign policy aspects ONLY. On economic matters, I think he was a disaster.

Ok but generally speaking the US tactic was to get the enemy to commit an act of war. FDR was no exception to this tactic. This is so prevalent in all of the wars that it gives me pause when the Professor talks about 9/11 that maybe... FDR did know about Pearl Harbor before it happened. This video is quite good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8z1A3TsxU

turtledove says

You do realize that our country isn't broken up into two camps: 1) Obama lovers; 2) Fox News Viewers, don't you?

No, there's also the third camp: People who are such hateful, narrow-minded right wing extremists, they make Fox News look like Keith Olbermann. Cough, cough...[softshell]...cough

indigenous says

FDR did know about Pearl Harbor before it happened.

You've been hanging out with bgmal haven't you. This has been debunked so many times it's hard to believe you wrote it.

bob2356 says

This has been debunked so many times it's hard to believe you wrote it.

The fact is most wars have been provoked. FDR and economic constraints on Japan. LBJ and the gulf of Gulf of Tonkin, Wilson and the Lusitania, Lincoln and Fort Sumter.

Watch the video.

indigenous says

turtledove says

We were speaking about foreign policy aspects ONLY. On economic matters, I think he was a disaster.

Ok but generally speaking the US tactic was to get the enemy to commit an act of war. FDR was no exception to this tactic. This is so prevalent in all of the wars that it gives me pause when the Professor talks about 9/11 that maybe... FDR did know about Pearl Harbor before it happened. This video is quite good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8z1A3TsxU

There are certainly a lot of theories about who knew what when. However, there is no hard evidence to prove that our government knew precisely when and where these events would occur.

FDR knew that an attack by Japan was immanent. He knew that it would be somewhere in the Pacific. But the Pacific is quite large. At the time, the belief was that an attack would occur in the Philippines or in one of the European colonies. FDR underestimated the Japanese, for sure, but there is no hard evidence that FDR was complicit in the Pearl Harbor attack.

FDR definitely wanted in with WW2. He fought against the isolationist winds for quite a while. Had he not been working in the background to get support for Britain and to prepare us militarily to respond to the Axis threat, history might read very differently. Yes, Pearl Harbor was the final nail in the coffin FDR needed to persuade American's that it was in our interests to fight against the imperialist agendas of Germany, Italy, and Japan.

Unfortunately for the Axis, they decided to exercise their desires to gain wealth and resources through occupation of weaker countries at a time when naked imperialism had fallen out of favor in the west. Don't get me wrong, the west is guilty of the same imperialism. However, beginning at that time, we knew of the importance of PR in order to gain social acceptance. We must be perceived as doing something beneficial to the world at large, e.g., saving the oppressed from their fascist dictators. If that happens to protect our oil interests, well that's just a coincidence.

FDR recognized the threat these Empires would pose on western interests. If the purpose of foreign policy is to defend our national interests on a global scale, we cannot disregard the fact that FDR's decision to involve the US in WW2 resulted in the US reaching superpower status. But just because we benefited doesn't mean that he planned it all along.

9/11 is a little different. In this case, there is some evidence to support that the agencies knew something was up. The problem was that the different agencies knew different things. Lack of agency coordination meant that no one agency had the whole picture. Furthermore, the idea that AQ could pull off such a terrorist attack wasn't considered a credible threat. Bush underestimated them, for sure, but again, guessing badly with incomplete information isn't the same thing as being complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Conjecture, however entertaining, interesting, or compelling it might be, just isn't hard evidence.

indigenous says

This video is quite good:

The video says the naval codes specified an attack on Pearl Harbor in July. Totally untrue. There were no naval code (JN-25 b or Naval Code D) decryptions ever found that mentioned Pearl Harbor before the attack. According to OP-20-G (signals intelligence) less than 10% of JN-25b was decypted prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. There was a serious shortage of qualified people. A letter dated 16 November 1941 from OP-20-G stated that there was no work done on intercepts from Feb 1 to July 31st because of workloads. So having a memo show up in July foretelling of the Pearl Harbor attack is pretty unlikely since no was was decrypting JN-25b in that time frame.

There's a lot of good books on WWII codebreaking. I've read a bunch, Battle of Wits published about 10 years ago is probably one of the best.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

This has been debunked so many times it's hard to believe you wrote it.

The fact is most wars have been provoked. FDR and economic constraints on Japan. LBJ and the gulf of Gulf of Tonkin, Wilson and the Lusitania, Lincoln and Fort Sumter.

Watch the video.

Read what I wrote. FDR knowing about pearl harbor in advance has been totally discredited. I never said anything about provoking the Japanese. FDR provoked the hell of Japan.

turtledove says

There are certainly a lot of theories about who knew what when. However, there is no hard evidence to prove that our government knew precisely when and where these events would occur.

I'm not referring to the idea that he knew specifically about Pearl Harbor, but it is obvious that this is the MO of the US with most wars.

I suppose this came from Edward Bernays?

Another factor that is not talked about but may figure into the dynamics of the time is that the US practiced mercantilism during the 20s which predisposes countries to war. This somewhat worries me now with China.

The Cheney-Wolfowitz Yanni Zionist CABAL knowingly orchestrated, from Jekyll Island (!), the false flag attacks of Pearl Harbor and 9-11. Jewish bankers pulled the strings of puppet FDR and fool Bush to draw AMERIKKKA into the dark web of Zionist lies and deception.

False flag psyops (cui bono???!!!) consisting of carefully rehearsed and planted act-ors blackmailed and manipulated officials at the highest levels into full-throated lap dog enthusiasm for Zionist world domination and enslavement. The goal of Illuminati Baphomet-Yannis is own the U.S.A. and you!

bob2356 says

Read what I wrote. FDR knowing about pearl harbor in advance has been totally discredited. I never said anything about provoking the Japanese. FDR provoked the hell of Japan.

The overarching point I'm making is that most of the wars were instigated. I would not be terribly surprised if even 9/11 was. FDR, LBJ, Wilson, even Bush 43 with the WMDs all instigated war. This is definitely true and more important than the specifics of a conspiracy in a clandestine scenario. In other words the wars were caused by the US as much as the enemies.

Prescott Bush was found guilty in a US court of law of financing Hitler.

indigenous says

. I would not be terribly surprised if even 9/11 was

Bin Laden was very provoked by US troops being stationed in Suadi Arabia since 1991. US foreign policy recruits more terrorists than anything else in the world. Read some of what Bin Laden wrote,

The Arabian Peninsulahas never--since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas--been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. ... [T]he United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

indigenous says

FDR created the great depression with his incessant meddling,

I have to ask, how did he do this considering he was still the Governor of New York until the start of 1933?

Drink 2 cups of maddow and call me in the morning that cough will be gone

Homeboy says

turtledove says

You do realize that our country isn't broken up into two camps: 1) Obama lovers; 2) Fox News Viewers, don't you?

No, there's also the third camp: People who are such hateful, narrow-minded right wing extremists, they make Fox News look like Keith Olbermann. Cough, cough...[softshell]...cough

CL says

FortWayne says

Putin is a leader, Obama is a mom jeans wearing joke.

Obamas problem is that he is tough on the wrong people, he acts tough with America. Outside of America he cowers.

Who is he too tough on? Osama? Khadafi? Somali Pirates?

Everyone can be tough against a tiny fly like Somali Pirates. It just means he is at least doing his job at a bare minimum.

By this logic any country who has troops stationed anywhere other than there own cohntry regardless whether the host country approved it deserves to have three thousand of its citizens slaughtered and have multimillion dollar buildings toppled.
I take it you hated Zero Dark Thirty...
bob2356 says

indigenous says

. I would not be terribly surprised if even 9/11 was

Bin Laden was very provoked by US troops being stationed in Suadi Arabia since 1991. US foreign policy recruits more terrorists than anything else in the world. Read some of what Bin Laden wrote,

The Arabian Peninsulahas never--since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas--been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. ... [T]he United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.