Member since: Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:33 PM
Number of posts: 859
Member since: Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:33 PM
Number of posts: 859
in pursuit of all sorts of nefarious ulterior motives/goals, should it escalate into something we can all agree satisfies the definition of "war".
I'm also glad that having a AUMF in hand this time will trump/negate the fact that without a UNSC resolution authorizing it, that it will be a war of aggression. After arguing that not so fine point to rightwingers for years and years in rebuttal to their "it's legal" stuff, it's very pleasing to see that the problem has been taken care of for our democrat pres. I think this has something to do with putting "limited" before this and that for a wary public that has grown weary of the super-sized war sandwiches.
It's also good to see that this war won't have been staged by dem and repub admins alike for a decade or two before awe strikes again. I think there's little to no doubt in this smart war, that the villian does indeed have chemical wmds, unlike all that uncertainty that must have existed while BC was perpetuating those illegal no-fly zones started by Bush Sr in Iraq, and avidly maintaining those costly sanctions on Iraq, and for Bush the Lesser, as the investigations into the Iraq wmd programs made clear.
I think I am most pleased to see the great spirit of bipartisanship descending once again upon DC, despite it being expected because foreign policy is the temple in which they find the most common ground for shared worship. Sometimes I'm even silly enough to think that preserving this church of the empire is the main reason that the good cop/bad cop, faux duopoly, janus-like condition so many of us imagine to exist in DC, has the "give the dogs a bone" quality to it, even as they slowly open the curtain with the chained cpi rope. I find great solace in sharing my bigotry of low expectations with so many, in a misery loves company sorta way.
And after all, dumb wars are only for dummies, no?
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
Posted by stupidicus | Thu Sep 5, 2013, 12:16 PM (7 replies)
color me shocked.
It reads to me like we can finally lay to rest who got right from the beginning, and who got it wrong.
Would we be "knowing" any of this butfor the efforts of those villians GG/Snowden is what I'd like to know.
The National Security Agency on Wednesday declassified three previously secret court rulings related to its domestic surveillance programs, including one revealing a massive unconstitutional collection of Americans’ emails.
Posted by stupidicus | Wed Aug 21, 2013, 06:10 PM (0 replies)
and create and secure a large fanbase of defenders in the process.
The latter starts by energetically exploiting the tribal element making what was bad for their goose now good for my gander, and vice versa. This is probably the easiest ingredient in the goose seasoning recipe used to baste in haste when the temperature is dramatically raised like with the Snowden revelations. Of course BHO isn't Bush, and they were no doubt counting on that, as well as the predictable response to it from those who prefer to live in denial of any possibility that he might still be a goose cooker. It's also why some "oil meets water" difficulties arise like "This is nothing new!!!" that simply refuse to cooperate as part of good dishonesty recipe. It takes a lot of intelligence to be a good liar, and even "Nth" dimensional chess players are limited by the number of ingredients so to speak, like some poor participant on "Chopped".
What they've served up tastes like illegalities and unconstitutionalities to many, with a bitter aftertaste of dishonesty, hidden agendas, and goals, that weren't part of the ingredients they were given to work with. To others it is merely something that can be fixed with additional seasoning, like sympathy, because whatever faults that are present are solely due to what the chef was handed to work with.
It reads like a recipe for disaster to me, no matter who is dictating the ingredients, preparing them, or serving them up.
Greenwald Partner falsely detained as Terrorist: How to Create a Dictatorship
Posted by stupidicus | Mon Aug 19, 2013, 01:01 PM (0 replies)
on which Snowden/GG are but one little head.
I can't help but recall how years ago when I first stumbled onto the "internets" to engage the rightwing monster during the lead up to the Iraq War, and in what turned out to be less than civilized debate, I argued that they were gonna lose suport of libertarians as a result of the militaristic face Bush was then putting on the fascist face already long in evidence, and that the right/republican/libertarian fusionism that had long been much the rule, could/would be altered. Not only did the loss of rightwing support occur
Libertarian-leaning voters started drifting away from the GOP even before Katrina, civil war in Iraq, and Mark Foley launched the general stampede. In their recent Cato-published study “The Libertarian Vote,” David Boaz and David Kirby analyzed polling data from Gallup, the American National Election Studies, and the Pew Research Center and concluded that 13 percent of the population, or 28 million voting-age Americans, can be fairly classified as libertarian-leaning. Back in 2000, this group voted overwhelmingly for Bush, supporting him over Al Gore by a 72-20 margin. By 2004, however, John Kerry—whose only discernible libertarian credential was that he wasn’t George W. Bush—got 38 percent of the libertarian vote, while Bush’s support fell to 59 percent. Congressional races showed a similar trend. In 2002, libertarians favored Republican House candidates by a 70-23 spread and Republican Senate candidates by a 74-15 margin. Things tightened up considerably in 2004, though, as the GOP edge fell to 53-44 in House races and 54-43 in Senate contests./blockquote] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/liberaltarians
Posted by stupidicus | Sun Aug 18, 2013, 12:25 PM (4 replies)
or the endless revisions from the authoritarians in DC or their sychophants here.
Most of the rancor, etc, was intitiated by those on defense from the beginning with this -- you guys. It was simply inconcievable and certainly intolerable to be having the "good guy" in the WH even tangentially tied to the intitial revelations and all that has followed, even though he is in responsible charge of those indicted by them.
I wish you guys would make up your minds as to whether he's an incompetent nincompoop outta this particular loop, or a liar on the matter, although I won't hold my breath while waiting.
ANd all this stuff about "welcoming further reforms and safeguards" has been the goal (well, demanding it really) of all of us alleged "authoritarians" from the start, so by all means, explain all of the "paulite/bushite/racist/etc" BS that has come from your side.
Oh that's right, you're tripping all over yourselves. The only reason all that stuff came from you authoritarians is because it makes the one in charge look bad, and rightly so. You're trying to have it "both ways", which is just another thing on a long list that dedicated rightwingers don't have a monopoly on. If reforms/safeguards are desirable and determined to be necessary, then that's because what we're currently living under is bad/undesirable, and can't be detached from BHO, because it's his admins interpretations of the governing laws that will figure prominently in them.
Any efforts that result in those reforms/safeguards that correct the likely illegal/unconstitutional nature of the violations are gonna justify/validate the criticisms and complaints from we "authoritarians", and incontrovertibly establish BHO's participation in them.
All you'll then have left when the smoke clears is something akin to Rice's "WHo could have possibly known/predicted they'd fly planes into the towers!" line of BS, because that's what all the protectionism of BHO is in spirit if not substance. If anybody has elevated anybody to "godlike status", it's been those defending BHO in the ways and manner you guys have.
Beyond that, I find this insulting effort both amusing and a classic case of projection. Try starting the "kindness" routine yourself, and spare us the the thinly veiled BS about alleged Snowden/GG/etc worship, "fearmongering" charges (while claiming to want the same thing they're asking for/in pursuit of) and whitewashing/denying all the BS your side on this matter has polluted this board with that has served as provocation.
Gee, if they aren't spying on Americans, where's the DEA getting their tips? http://www.google.com/search?q=NSA+DEA+connection&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7 ANd if that's the case, and judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and their defendents are victimized by ignorance that should be dispelled by discovery, how does that impact your "no victims" claim? Of course victims that don't know they've been victimized aren't stepping forward in droves. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.
That read like an effort to lay claim to the high ground you've never had on this matter, and to ameliorate the ego pain down the road after you've been shown to be disasterously wrong about BHO's role and responsibility is all of this, and that's largely due to a clinging to misplaced trust long after it was unwarranted imo.
Posted by stupidicus | Sat Aug 17, 2013, 10:13 PM (1 replies)
I'm beginning to think that this question should have figured more prominently in the "debate" from the beginning.
It's really about the only time imo, that Saint Raygun's evil nine words "I'm from the gov, and I'm here to help!" has a real world application in terms of the inherent dubiousness of claims made by gov officials. It also dovetails with the notion that in this great debate between security v rights that the CiC no doubt gives the former greater weight to (in a "I was against it before I was for it kinda way") and therefore a motive for taking license with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Avoiding it certainly explains all of their focus on we racists, etc, and messengers like Snowden, GG, etc.
Imo gullibility (like a lotta other unflattering things) is something that rightwingers don't have a monopoly on, and this has been showcased throughout this debate, as have some of those other unflattering things.
Why believe anything the government says about the NSA?
Or hell, given that "secrecy" is an intregal part of whole thing, isn't it an expectation that taking license with the truth is gonna be part of the effort to preserve it?
I do think so.
Posted by stupidicus | Fri Aug 9, 2013, 01:02 PM (2 replies)
I'm beginning to think that they are a racist rag that should be boycotted here in the states.
It could just be however, that they are still jealous that we won our war of independence, and became the shining beacon of human liberty and rights while they still entertain royalty. WHat are the odds they'll ever get a black prince, princess, king, or queen, as we did a pres, no?
For several years, federal judges have done nothing to remedy this injustice; one famously concluded that the prisoners sentenced under the old law had simply "lost on a temporal roll of the cosmic dice". So, there are American citizens serving tens of thousands of years in prison because, according to all three branches of government, it's just their tough luck?http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/us-v-blewett-obama-justice-department-shame
Posted by stupidicus | Thu Jul 25, 2013, 11:04 AM (38 replies)
it sure is tragic that so many elected leaders have gone down the conspiracy kook trail, ain't it?
I'm shocked that Kos would even allow such treachery to be reported on his board.
Posted by stupidicus | Tue Jul 23, 2013, 08:51 PM (22 replies)
or add "domestic" to it for accuracy?
I do think so. Furthermore, for those who seem to think that poor BHO has been unjustly/unduly criticized for his role in all of this, it seems to me that defenses of him over it are getting narrowed down to whether or not he was ignorant as to the scope of it all, as well as all the "interpretations" of this and that. This is why I suggested weeks ago now it seems, that if illegality or unconstitutionality questions are present in terms of implementation of the "interpretations" that he's long been aware of, then it's a mystery to me why he couldn't simply quit stonewalling on the legal front and allow the cases pursued to be heard in open court http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jul/09/fisa-courts-judge-nsa-surveillance in way similar to but not to be confused with refusing to defend DOMA. It seems to me an argument against that would require the assertion that he can be compelled to keep defending against any non-FISA court scrutiny with national security, state secrets, etc claims.
Much like with his offering up chained cpi, it's his choice in this matter that damns him, whether or not in that case it is actually inevitably put on the chopping block or not.
That's also why I say he has more ownership of all this than his adoring fans have been willing to admit to this point. And quite frankly, it's a mystery to me given that BHO himself has framed all this as a weighing of national security v civil liberties, and that it's practically a given which side he's gonna lean towards, why any of this would surprise anyone anyway.
but what could a racist/Bushbot/Paulite know, no?
Some Democrats and civil libertarians have expressed disappointment in what they say is a pattern of excessive secrecy from President Obama. He had pledged to run a more transparent administration than his predecessor, George W. Bush, who signed off on the NSA’s controversial warrantless wiretapping program and, with the authorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, launched the bulk data-collection program that has continued.
Posted by stupidicus | Thu Jul 11, 2013, 12:01 PM (2 replies)
Surely these errors in reporting don't matter, because he's obviously guilty of so much more, like practicing journalism for example. I'm surprised that none of his detractors haven't tried to make hay outta the fact that he rescues dogs off the street. Surely there's something nefarious about that just waiting to be revealed.
Posted by stupidicus | Thu Jul 11, 2013, 11:03 AM (30 replies)