|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 14, 2011 8:39:39 GMT -5
Don't worry about it there Doc. You're just digging the hole deeper and it's just really sad. I hope one day you learn to grow up and find some happiness in your life. thanks for your personal apprisal. coming from one as level-headed and contemplative as you it means a lot...erm, nothing. the only hole dug here is yours, trying to whittle away at someone on this inconsequential little board, for laughs. whytf bother skv? just cuz yer a fackin' icehole is it? it sure proves that first impressions are usually the most akurat. moldy neuroses served up since day one, pal. |
|
skvorecky
Streetcorner Musician
Now I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.
Posts: 32
|
Post by skvorecky on Mar 14, 2011 12:43:41 GMT -5
It's okay, Doc. A lot of days I actually have genuine concern for you because you're just so angry. Not good for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 22, 2011 23:42:20 GMT -5
ooo, self-serving pop psychology. ~ One thing's clear: It's Obama's war
John Kass: There has been confusion over which country will take the lead in Libya. But the man who ran for president as an anti-war candidate now owns his own war.
...just the blurb, sad as it is, points out the barely satisfying bitter irony of how unforeseen situations in the world can lead ANY fucking president into what we've got going on... more at: www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0323-20110323,0,3300854.column...
Naturally, members of Congress are shrieking, since he attacked without asking their permission. Liberal U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat, brought up a quote from the past:
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
And who said it? Barack Obama, to The Boston Globe in 2007.
....
do i laugh? |
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 24, 2011 16:10:47 GMT -5
oh.
you've misunderstood my question's context, eh?
ah, you're not british are you?
the champeen purveyors of ironic humor.
wait a sec. I'M not british either!
but i sure as fuck DO understand the incredible ironic hypocrisy of talking SUCH a load of hopium-addled bullshit on the campaign trail, to coast to a victory predicated on campaignisms, then when his absolute lack of experience in ANY such things is called upon, holy FUCK, he goes back and does the exact same fucking thing that the hated, dreaded REVILED stupider-n'a-box-of-rocks rank-and-file yee-HAW texan, Dubya did!!
AND then, kucinich calls him out with his very own words?!!!
godDAMN that's hilarious in how the rubes bought his bullshit..
'scuse me and i was asking there 'SHOULD i crow?' while not rubbing anyone's face in it (bad form and all) , but thanks, YOU made the abject need to point these facts out to you dreadfully obvious.
there.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 24, 2011 16:54:59 GMT -5
Mary Meeker...pointed out that “U.S.A. per capita health care spending is 3x OECD average, yet the average life expectancy and a variety of health indicators in the U.S. fall below average. But if you spend way more than everyone else, shouldn’t your results (a.k.a. performance) be better than everyone else’s, or at least near the top?”
maybe THIS fave liberal screed (come election time) should immediately brought into question, eh?
that the vast numbers of american citizens should seen as s.t.u.p.i.d. and not cognizant of how life choices, in the midst of decadent (and illusory according to the article) success and PLENTY means 'eat well, play well, rest a LOT' and when some organ or musculo-skeletal group finally goes to fucking hell, well "goddamn, the medical profession sure as hell BETTER be able to put me back together" regardless to how much of a multiple pack year sedentary barstool existence they've chosen to lead.
no shit, LOTS lead exemplary coscientious lives and still get fucked...but who's MORE likely to bring DOWN all these averages that mary meeker's extrapolating on. the folks within large groups who are genetically more predetermined to come down with certain maladies...or is it that she (and you) are rock solid convinced there's not a whole helluva lot of careless people in this land of plenty, who've felt their lives (ie their health) should be 'charmed' and are looking to take care of themselves after it's become too late - leading to lots of less-than-ideal outcomes?
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 28, 2011 22:13:47 GMT -5
real accurate naysaying:
Figuring out professor Obama's war
Charles Krauthammer
March 28, 2011
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is proud of how he put together the Libyan operation. A model of international cooperation. All the necessary paperwork. Arab League backing. A Security Council resolution. (Everything but a resolution from the Congress of the United States, a minor inconvenience for a citizen of the world.) It's war as designed by an Ivy League professor.
True, it took three weeks to put this together, during which time Moammar Gadhafi went from besieged, delusional (remember those youthful protesters on "hallucinogenic pills") thug losing support by the hour to resurgent tyrant who marshaled his forces, marched them to the gates of Benghazi and had the U.S. director of national intelligence predicting that "the regime will prevail."
But what is military initiative and opportunity compared with paper?
Well, let's see how that paper multilateralism is doing. The Arab League is already reversing itself, criticizing the use of force it had just authorized. Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, is shocked — shocked! — to find that people are being killed by allied airstrikes. This reaction was dubbed mystifying by one commentator, apparently born yesterday and thus unaware that the Arab League has forever been a collection of cynical, warring, unreliable dictatorships of ever-shifting loyalties. A British soccer mob has more unity and moral purpose. Yet Obama deemed it a great diplomatic success that the League deigned to permit others to fight and die to save fellow Arabs for whom 19 of 21 Arab states have yet to lift a finger.
And what about that brilliant U.N. resolution?•Russia's Vladimir Putin is already calling the Libya operation a medieval crusade.
•China is calling for a cease-fire in place — which would completely undermine the allied effort by leaving Gadhafi in power, his people at his mercy and the country partitioned and condemned to ongoing civil war.
•Brazil joined China in that call for a cease-fire. This just hours after Obama ended his fawning two-day Brazil visit. Another triumph of presidential personal diplomacy.
And how about NATO? Let's see. As of this writing, Britain wanted the operation to be led by NATO. France adamantly disagreed, citing Arab sensibilities. Germany wanted no part of anything, going so far as to pull four of its ships from NATO command in the Mediterranean. France and Germany walked out of a NATO meeting last week, while Norway had planes in Crete ready to go but refused to let them fly until it had some idea who the hell is running the operation. And Turkey, whose prime minister four months ago proudly accepted the Gadhafi International Prize for Human Rights, has been particularly resistant to the Libya operation from the beginning.
And as for the United States, who knows what American policy is. Administration officials insist we are not trying to bring down Gadhafi, even as the president insists that he must go. Although Obama did add "unless he changes his approach." Approach, mind you.
In any case, for Obama, military objectives take a back seat to diplomatic appearances. The president is obsessed with pretending that we are not running the operation — a dismaying expression of Obama's view that his country is so tainted by its various sins that it lacks the moral legitimacy to … what? Save Third World people from massacre?
Obama seems equally obsessed with handing off the lead role. Hand off to whom? NATO? Quarreling amid Turkish resistance (see above), NATO still can't agree on taking over command of the airstrike campaign, which is what has kept the Libyan rebels alive.
This confusion is purely the result of Obama's decision to get America into the war and then immediately relinquish American command. Never modest about himself, Obama is supremely modest about his country. America should be merely "one of the partners among many," he said last week. No primus inter pares for him. Even the Clinton administration spoke of America as the indispensable nation. And it remains so. Yet at a time when the world is hungry for America to lead — no one has anything near our capabilities, experience and resources — America is led by a man determined that it should not.
A man who dithers over parchment. Who starts a war from which he wants out right away. Good God. If you go to take Vienna, take Vienna. If you're not prepared to do so, better then to stay home and do nothing.
Tribune Media Services
Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist based in Washington.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
the national breakfast food?
lately, the double faced jumbo sized waffle.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Apr 1, 2011 7:51:44 GMT -5
yeah matt.
DO shower us with your intellect.
obama had no choice with libya, you're therefore saying?
it IS a 'just war' you're saying?
and it is completely different than what george bush did, you're saying?
please find some pithy photoshopped sentiment now.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Apr 3, 2011 11:56:10 GMT -5
yes, and kanye, the MOST stable individual ever, would be your spokesman. again the irony gene for us yanks isn't a strong one. you'll confirm that several times more, right? ~ again, just how i've repeatedly said that 'your' (matt's and skor's and the REST of the happily departed liberal junta here) snap judgements of my character and STRICT alignment with the ideologies which YOU wish to assign to me are 90% so fucking wrong....i thought this columnist was a 'pure' liberal from his writings. IS this even-handed do you think? bush=the goose? obama=the gander? pretty much 'fuck yeah' down the line. Did Obama avert a bloodbath in Libya?
Panicking over a dubious threatSteve Chapman
April 3, 2011
Remember when a crusading president, acting on dubious intelligence, insufficient information and exaggerated fears, took the nation into a Middle Eastern war of choice? That was George W. Bush in 2003, invading Iraq. But it's also Barack Obama in 2011, attacking Libya.
For weeks, President Obama had been wary of military action. What obviously changed his mind was the fear that Moammar Gadhafi was bent on mass slaughter — which stemmed from Gadhafi's March 17 speech vowing "no mercy" for his enemies.
In his March 26 radio address, Obama said the United States acted because Gadhafi threatened "a bloodbath." Two days later, he asserted, "We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi — a city nearly the size of Charlotte (N.C.) — could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."
Really? Obama implied that, absent our intervention, Gadhafi might have killed nearly 700,000 people, putting it in a class with the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. White House adviser Dennis Ross was only slightly less alarmist when he reportedly cited "the real or imminent possibility that up to a 100,000 people could be massacred."
But these are outlandish scenarios that go beyond any reasonable interpretation of Gadhafi's words. He said, "We will have no mercy on them" — but by "them," he plainly was referring to armed rebels ("traitors") who stand and fight, not all the city's inhabitants.
"We have left the way open to them," he said. "Escape. Let those who escape go forever." He pledged that "whoever hands over his weapons, stays at home without any weapons, whatever he did previously, he will be pardoned, protected."
Alan Kuperman, an associate professor at the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, is among those unconvinced by Obama's case. "Gadhafi," he told me, "did not massacre civilians in any of the other big cities he captured — Zawiya, Misrata, Ajdabiya — which together have a population equal to Benghazi. Yes, civilians were killed in a typical, ham-handed, Third World counterinsurgency. But civilians were not targeted for massacre as in Rwanda, Darfur, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bosnia, or even Kosovo after NATO intervention."
The rebels, however, knew that inflating their peril was their best hope for getting outside help. So, Kuperman says, they concocted the specter of genocide — and Obama believed it, or at least used it to justify intervention.
Another skeptic is Paul Miller, an assistant professor at National Defense University who served on the National Security Council under Bush and Obama. "The Rwandan genocide was targeted against an entire, clearly defined ethnic group," he wrote on the Foreign Policy website. "The Libyan civil war is between a tyrant and his cronies on one side, and a collection of tribes, movements, and ideologists (including Islamists) on the other. ...The first is murder, the second is war."
When I contacted Miller, he discounted the talk of vast slaughter. "Benghazi is the second-largest city in the country and he needs the city and its people to continue functioning and producing goods for his impoverished country," he said.
Maybe these analysts are mistaken, but the administration has offered little in the way of rebuttal. Where Bush sent Colin Powell to the United Nations to make the case against Saddam Hussein, Obama has treated the evidence about Gadhafi as too obvious to dispute.
I emailed the White House press office several times asking for concrete evidence of the danger, based on any information the administration may have. But a spokesman declined to comment.
That's a surprising omission, given that a looming holocaust was the centerpiece of the president's case for war. Absent specific, reliable evidence, we have to wonder if the president succumbed to unwarranted panic over fictitious dangers.
Bush had a host of reasons (or pretexts) for invading Iraq. But Obama has only one good excuse for the attack on Libya — averting mass murder. That gives the administration a special obligation to document the basis for its fears.
Maybe it can. Plenty of experts think Obama's worries were justified. But so far, the White House message has been: Trust us.
Sorry, but we've tried that before. In 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice waved off doubts about Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions, saying, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Right now, the Benghazi bloodbath looks like Obama's mushroom cloud.
Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman
schapman@tribune.com
www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0403-chapman-20110403,0,4286197.column
assumptions and presumptions...hey it happens. the difference being that bush got crucified for it. and no i am NOT making him out to be a 'jesus'. but being outside the presidency, on the farFAR sidelines, wtf DO we know? and we're still fit to judge and foam at the mouth the way the democ rats did? fuck alla yas. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Apr 4, 2011 9:13:33 GMT -5
...but what does any of this have to do with the matter at hand?
|
|
skvorecky
Streetcorner Musician
Now I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.
Posts: 32
|
Post by skvorecky on Apr 4, 2011 13:55:52 GMT -5
Liberal Junta? Please, dude. That's like saying you're into Nazi Reggae.
A Junta is a Military Dictatorship regardless of structure, something that I'm not into. I am definitely a liberal though and I take that as a compliment. Liberalism is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion. So yes, that would describe me in a nutshell.
I'm actually deeply disappointed in the use of force and road that Obama has chosen as a course of action. I do not support it and I am certainly not going to condone it. I personally think the guy has overreached in this situation and I find it unsettling. I think it's time that Western Democracies stopped over stepping their bounds and interfering with regional politics like we're doing in the Middle East. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by upinkzeppelin2 on Apr 5, 2011 20:30:33 GMT -5
True but Nazi reggae rox, man. Not quite as much as Classical Funk, mind you, but it still rox like a mugawowow.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Apr 7, 2011 12:14:01 GMT -5
oh yeah, why not goosestepping skanksters? good seeing you pop in here mister melonious thunkster! Liberal Junta? Please, dude. That's like saying you're into Nazi Reggae. A Junta is a Military Dictatorship regardless of structure, something that I'm not into. ..... hell no it's not defined as just strictly 'military'. and skv, not a contradiction in terms in the least, not the way 'you guys' did it here. merriam-webster: jun·ta : noun \ˈhu̇n-tə, ˈjən-, ˈhən-\
Definition of JUNTA
1: a council or committee for political or governmental purposes; especially : a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power
2: junto
See junta defined for English-language learners
Origin of JUNTA
Spanish, from feminine of junto joined, from Latin junctus, past participle of jungere to join — more at yoke
First Known Use: 1622
Other Government and Politics Terms
agent provocateur, agitprop, autarky, cabal, egalitarianism, federalism, hegemony, plenipotentiary, popular sovereignty, socialismyou had your 'committee' which steamrollered everyone with a non-equivalent viewpoint of 'your' world. stuck between the 2 extremes of liberalism, of phil's gentle hippie-isms to your (and shin's) 'wtf, are you crazy?!' admonitions. your whole gang of 'typical' subscribers to the boilerplate 'kind & gentle' liberal ideals (while heartily congratulating y'selves you're NOT like the rest of the presumed 'savages'), from the musician/artist/entertainers who began at rs magazine's site to talk about music, to the academics like blaney (and now, matt, oh w0w!), to the handful of self-righteous people not from the usa wishing to regale us with their firm understanding of how distasteful and fucked up our manner of living is and how we all should be 'behaving'. you jubilantly ran off chrisfan, stratman, art, melon(pretty much) and the handful of others (whose names i can't even remember anymore) with the maddeningly tedious temerity to disagree with you - haranguing them, accusing them as not being so 'kind & gentle' as yourselves...for the most part accusing them of being hateful immoral babykillers not fit to live. incredible generalizings based on one aspect of what they thought they 'knEw' this person for. like this piece of shit matt throwing out- 'um, do you have a conscience?' right, heavy. excuse me wtf is THAT besides being lazy as fuck? so they left - the result of your junta's busy work. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Apr 7, 2011 13:01:03 GMT -5
Fucking juntas. Not a good one in the lot...but the worse junta is the Phish album called "Junta". Now that's a junta I'm all for putting down.
Lazy as fuck. Fuck being the standard for laziness, I guess. Hell, yeah!
|
|
skvorecky
Streetcorner Musician
Now I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.
Posts: 32
|
Post by skvorecky on Apr 11, 2011 8:27:38 GMT -5
oh yeah, why not goosestepping skanksters? good seeing you pop in here mister melonious thunkster! Liberal Junta? Please, dude. That's like saying you're into Nazi Reggae. A Junta is a Military Dictatorship regardless of structure, something that I'm not into. ..... hell no it's not defined as just strictly 'military'. and skv, not a contradiction in terms in the least, not the way 'you guys' did it here. merriam-webster: jun·ta : noun \ˈhu̇n-tə, ˈjən-, ˈhən-\
Definition of JUNTA
1: a council or committee for political or governmental purposes; especially : a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power
2: junto
See junta defined for English-language learners
Origin of JUNTA
Spanish, from feminine of junto joined, from Latin junctus, past participle of jungere to join — more at yoke
First Known Use: 1622
Other Government and Politics Terms
agent provocateur, agitprop, autarky, cabal, egalitarianism, federalism, hegemony, plenipotentiary, popular sovereignty, socialismyou had your 'committee' which steamrollered everyone with a non-equivalent viewpoint of 'your' world. stuck between the 2 extremes of liberalism, of phil's gentle hippie-isms to your (and shin's) 'wtf, are you crazy?!' admonitions. your whole gang of 'typical' subscribers to the boilerplate 'kind & gentle' liberal ideals (while heartily congratulating y'selves you're NOT like the rest of the presumed 'savages'), from the musician/artist/entertainers who began at rs magazine's site to talk about music, to the academics like blaney (and now, matt, oh w0w!), to the handful of self-righteous people not from the usa wishing to regale us with their firm understanding of how distasteful and fucked up our manner of living is and how we all should be 'behaving'. you jubilantly ran off chrisfan, stratman, art, melon(pretty much) and the handful of others (whose names i can't even remember anymore) with the maddeningly tedious temerity to disagree with you - haranguing them, accusing them as not being so 'kind & gentle' as yourselves...for the most part accusing them of being hateful immoral babykillers not fit to live. incredible generalizings based on one aspect of what they thought they 'knEw' this person for. like this piece of shit matt throwing out- 'um, do you have a conscience?' right, heavy. excuse me wtf is THAT besides being lazy as fuck? so they left - the result of your junta's busy work. Yeah, let's steer the conversation, when I was kind of agreeing with you on a couple of posts back there, to complete non-sensical blame gaming. How boring. I didn't run anyone off, that gives me way too much credit that is totally unnecessary. I didn't actively block their IP and I certainly didn't physically restrain them from actually coming here. Pot. Calling. Kettle. Black. Just post your articles about Russia and stop crying like a Bright Eyes record. You're getting way too emo over this shit. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Apr 11, 2011 9:58:44 GMT -5
I'm still a little angry with him for running everyone off of these boards. This place used to be a real "happening" hang-out, now it's a barren wasteland and all because he could dish it out but couldn't take it. There's pretty much only one soap box around here anymore...
|
|
