Welcome President Obama

[ygmir]

blah blah blah...We blow shit up! thats what amerikans do!

Tom? Tom Servo?

the guy, who, at the drop of a hat will criticize a republican, for any military (or, really any at all) action?
Now, defender of air strikes and such, just because "his" guy is in office?

hhhhmmmm.......interesting.............

Im not against military action...I am against fighting daddy's war though. We gave kaddaffie ( spelling doesnt seem that important anymore ) a chance....and for once, we had the blessings of the Arab league. AND, hopefully. the UN members will finally take the lead. The U.S. was reluctant to join this fight...and I don't blame us!

hhmm, so, what makes Libya, more important, than Iraq?
I'd wonder, why the need for the Arab leagues blessing?
if it needs doing?
And, if reluctant, why join it at all?
It' not like, Quadaffi (I agree about spelling) has good equipment.
The French and Brits should easily handle them.
And, doesn't the U.N. have it's own stuff, too?
Wasn't going into Iraq, a coalition action?
I had thought, it was brought about, by Sadams' refusal to abide by U.N. sanctions, or some such thing?
And approved by the U.N.? (that, I can't remember exactly)

I'm not for either action, please understand.

I was just pointing out, as I have in the past, how so many people, who rail against actions taken by "the other guys" (reps/dems) in power, will justify or rationalize it, if "their guy" does it.

[TomServo]

Tom? Tom Servo?

the guy, who, at the drop of a hat will criticize a republican, for any military (or, really any at all) action?
Now, defender of air strikes and such, just because "his" guy is in office?

hhhhmmmm.......interesting.............

Im not against military action...I am against fighting daddy's war though. We gave kaddaffie ( spelling doesnt seem that important anymore ) a chance....and for once, we had the blessings of the Arab league. AND, hopefully. the UN members will finally take the lead. The U.S. was reluctant to join this fight...and I don't blame us!

hhmm, so, what makes Libya, more important, than Iraq?
I'd wonder, why the need for the Arab leagues blessing?
if it needs doing?
And, if reluctant, why join it at all?
It' not like, Quadaffi (I agree about spelling) has good equipment.
The French and Brits should easily handle them.
And, doesn't the U.N. have it's own stuff, too?
Wasn't going into Iraq, a coalition action?
I had thought, it was brought about, by Sadams' refusal to abide by U.N. sanctions, or some such thing?
And approved by the U.N.? (that, I can't remember exactly)

I'm not for either action, please understand.

I was just pointing out, as I have in the past, how so many people, who rail against actions taken by "the other guys" (reps/dems) in power, will justify or rationalize it, if "their guy" does it.

The Libyans were asking for help. And so was the middle east. We didnt pull a George Bush. Our reasons were clear. And, if it came as a surprise, like I said you werent paying attention. Like I said, the French spearheaded this shit. I only hope they and the British pick up the slack.

[ygmir]

Im not against military action...I am against fighting daddy's war though. We gave kaddaffie ( spelling doesnt seem that important anymore ) a chance....and for once, we had the blessings of the Arab league. AND, hopefully. the UN members will finally take the lead. The U.S. was reluctant to join this fight...and I don't blame us!

hhmm, so, what makes Libya, more important, than Iraq?
I'd wonder, why the need for the Arab leagues blessing?
if it needs doing?
And, if reluctant, why join it at all?
It' not like, Quadaffi (I agree about spelling) has good equipment.
The French and Brits should easily handle them.
And, doesn't the U.N. have it's own stuff, too?
Wasn't going into Iraq, a coalition action?
I had thought, it was brought about, by Sadams' refusal to abide by U.N. sanctions, or some such thing?
And approved by the U.N.? (that, I can't remember exactly)

I'm not for either action, please understand.

I was just pointing out, as I have in the past, how so many people, who rail against actions taken by "the other guys" (reps/dems) in power, will justify or rationalize it, if "their guy" does it.

The Libyans were asking for help. And so was the middle east. We didnt pull a George Bush. Our reasons were clear. And, if it came as a surprise, like I said you werent paying attention. Like I said, the French spearheaded this shit. I only hope they and the British pick up the slack.

oh, no, saw it coming, or, the potential, anyway.

and, one might imagine, the sect that Sadam was gassing and such, were asking for help, too?
but, is it true, it Iraq was a coalition, and, under U.N. auspices?

And again, I'm not for either one.

What I am saying, is, your rationalization, to explain Obama's action, seems purely partisan.

Of course, you have every right to be partisan.
I'm just sayin, call it what it is,
Which, as I see it, is, "if it's your guy, it's ok".

I also hope the Brits and French take this on themselves.
I'm not saying any sort of slaughter, or genocide, is ok, and should not be stopped.
I do wonder, though, why some is more important than others?
and, who's really pulling those strings?
The strings that say Libya is more important than Myanmar, Sudan
Zimbabwe, etc, etc.

I thought we were pulling out of Iraq, almost immediately after the election?
Afghanistan?

I guess, to me, they're all liars, cheats, whatever.
Two sides of the same wooden nickel.

[TomServo]

hhmm, so, what makes Libya, more important, than Iraq?
I'd wonder, why the need for the Arab leagues blessing?
if it needs doing?
And, if reluctant, why join it at all?
It' not like, Quadaffi (I agree about spelling) has good equipment.
The French and Brits should easily handle them.
And, doesn't the U.N. have it's own stuff, too?
Wasn't going into Iraq, a coalition action?
I had thought, it was brought about, by Sadams' refusal to abide by U.N. sanctions, or some such thing?
And approved by the U.N.? (that, I can't remember exactly)

I'm not for either action, please understand.

I was just pointing out, as I have in the past, how so many people, who rail against actions taken by "the other guys" (reps/dems) in power, will justify or rationalize it, if "their guy" does it.

The Libyans were asking for help. And so was the middle east. We didnt pull a George Bush. Our reasons were clear. And, if it came as a surprise, like I said you werent paying attention. Like I said, the French spearheaded this shit. I only hope they and the British pick up the slack.

oh, no, saw it coming, or, the potential, anyway.

and, one might imagine, the sect that Sadam was gassing and such, were asking for help, too?
but, is it true, it Iraq was a coalition, and, under U.N. auspices?

And again, I'm not for either one.

What I am saying, is, your rationalization, to explain Obama's action, seems purely partisan.

Of course, you have every right to be partisan.
I'm just sayin, call it what it is,
Which, as I see it, is, "if it's your guy, it's ok".

I also hope the Brits and French take this on themselves.
I'm not saying any sort of slaughter, or genocide, is ok, and should not be stopped.
I do wonder, though, why some is more important than others?
and, who's really pulling those strings?
The strings that say Libya is more important than Myanmar, Sudan
Zimbabwe, etc, etc.

I thought we were pulling out of Iraq, almost immediately after the election?
Afghanistan?

I guess, to me, they're all liars, cheats, whatever.
Two sides of the same wooden nickel.

We sold him that gas. He was our ally against Iran. At least, Saddam was anti Al Quaida. Im not a Pacifist ygmir...force is sometimes needed.

[Elderberry]

Newt Gingrich has to really take the cake on Libya. Before Obama mad a decision to go take action on Libya, Newt said we should go in guns a blazin and we didn't need any coalition to take action. Now that Obama sent in the air force for the no flynzone, Newt is saying we have no business interfering. Obama can't win for loosing.

[TomServo]

Newt Gingrich has to really take the cake on Libya. Before Obama mad a decision to go take action on Libya, Newt said we should go in guns a blazin and we didn't need any coalition to take action. Now that Obama sent in the air force for the no flynzone, Newt is saying we have no business interfering. Obama can't win for loosing.

exactly!

[TomServo]

FUCK politics, I still love you ygmir, were bringing a bottle of absinthe just for you.

[ygmir]

FUCK politics, I still love you ygmir, were bringing a bottle of absinthe just for you.

I totally agree, Tom (and JK).
we don't have to agree on politics, to be total friends.
and, I don't think overall, we're that far off. Yeah, certain details......and, I do tend to tease, just for fun.

[Elderberry]

Hear, hear!

[can't sit still]

As I pointed out, Black's Law demands that BOTH parents be natural born for a person to qualify to run for president. The Donald stirred the "birther" pot when he announced that he might run for pres. Evidently, someone asked HIM for birth certificates. Apparently, his mother was a Scottish immigrant. A strict observance of Black's law would make him in eligible. He's probably sorry that he brought it up.
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/69944/t ... s-history/

[cowboyangel]

Nowhere Man....

William Rivers Pitt says it again. The fool in the White House is the Tool of the Corporate House.

"He and his fellow Democrats all but folded on health care, leaving us with less than half a loaf. He backtracked on Guantanamo, and doubled down on Afghanistan. He promised to erase Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and broke his oath shamelessly, to his party's great lament in 2010. Wall Street stands unmolested at the center of his counsel, while Main Street withers on the vine. He is flipping missiles into Libya while flipping off the American people by racing to "compromise" with brigands and thieves on the matter of how many billions to cut. He has, to be sure, had his share of victories, but in so many critical ways, he has been the Nowhere Man, the absence of what was so seemingly present when he was elevated to his current station."

[Elderberry]

Ya, keep bitching about him. He's still miles ahead of the alternatives. Just look at what the house is trying to do. Kiss your personal civil rights good bye if the republicans get control of the senate and white house. No more middle class. So I hope we'er all wealthy here on eplaya!

[Box Burner]

both the democrats and republicans are owned by corporate. both are going to take away your rights. if you want to see what corporate has in store for us take a look at the borg collective in star trek. the only one with any free will is the borg queen. the rest of them just stay in their cubicles and do as they are told.


so no, obummer is not ahead of anyone.

[ygmir]

both the democrats and republicans are owned by corporate. both are going to take away your rights. if you want to see what corporate has in store for us take a look at the borg collective in star trek. the only one with any free will is the borg queen. the rest of them just stay in their cubicles and do as they are told.


so no, obummer is not ahead of anyone.

*High fives BB*

yup, I refer to them as "two sides of the same wooden nickel"

[TomServo]

so no, obummer is not ahead of anyone.

Hes ahead of George W. Both mentally and idealistically. Id vote for an Anarchist president, if that made any sense.

[ygmir]

I'd submit, Eisenhower, and maybe Kennedy, were the last prez' not "puppets".......Reagan maybe.

I think Carter was the first real attempt at the total "puppet" candidate.

Since then, IMHO, we only see the prez "they " want us to see.
They follow a script, cleverly written to keep us off balance.
and, they know to follow the script.

sure, there are small moments of independence, but, I think, few and far between.

To claim any prez. we see, is the actual person, I think, is incorrect.

[Lassen Forge]

IMO, the last independent president was... don't laugh... Nixon. Nixon? He had cajones, so much so he did what the f he wanted to, and eventually resigned his job over it. He did shit for the country, not because his party or someone else wanted him to.

His successor, Ford? Yep... that was where people started to control the presidency...

Carter? He was so bad he let his joint chiefs tell him what to do. Look at Iran. Yeesh.

Reagan? Are you serious? He was an actor, fed lines and told to pull them off. You can see the outside influence in what he did... Sure, he had some great speeches, and great timing, and looked presidential in front of a camera...

Bush Sr? By then, the president was sold to the highest bidder. I wouldn't have wanted his job for squat. Sadly, he was a good man... but he was given his marching orders and followed them. Remember the bizarre "annual wars" we had back then? It was practice for "permanent war" we have now.

Clinton? The first transparty president. Showed that no matter what the party ppolitics were, they were told what to do, what to say, what to believe, and sell it. Hell, anyone in that office should NOT face the shit he did... Think on this - Did Kennedy catch shit for his affairs? Fuck no - they woulda been axed. Same with Tricky Dick. Clinton? Ouch. Showed there was no power in the office.

W? Damn nice guy, love to go fishing with him, hunting at the lodge, etc... but President? Totally controlled. They couldn't put Jebin there because he was too presidential, too independent minded. To the point of being made look like a country bumpkin with all the BS antics - and notice, he's kept well out of site. What do you think they called Cheney the shadow president? (And why do you think he said over and over he NEVER wanted to be President - because... he KNOWS.)

O? And we accused W of flipflopping. There's your evidence - you don't become the most powerful person in the world, and turn 180 degrees unless someone is more pawerful than you telling you what to do.

It'd be nice to know who's REALLY pulling the strings... when you see the way Obama caved so totally... well... those security briefings or whatever must contain some pretty hairy shit to make them fold like paper napkins.

[ygmir]

I might well go with you on Nixon........I liked him. But I think Reagan was not such a puppet.......I think he knew how to "play" the media and such, the best. Yup, an actor, and, used it to get a lot of his own way.
But, I think with all since at least Kennedy, some strings.
I agree with your progression, too, in "severety". Makes good sense.

I think, the recent prez's, get into office, and, are shown a pic of JFK in crosshairs, and, not from the repository, or grassy knoll.........

with "Just sayin'"......as a caption.

[TomServo]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Elderberry]

both the democrats and republicans are owned by corporate. both are going to take away your rights. if you want to see what corporate has in store for us take a look at the borg collective in star trek. the only one with any free will is the borg queen. the rest of them just stay in their cubicles and do as they are told.


so no, obummer is not ahead of anyone.

*High fives BB*

yup, I refer to them as "two sides of the same wooden nickel"

I can kill two birds here (metaphorically speaking, of course). Box Burner, you are correct, to a point. The problem is, your conclusions are based on your extrapolation of the correctness of your thought to the ultimate extreme.

So Ygmir, it doesn't deserve a *High five*, it doesn't even deserve a *high four*.

Everything in politics is a compromise. Nobody will be "perfect" in everybody's eyes. "Politics is the Art of the Possible."

[ygmir]

both the democrats and republicans are owned by corporate. both are going to take away your rights. if you want to see what corporate has in store for us take a look at the borg collective in star trek. the only one with any free will is the borg queen. the rest of them just stay in their cubicles and do as they are told.


so no, obummer is not ahead of anyone.

*High fives BB*

yup, I refer to them as "two sides of the same wooden nickel"

I can kill two birds here (metaphorically speaking, of course). Box Burner, you are correct, to a point. The problem is, your conclusions are based on your extrapolation of the correctness of your thought to the ultimate extreme.

So Ygmir, it doesn't deserve a *High five*, it doesn't even deserve a *high four*.

Everything in politics is a compromise. Nobody will be "perfect" in everybody's eyes. "Politics is the Art of the Possible."

well, JK, I always use my thumb (or big toe) in congratulatory expression, so, it's 5 or nothing............

and, true, politics is about compromise, to create what is possible,I agree

but, as humans, we can only extrapolate what we think is right, through our own perceptions. And we will only experience, (for any given situation) one end result, or "ultimate extremem), so, it's very difficult, to say how something "would have" turned out, in hindsight, or project same.
As such, internally, we each must decide what "our" correct course of action is, and see how it goes.

and, so, in that sense, most any opinion or thought, is automatically prefaces with "from my perception, and IMO".
But, I'd submit, the evidence shows, both sides strings are pulled by the same puppet masters, and, used against us in a "good cop, bad cop" sort of way, so we focus on our fellow citizens, and how we think they are "wrong", and how we can "correct" them. Instead, of realizing we're being "played", and, just marching toward "worker bee" status.

[Elderberry]

But, I'd submit, the evidence shows, both sides strings are pulled by the same puppet masters, and, used against us in a "good cop, bad cop" sort of way, so we focus on our fellow citizens, and how we think they are "wrong", and how we can "correct" them. Instead, of realizing we're being "played", and, just marching toward "worker bee" status.

No doubt about it, money talks when it comes to politics.

I'll just say one final word in my rebuttal: "Wisconsin".

[ygmir]

But, I'd submit, the evidence shows, both sides strings are pulled by the same puppet masters, and, used against us in a "good cop, bad cop" sort of way, so we focus on our fellow citizens, and how we think they are "wrong", and how we can "correct" them. Instead, of realizing we're being "played", and, just marching toward "worker bee" status.

No doubt about it, money talks when it comes to politics.

I'll just say one final word in my rebuttal: "Wisconsin".

North Korea

[Elderberry]

But, I'd submit, the evidence shows, both sides strings are pulled by the same puppet masters, and, used against us in a "good cop, bad cop" sort of way, so we focus on our fellow citizens, and how we think they are "wrong", and how we can "correct" them. Instead, of realizing we're being "played", and, just marching toward "worker bee" status.

No doubt about it, money talks when it comes to politics.

I'll just say one final word in my rebuttal: "Wisconsin".

North Korea

OK, you got me...I don't know how that relates.

[ygmir]

No doubt about it, money talks when it comes to politics.

I'll just say one final word in my rebuttal: "Wisconsin". right wing gone mad

North Korea left wing gone mad

OK, you got me...I don't know how that relates.

[Elderberry]

Ygmir, that's so funny! You took my "Wisconsin" argument exactly 180 degrees opposite of how it was meant.

Finally, one extreme went too far. And the people are now angry enough to stand up and be heard and are doing something about it. I meant it as a story of hope that the system can actually work for the people.

[ygmir]

leave it to me to see it opposite!!!
hahahaa

[Box Burner]

both the democrats and republicans are owned by corporate. both are going to take away your rights. if you want to see what corporate has in store for us take a look at the borg collective in star trek. the only one with any free will is the borg queen. the rest of them just stay in their cubicles and do as they are told.


so no, obummer is not ahead of anyone.

*High fives BB*

yup, I refer to them as "two sides of the same wooden nickel"

I can kill two birds here (metaphorically speaking, of course). Box Burner, you are correct, to a point. The problem is, your conclusions are based on your extrapolation of the correctness of your thought to the ultimate extreme.

So Ygmir, it doesn't deserve a *High five*, it doesn't even deserve a *high four*.

Everything in politics is a compromise. Nobody will be "perfect" in everybody's eyes. "Politics is the Art of the Possible."

No, everything in politics is not compromise. Sometimes there is compromise and sometimes there is not. The Civil war started becuase there was no compromise. The northern states believed that slavery was wrong and would not enforce the "property" rights of the southern states. So the south decided to secede from the Union. a decision which precipitated a war.

In a true democracy or republic every party has an equal voice. We have been sold a bill of goods in that we have a two party system and we are led to believe that everything in politics is a compromise.

And while we are busy playing the game of politics the enemy, the real enemy, is playing the game of world domination.

boxB

[ygmir]

*High fives BB*

yup, I refer to them as "two sides of the same wooden nickel"

I can kill two birds here (metaphorically speaking, of course). Box Burner, you are correct, to a point. The problem is, your conclusions are based on your extrapolation of the correctness of your thought to the ultimate extreme.

So Ygmir, it doesn't deserve a *High five*, it doesn't even deserve a *high four*.

Everything in politics is a compromise. Nobody will be "perfect" in everybody's eyes. "Politics is the Art of the Possible."

No, everything in politics is not compromise. Sometimes there is compromise and sometimes there is not. The Civil war started becuase there was no compromise. The northern states believed that slavery was wrong and would not enforce the "property" rights of the southern states. So the south decided to secede from the Union. a decision which precipitated a war.

In a true democracy or republic every party has an equal voice. We have been sold a bill of goods in that we have a two party system and we are led to believe that everything in politics is a compromise.

And while we are busy playing the game of politics the enemy, the real enemy, is playing the game of world domination.

boxB

*still using all my fingers*

"high five, again, BB"

[Elderberry]

World domination?