HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » President Obama is NOT a ...

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 08:55 AM

President Obama is NOT a tool of the banks/MIC, a liar or a murderous warmonger

But attacking Syria is still a horrible idea.

Can we please just discuss why attacking Syria is a horrible idea without conjuring all these lurid and baseless fantasies about the President having some nefarious motive? It doesn't help, it actually diminishes the objective of avoiding war by discrediting those who seek honest discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of the issue.

162 replies, 29700 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 162 replies Author Time Post
Reply President Obama is NOT a tool of the banks/MIC, a liar or a murderous warmonger (Original post)
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 OP
cali Aug 2013 #1
zipplewrath Aug 2013 #2
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #7
zipplewrath Aug 2013 #15
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #17
1StrongBlackMan Aug 2013 #149
BlueStreak Aug 2013 #69
Amonester Aug 2013 #74
BlueStreak Aug 2013 #84
obxhead Aug 2013 #97
caseymoz Aug 2013 #81
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #88
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2013 #41
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #47
hfojvt Aug 2013 #55
zipplewrath Aug 2013 #86
hfojvt Aug 2013 #104
zipplewrath Aug 2013 #109
1StrongBlackMan Aug 2013 #150
truebluegreen Aug 2013 #61
pnwmom Aug 2013 #107
zipplewrath Aug 2013 #110
Nay Aug 2013 #125
zipplewrath Aug 2013 #131
Nay Aug 2013 #140
zipplewrath Aug 2013 #142
Nay Aug 2013 #143
Supersedeas Aug 2013 #144
SidDithers Aug 2013 #3
treestar Aug 2013 #4
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #13
Ed Suspicious Aug 2013 #38
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #40
Ed Suspicious Aug 2013 #43
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #46
Ed Suspicious Aug 2013 #51
treestar Aug 2013 #96
caseymoz Aug 2013 #85
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #90
caseymoz Aug 2013 #148
treestar Aug 2013 #94
Supersedeas Aug 2013 #154
PragmaticLiberal Aug 2013 #63
FSogol Aug 2013 #5
Doctor_J Aug 2013 #6
Scuba Aug 2013 #8
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #10
BeyondGeography Aug 2013 #14
SidDithers Aug 2013 #22
Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #130
progressoid Aug 2013 #48
TM99 Aug 2013 #57
BeyondGeography Aug 2013 #62
progressoid Aug 2013 #77
BeyondGeography Aug 2013 #79
pampango Aug 2013 #16
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #28
MNBrewer Aug 2013 #58
pampango Aug 2013 #114
Dustlawyer Aug 2013 #29
raouldukelives Aug 2013 #30
pipoman Aug 2013 #9
Caretha Aug 2013 #11
Doctor_J Aug 2013 #23
zeemike Aug 2013 #36
Scootaloo Aug 2013 #12
1StrongBlackMan Aug 2013 #151
Scootaloo Aug 2013 #152
1StrongBlackMan Aug 2013 #155
ucrdem Aug 2013 #18
BlueMTexpat Aug 2013 #19
Pterodactyl Aug 2013 #20
RevStPatrick Aug 2013 #21
Agschmid Aug 2013 #25
heaven05 Aug 2013 #27
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #31
JackRiddler Aug 2013 #34
Amonester Aug 2013 #50
JackRiddler Aug 2013 #52
Amonester Aug 2013 #68
JackRiddler Aug 2013 #73
Amonester Aug 2013 #83
JackRiddler Aug 2013 #105
QC Aug 2013 #129
TBF Aug 2013 #78
treestar Aug 2013 #99
zeemike Aug 2013 #42
RevStPatrick Aug 2013 #59
Doctor_J Aug 2013 #66
TBF Aug 2013 #76
treestar Aug 2013 #98
RevStPatrick Aug 2013 #115
Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #124
RevStPatrick Aug 2013 #127
Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #128
RevStPatrick Aug 2013 #133
Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #135
RevStPatrick Aug 2013 #136
L0oniX Aug 2013 #24
jeff47 Aug 2013 #45
truebluegreen Aug 2013 #65
jeff47 Aug 2013 #67
truebluegreen Aug 2013 #70
truebluegreen Aug 2013 #160
Amonester Aug 2013 #71
truebluegreen Aug 2013 #72
JackRiddler Aug 2013 #75
jeff47 Aug 2013 #87
JackRiddler Aug 2013 #103
L0oniX Aug 2013 #100
rhett o rick Sep 2013 #161
Fuddnik Aug 2013 #26
JackRiddler Aug 2013 #139
woo me with science Aug 2013 #32
Caretha Aug 2013 #116
JackRiddler Aug 2013 #33
Divernan Aug 2013 #91
HooptieWagon Aug 2013 #35
Amonester Aug 2013 #64
OnyxCollie Aug 2013 #37
Ed Suspicious Aug 2013 #56
TheKentuckian Aug 2013 #134
jsr Aug 2013 #39
gordianot Aug 2013 #44
Safetykitten Aug 2013 #49
bvar22 Aug 2013 #138
JoePhilly Aug 2013 #53
Just Saying Aug 2013 #95
stonecutter357 Aug 2013 #54
AtheistCrusader Aug 2013 #60
ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #80
Divernan Aug 2013 #92
markiv Aug 2013 #117
Proud Liberal Dem Aug 2013 #82
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #93
Proud Liberal Dem Aug 2013 #108
SHRED Aug 2013 #89
grahamhgreen Aug 2013 #101
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #102
grahamhgreen Aug 2013 #106
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #112
grahamhgreen Aug 2013 #119
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #122
grahamhgreen Aug 2013 #123
Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #126
zipplewrath Aug 2013 #111
grahamhgreen Aug 2013 #120
zipplewrath Aug 2013 #121
geek tragedy Aug 2013 #141
grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #162
markiv Aug 2013 #113
Hell Hath No Fury Aug 2013 #118
AtomicKitten Aug 2013 #132
JI7 Aug 2013 #147
Enthusiast Aug 2013 #137
Scurrilous Aug 2013 #145
JI7 Aug 2013 #146
RKP5637 Aug 2013 #153
ozone_man Aug 2013 #156
RiverStone Aug 2013 #157
CthulhusEvilCousin Aug 2013 #158
donheld Aug 2013 #159

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 08:56 AM

1. rec. I agree.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 08:57 AM

2. Can't we do both?

Just sayin'. This ain't BOG or anything. Can't we discuss both Syria AND President Obama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:01 AM

7. I would never say President Obama is beyond discussion

But I will maintain that those advancing lurid fantasies do so absent of or contrary to observed facts about the man Barack Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:10 AM

15. Now you're discussing it

Now you want to discuss the motivations of the posters but NOT the motivations of the President?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:14 AM

17. I never came close to discussing the motives of people ascribing motives to the President

I've said their claims have no basis in observation. That itself is merely an observation, not a statement about what leads them to act contrary to what I hope to see.

I continue to maintain that ascribing unfounded motivations detracts from the overall objective: keeping the US out of an ill-advised war.

To make any claim beyond this is to misrepresent what I am saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #17)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:07 PM

149. LOL …

 

Some (or, more specifically, that poster) don’t/doesn’t seem to understand that, in their persistence, they make their motives clear … and it is not to discuss the issue, at Syrian issue; but rather, to bash President Obama … and thereby, detracting from the overall objective: keeping the US out of an ill-advised war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:08 AM

69. What, exactly, are you calling "lurid fantasies"?

 

That he put G-S criminals like Geitthner and Summers in charge of our economy? That he is looking to put the selfsame Summers in charge of the Fed? That not a single one of the banksters has done any jail time for their crimes in 2008?

What about any of that is a "lurid fantasy"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #69)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:17 AM

74. Everything can be explained by "private money in politics"

The USofThem is a very corrupt (high-)society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amonester (Reply #74)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:29 AM

84. No argument there. And that includes Obama

 

There can be an argument about degrees of corruption. There can be an argument about pragmatism in pursuit of the bigger goals. But there can be absolutely no denying that Obama is in the mud along with the rest of the swine.

It is possible that Obama still has the greater good in mind and has determined that there is no path to that goal that doesn't involve wallowing with swine.

Or he could be just as corrupt as everyone else, but just a lot more charismatic.

That is really the big unknown here. I'm pretty much 50/50 on that one. The data says he's corrupt but charismatic. The hope in me says that he has the longer view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amonester (Reply #74)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:53 AM

97. Which makes him a tool of

 

At least some of the groups named in the op.

He used a billion dollars in the last election. He has people demanding repayment now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:25 AM

81. Your lurid fantasies are somebody else's discussions.

They consider your excuses, sympathetic interpretations, and explaining away uncomfortable indications about the president as being gratuitous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #81)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:34 AM

88. They are as free to do so as I am free to rebut

However, while I am staunchly against striking Syria I'm not going around claiming the President is a monster one minute while continuing to support him because he followed through on Policy X that I like or accept him -- lurid fantasies and all -- lest the GOP gain some sort of political boon.

"Who cares if I think the President is a murderous war criminal. I got my pony and the GOP won't get theirs!"

That hardly seems principled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:16 AM

41. BOG = ?

BOG = Barack Obama Game?

Birthers Only Group?

Looks like a TLA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #41)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:29 AM

47. I've seen the term here on DU but I have no idea what it means

I think cryptic terms are a way for some people to feel 1337

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #47)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:50 AM

55. BOG is (or was) the Barack Obama Group

a place where diehard fans of Obama got together to praise him. A place where never was heard a discouraging word, and the skies were not cloudy all day.

It may have been a group on DU2, I cannot seem to find it right now. Maybe because I don't have a star and groups are for people with stars?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #55)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:31 AM

86. Group not a forum

You may not be able to see it because you have it "trashed". It will hide it from listing and from showing posts in the latest or greatest. It should be in with the other democrats such as Kerry, Clinton, Edwards et. al.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #86)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:03 PM

104. okay, there it is

I just did not know the sub-heading.

Who would think to look for Obama under "Democrats"?

Although reading this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1102&pid=13724

It also seems like a safe haven for some DUers to talk smack about other DUers.

Then again, maybe I did that myself in my previous post with the phrase "diehard fans". I did not really mean that as an insult. Perhaps I should have said "stalwart supporters" instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #104)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:14 PM

109. Yeah, that thread got me banned

They get pretty hostile over there. It's kinda funny too because in many ways I was sorta a "defender" of their group. Not really a defender but it is really just an observation that the group is a narrower version of DU itself. DU doesn't particularly allow right wingers and BOG doesn't allow dissent from Obama. It's all just a matter of whom is being excluded. And heck, we have the gungeon and the 9/11 groups, so BOG ought to be able to exist too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #47)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:09 PM

150. It stands for: Barak Obama Group.

 

But it has taken on a derogatory meaning to those that continue enter the group for the sole purpose of saying: “President Obama is the worstestest President everrrrrr!”

They remind me a lot of the freeper coming onto DU complaining about Democrats or the random white person going to an NAACP meeting for the purpose of complaining about Black folks; but unlike the freeper, they can’t seem to grasp why they are unwelcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #41)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:00 AM

61. Barack Obama Group.

 

It is a forum here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:08 PM

107. Not if you want a serious discussion directly related to Syria. As any marriage counselor

would say -- stick to the issue at hand. Don't go into historical grievances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #107)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:17 PM

110. Alot has to do with trust

Some of the discussion revolves around the issue of trust, especially in Obama. And people will frequently explain why they won't trust him on this issue. And that starts the thread drift. Heck, forget drift, some folks open with the explanation of why they don't trust him. And that changes the whole focus for the BOGs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #110)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 01:13 PM

125. I agree here, z. People have lost a lot of trust due to the actual things that are being

done in their name. They feel that certain no-brainer actions (like NOT appointing ppl like Geithner, Summers,etc.) that were NOT done indicate that there is something more afoot than simply Republican obstruction, and that the reluctance to appoint Democrats/progressives to important posts says quite a lot about Pres. Obama.

When it comes to Syria, many of us just can't see any benefit for us or the Syrians -- we'll be looted of more money and Syrians will die indiscriminately at our hands.

And frankly, no one believes either party is especially good at responding anywhere for humanitarian reasons, so when that reason is put forward for Syria it comes off as false even if it may be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nay (Reply #125)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 02:23 PM

131. Well to the larger point

Because of this lack of trust, it often becomes the preamble, or explanation, for various view on Syria and the information being presented. The problem then is the one about which the OP is complaining. The discussion quickly becomes about Obama, trust, movitation, and honesty instead of the pro's and con's of various strategic possibilities. This is especially true for the BOG's who tend to focus on defending the president, over any other topic. (And, yes, there is definitely the population that will focus on the presidents perceived short comings over any other topic.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #131)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 03:57 PM

140. It's true that I wish all discussion of a topic would at least begin with discussion of

the topic rather than the motivations/honesty of the various operators involved. However, it's hard to discuss any topic when scant information (or tainted information) is all that's available upon which to base an argument one way or another.

In many ways, a discussion of involving ourselves in Syria can, and should, go straight to some meta-type points:

Is this worse than any other inhumane stuff going on that we are NOT involving ourselves in ? (No.)

Are other actors in the area able to step in rather than the US? (Yes.)

Should we maybe stay out of civil wars? (Yes.)

Is there a good chance that our involvement would result in lots of civilian casualties, making the situation worse? (yes.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nay (Reply #140)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 04:35 PM

142. What are the other meta points?

I suspect some might want meta points about whether doing nothing will be standing around "watching people die". Also some discussion about the war spreading into neighboring countries (as civil wars are want to do). These were the basic excuses for our actions in both Kosovo and Croatia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #142)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 06:48 PM

143. My post wasn't meant to be exhaustive, that's for sure---your points are good additions.

I guess I want more rational discussion rather than the war drumbeats that get everyone riled up. And when someone points out that that monster Kim Jong-un is starving tens of thousands of his own people in N Korea and why aren't we marching into there, I'd like that addressed, rather than it be treated as a non-question. Personally, if we wanted to save lots of ppl, we should have taken over the ppl's republic of the congo, which has been raping and killing thousands of women and children for many years. My point, ultimately, is to try to tease out WHY Syria is different, and why, in that specific case, are we interfering.
After all, we are 'watching people die' in those other 2 places, just as quick examples.

Another metapoint is the cost of all this -- at what point do we recognize that we don't have the money to do this? That our own citizens may need some help first, esp in an economic downturn and with climate change closing in on us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 07:38 PM

144. No...you are required to abide by the rules mandated by cheerleaders

now stomp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 08:57 AM

3. DU rec...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 08:58 AM

4. Heartily recc'd

And also stop claiming things are illegal or unconstitutional when we merely disagree with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:09 AM

13. They'll keep saying it but take heart

You'll never see them follow through with calls for impeachment.

"He may be a bastard, but at least he's our bastard," used to be anathema to Progressives who saw the horrors of realpolitik unfolding around them. Granted, I am free of the notion Obama is a bastard but you have to wonder about the ethics of those who openly claim he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #13)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:14 AM

38. The ethics? I'm somehow unethical because I feel the president is not acting in my best interest?

Wow. That is some manipulative shit right there. Here ... He may not be a bastard but, chained CPI, Larry Summers as fed chair, and the endorsement of the lying clown Clapper might as well have come from a bastard 'cause these don't seem to be coming from someone who is interested fighting for the little guy.

Nope, I'll say it more clearly. He's a bastard and I'm sick of it. Unethical? I don't have blood on my hands. He does thanks to drone strikes and he'll end up even more bloodied once the bombs start dropping in Syria. That is a man whose ethics I question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #38)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:15 AM

40. Should he be impeached? Will you press your congress critter to file for impeachment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #40)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:20 AM

43. No, my congress-critter needs no nudging from me. Sunspots Johnson would like nothing more

than to impeach and I'm sure is leading the charge. He be even more of a bastard than the President.

I don't know that the president has committed any high crimes or misdemeanors in the eyes of the law - only against my heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #43)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:26 AM

46. So you passively accept an illegal war by soeone you claim has ill motives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #46)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:39 AM

51. No. I don't passively accept. I do what I can, and what I can do is let others know that

when the call is put out to get in line behind the president come hell or high water, well, I let them know there are people who applaud the president when it is deserved, but never passively get behind bad policy simply to give him political cover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #43)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:53 AM

96. Your heart?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #40)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:31 AM

85. They're not going to impeach him on anything I find illegal.


And I wouldn't favor impeachment for anything they find illegal. That's the problem when people say those on the left who oppose Obama are just tools of the Right. It can't play out like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #85)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:36 AM

90. So their inaction is your excuse?

Did Progressives become too demoralized after Bush skated or does the team jersey make all the difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #90)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 08:24 PM

148. My excuse for what? I can't try him.

Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2013, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm just giving my read on it. Repubs are not going to vote to remove him on drone strikes overseas, or violations of the 4th Amendment, or anything legitimate or real. Because, despite the occasional Rand Paul, Republicans aren't offended by those violations, as long as none of it is used against good, gun-owning White people.

Or should we try him for something Republicans would? For Benghazi, for being a closet Muslim and/or communist, or just for Being President While Black? Or for passing and attempting to implement the ACA?

Fact is, neither the Left nor Right is willing to validate the other side's grievances against Obama. Therefore, the odds are slight that there's going to be an Impeachment, and the chance it would be successful is microscopic.

What action do you suggest I'm making an excuse for? I promise, I won't vote for him again, and I also won't commit any more money to his campaign. No matter what slimy, reptilian Republican he's put up against. Hell, I'll even vote for for Rick Perry instead of Obama. Are you happy?

I'm not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #38)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:52 AM

94. Interesting pronoun

Should be "our" or "the country's"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #94)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:33 PM

154. exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:04 AM

63. Totally agree with this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 08:59 AM

5. K & R. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:00 AM

6. Sounds like one BOGer has reached his/her tolerance limit

 

BTW the president most certainly is a tool of the ones who actually run the country (banks/MIC/1%). Can you point to an issue that he's fought them on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:03 AM

8. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:05 AM

10. If saying "this isn't the best argument to achieve what you want" is a mark of intolerance

Then how do you categorize your own complaint towards me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:10 AM

14. Oh yeah...like you're open-minded. So here are the search results for "bankers hate Obama"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:32 AM

22. Boom goes the dynamite...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #22)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 02:17 PM

130. Nope, a big fizzle. See downthread. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:33 AM

48. Um, I'm guessing you didn't actually open any of the links you posted.

These are the first ones that supposedly support the idea that Wall Street hates Obama:

Geithner: 'It's Inexplicable' Why Banks Hate Obama http://www.businessinsider.com/geithner-its-inexplicable-why-banks-hate-obama-2011-10

Perhaps Wall Street hates Obama because Wall Street is doing terribly—and everybody blames the incumbent when the economy turns sour. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/10/why_wall_street_hates_obama_the_surprisingly_simple_explanation_.html

"The primary criticism I have of Obama is the business plan going forward from here. What do we do to solve major structural imbalances in the economy?" says Alpern. "There is just no plan around that. Everything Obama is now saying is, 'Look at the Republican Party, those guys are worse,' http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/this-guy-hates-us-why-wall-street-turned-against-obama/261936/


Pretty weak sauce.



And right after the Ron Paul link? An article by that right wing libertarian: Bill Moyers.

It’s startling the number of high-ranking Obama officials who have spun through the revolving door between the White House and the sacred halls of investment banking. http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/the_wall_streeters_obama_loves_most/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #48)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:52 AM

57. Boom goes the dynamite, they say! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #48)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:01 AM

62. I know all about them...there's a much broader range of people saying the banks hate Obama

from Jim Cramer to Mother Jones, and a far norrower range saying why they love him, not "should," but do.

"Obama works for the banks" is extreme RW libertarian, extreme LW purotopian bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #62)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:20 AM

77. RW libertarian to extreme LW purotopian is a narrow range?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #77)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:21 AM

79. That has been amply demonstrated on this board

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:13 AM

16. And there we go with the labels of those we don't agree with. The OP did not call anyone "hater" or

"troll" or use any other label for those the OP disagrees with. Can we not disagree with the OP in the same tone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #16)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:47 AM

28. Exctly. What is even more stunning is

I agree that war in Syria is a bad idea. But because I refuse to resort to name-calling to carry my argument -- I get called names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #28)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:54 AM

58. Name calling, how AWFUL!

Ok, so Barack Obama seems poised to drag us into another military conflict. It's a bad idea.

1. The opposition to Assad is rife with al Qaeda/islamists. Shall we put them in power? If not, how do we prevent it?

2. How many people will WE kill as a result of our military involvement? What of the Christian and Alawite minorities after the fall of Assad? What of the Sunni/Shia conflict after the Christian/Alawite ethnic cleansing?

3. The President has said that it seems clear that the Assad regime used chemical weapons, but I don't believe him. I don't trust the people advising him. I don't trust the organizations in charge of providing the intel. I'm not saying the President is lying (per se) but I don't think he's actually telling the truth.

I happen to think that it's equally likely that an opposition faction released the gas as it is that the Assad regime did. Given that one side has everything to gain and one side only has everything to lose, I think it tips the balance toward the opposition having done it.

That may be wrong. If it's wrong the President OWES us the full, unvarnished, unclassified truth before putting our military into the conflict.

Yes, I said it, OWES us the full, unclassified truth. I don't take the President's word for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #58)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:28 PM

114. Nice post. And a great example of how to be passionate and convincing without name calling.

"Ok, so Barack Obama seems poised to drag us into another military conflict. It's a bad idea."

I agree.

"The opposition to Assad is rife with al Qaeda/islamists. Shall we put them in power? If not, how do we prevent it?"

I suppose "rife" is a subjective term. Assad has from the beginning portrayed this as a "you are with me or the terrorists" choice, at the beginning when the protests were massive and peaceful.

What I read is that, aside from Assad's propaganda, the Al Qaeda linked Al Nusra Front numbers from 6,000 to 10,000 fighters and they are some of the best fighters in the opposition. That accounts for 10-20% of the total rebel fighters. That may qualify as "rife" and they are certainly a force that will have to be reckoned with in the long run.

"How many people will WE kill as a result of our military involvement? What of the Christian and Alawite minorities after the fall of Assad? What of the Sunni/Shia conflict after the Christian/Alawite ethnic cleansing?"

If we commit a war crime to allegedly punish a war crime, how are we any better than Assad? Is it possible to "punish" for a war crime without committing one ourselves? I suppose it is possible but very difficult.

I agree that what happens to minorities in Syria has to be considered, as does what has happened to the majority in past decades. In that way it is similar to the advent of majority rule in South Africa. Many whites were concerned that's majority rule would be very dangerous for the white minority. While about half of the white population has indeed emigrated from South Africa, the worst white fears were never realized.

"The President has said that it seems clear that the Assad regime used chemical weapons, but I don't believe him. I don't trust the people advising him. I don't trust the organizations in charge of providing the intel. I'm not saying the President is lying (per se) but I don't think he's actually telling the truth."

I think it is obvious that Obama is not itching to get involved in the Syrian conflict. If he were, as Bush/Cheney were in Iraq, he would have found a pretext long ago (or invented one as they did).

He knows the history of the intelligence communities mistakes and lies in the past as well as any of us and takes what they report with a grain of salt. That does not mean that he could never be convinced that Assad's forces used chemical weapons.

Many of us will not be convinced by anything we hear from Obama or any other American official. Even if the UN inspectors were to implicate syrian forces (hypothetical, at this point, but certainly a possibility), many of us would not be convinced. I suppose that is because I know that I support a policy of not intervening and ANY investigation by ANYONE that reaches ANY conclusion that lessens the likelihood of that policy being implemented is something I am going to have a hard time "believing".

I know the habit of choosing policy first then accepting evidence that supports it and rejecting or discrediting evidence that does not, is a common republican trait. They choose policies like smaller government, lower taxes and global warming as a hoax among many others. Then they latch on to any "evidence" that seems to support their chosen policy and reject or discredit all evidence that clashes with what "they know is the right thing to do". I do try to fight this habit; sometimes with more success than others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:53 AM

29. Right on! He has gone against what he promised. The candidate Obama is very different from

The President Obama we have. He is not evil and he has had to deal with a lot more than your average President, but he has quietly given the corporations and the 1% what they want, just like Bill Clinton did, and Hillary will do if elected. He is a corporate democrat plain and simple!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:57 AM

30. The TPP will prove he is not.

One of the reasons it is being kept so secret must be because of the massive climate change regulations he is demanding be inserted into it. If Wall St ever caught of whiff of those, they'd shit renewable bricks.
I know this is true because he is not a tool.
Still holding out hope for "not a tool" President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:05 AM

9. Yeah, Syria has nothing to do with forcing TPP through...nothing to see here...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:07 AM

11. I've been following

 

many threads regarding this issue. I am not seeing what your are. A large majority, some say 90% + DU members are against attacking Syria. They seem to me to be putting forward many and various reasons why this is a bad idea. Some of them of course are speculating why the President seems so determined to attack, before all the evidence is in and without UN/Congressional approval or without our allies, and the vast majority of these posts seem very on point and cognizant to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caretha (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:39 AM

23. I think the more world-weary among us knew soon after 1/20/2009 that something

 

like this was probably inevitable. We campaigned, spent, and voted for the president and got ourselves to believe that major change was going to happen, but it wasn't very long into his term that, while he isn't the stupid, mean, violent sociopath that Bush is, he also is not the revolutionary that we saw on the campaign trail. He works for the rich and the lobbyists, not the 70 million people who voted for him. that is just a fact of life, and the Syria situation is just one more data point. KeystoneXL and TPP are next. Best hope is that he waits until after the midterms to do these things, so as not to completely destroy the party's chances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:12 AM

36. +1

But I have to say that I believed right up until his second term that he would do something to effect change....I don't catch on to things like as quick as some do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:09 AM

12. It's a feedback effect

 

Poster 1) "I oppose the war on Syria!"
Poster 2) "Why do you think Obama is stupid?"
Poster 1) "I never said that, just that I don't think he's making a bad choice here."
Poster 2) "Typical fringe leftist, thinking you know better than the president."
Poster 1) "What? No, I just don't think we should engage in another military adventure based on weak evidence that will only benefit the military industrial complex!"
Poster 2) "I can't believe you're comparing Obama to bush! This isn't Iraq!"
Poster 3) "Only a libertarian nutjob would insist that the DEMOCRATIC president is in league with the MIC!"

...And so on. The original point - opposition to strikes on Syria - is derailed into a conversation about the president, which simply grows narrower and more heated as the discussion goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #12)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:11 PM

151. I guess what you see …

 

Depends on where you stand; in this case, your opinion of President Obama. What I see is:

Poster 1) "I oppose the war on Syria!"

Poster 2) "Yeah, and President Obama is a tool of the MIC!"

Poster 1) "I didn’t say that. I just that I don't think he's making a bad choice here. And I think making that argument, distracts from the issue of opposing war in Syria.”

Poster 2) "Typical of authoritarian lackeys … unwilling to connect the puppetry dots with this president."

Poster 1) "What? No, I just don't think we should engage in another military adventure based on weak evidence. This is not about the why of the matter; but rather, the matter of the matter.”

Poster 2) "But I have the right to speak truth to power/hand the President accountable, regarding his being a corporate tool!"


Poster 1) “Whether you believe he is a corporate tool or not is irrelevant to whether the US enters this ill-advised conflict."


Poster 3) “Only an authoritarian, corporate loving, 3rd way Centrist democrat (small “D” intended) would deny that this President is in league with the MIC!"


{Notice: Go back to the thread … despite his/her question “Can’t we do both”, Poster 2, has not mentioned one word about Syria. But questions the motives of the OP, for not wishing to engage in President Obama = Bad talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #151)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:14 PM

152. Fair enough, my point was about how the argument deforms and escalates.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #152)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:17 PM

155. Agreed ...

 

I think it's long past time for some DU self-reflection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:25 AM

18. exactly. I can't help but notice that at the end of the day

what we've gotten so far is a lot of saber-rattling, which may or may not be intended to appease anxious allies and chasten obstreperous rivals like Mr. Putin. Also that what's being threatened isn't annihilation but basically some kind of object lesson, the ultimate purposes of which, were we actually privy to PBO's thoughts, might not be so objectionable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:26 AM

19. I concur that Prez O

is none of the above. But he has also put himself between a rock and a hard place with some of his ill-advised statements and needs to quit deferring - or even being polite to - to RWers. They do not deserve it.

I sincerely hope that reason will prevail because his "proof" seems to come from sources that are hardly unbiased (Israeli intelligence agencies) with their own track record of nefarious doings in the area and the most vociferous voices for attacking Syria are PNAC supporters, along with Bush II embeds in his own administration and those who are truly clueless. Or those who stand to gain in some way ....

Yes, attacking Syria is a horrible idea. If the US gets involved at all, it should be to provide a lead for aiding humanitarian efforts and putting meaningful pressure on both sides (or all sides as it is unclear how many factions there actually are) to resolve their differences in other than military fashion. It is also hardly the time to deepen discord with Russia, as we have been doing lately.

There are too many bullies in the world today. And we are among the worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:28 AM

20. Well, he is a drone-war monger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:32 AM

21. No, he's not a murderous warmonger, but the MIC has a gun directly pointed at his head...

 

...and the heads of his children.
He may not do it enthusiastically, but he will do their bidding.
Or fucking else.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:43 AM

25. I'm in denial according to you...

But I don't believe it for a moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:46 AM

27. that photo

 

speaks volumes. I said this very thing long ago about the bankers and MIC power over the office of POTUS. So I'll go back to, like the rest of the Obama haters, Obama is a bad POTUS because.....blah, blah, blah..... Most 'good' americans just don't want to face the reality that the POTUS is a figurehead who is thrown out in the front every four years to have us 'vote', to keep up the illusion of democracy or like in the case of Bush 2000....some PTB said "fuck it, take it, fuck the vote". But what's a citizen to do? Object? For historical record, objection will be noted, but object in a meaningful way? Nope can't happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:01 AM

31. woo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:10 AM

34. Didn't he know this before he chose to go for the job?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #34)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:38 AM

50. No, since he repeatedly stated "Yes we can" over a series of promises

Which suddenly turned out to become No-we-can't as soon as he stepped inside the OO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amonester (Reply #50)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:40 AM

52. That's an ironic statement, right?

 

I can no longer tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #52)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:08 AM

68. Many refuse to face such horrible reality.

But the hints are there nonetheless.

The POTUS, whoever he/she is, will toe TPTB's line most of the time (money in politics).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amonester (Reply #68)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:15 AM

73. Most people imagine themselves in a given situation...

 

which is the first mistake.

They haven't spent decades preparing, perhaps being groomed, at any rate chasing after the (personal) prize and becoming a part of that environment.

So they confuse their own feelings on considering situations for the first time with what someone who's actually been shaped/shaped themselves for the job would feel.

So they make up this mythic and comforting narrative in which all the bad things the person in charge does (which are mostly automatic institutional functions) must have personal reasons, as you say. Golly, he wanted to do it right but then a crisis happened and he was forced, etc. etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #73)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:29 AM

83. You mean, the ODS obsessed here would believe BHO is, and always has been

a bloodthirsty, warmongering despot wannabe who secretly dreamed of fooling the Democratic Party's voters by making them believe he was going to listen to them and crush the 'special-interests lobbies' in DC as soon as he would win the Presidency?

What fool would ever believe such sh!t pile?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amonester (Reply #83)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:06 PM

105. What's ODS?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #105)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 01:54 PM

129. It's a recycled Charles Krauthammer insult

that has lately found great favor among some DUers, like quite a few other right wing insults, memes, and talking points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush#Bush_Derangement_Syndrome_neologism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #34)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:20 AM

78. He did. If you read his Audacity of Hope book

he clearly tells his story of selling out. He doesn't use those words but it's basically what he says.

I think he idealistically thought he could still do some good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #34)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:57 AM

99. Are you kidding me?

So you expect people to run for President to be on a suicide mission (that would be the case if your insane assumption is true).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:16 AM

42. Well I agree with you

But you know you will catch hell for saying it.
Just as I am sure that the little boy who said the emperor was naked caught hell for saying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #42)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:56 AM

59. Yeah, I knew I would catch hell for it.

 

I got banned from the Barack Obama Group for saying essentially the same thing.
No big loss...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:06 AM

66. i don't know. the MIC is like the Mafia

 

First they offer to pay you off, and if that doesn't work you are disappeared. Maybe the president took the money so as not to end up with his brains lying on his neck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:18 AM

76. That's probably closer to the truth than any of us would like to think -

I think he's between a rock and a hard place with this one.

I haven't figured out if he's being baited or simply trying to keep the oil cos. happy (natural gas - they need that pipeline). Or both. I'm still researching.

Eisenhower warned us ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:56 AM

98. Oh please FFS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #98)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:30 PM

115. Oh please Free Fred Schneider?

 

Felatio For Sex?
Fire Freida Sanchez?
French Fried Sweetpotatoes?
Freedom Fried Suckers?
Flerg Flarg Subrigrak?

What are trying to say here?
This is my theory to explain President Obama's behavior.
What is your theory?

FFS says nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 01:12 PM

124. Oh BULLSHIT nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #124)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 01:43 PM

127. Ah! That explains it!

 

Thanks for enlightening me!
Now I understand why President Obama has behaved rather differently from Senator and candidate Obama.
It was all "Oh BULLSHIT."

Look, I knew when I voted for the man that he wasn't a commie who was going to redistribute all the wealth, like Joe the Plumber thought. I knew he was a Corporate Socialist (as opposed to a Corporate Fascist) and that he understood that "The Business of America is Business." I'm OK with that, not ecstatic, but I can accept that.

However, he's not even trying anymore to address the foundational problems that we are dealing with. It's the bankers, the oil companies, the MIC making policy and deciding what's what. Just like what got us into this mess in the first place. This is not what I voted for, and the president knows it.

So I ask... Why do YOU think he's behaving the way he's behaving?
Did he never really want us to "hold his feet to the fire" because it was all bullshit?
Are his real core beliefs such that he WANTS the 1 percent to control all the wealth on the planet and the rest of it was all bullshit? Is he really just Ronald Reagan in blackface?

Have his core beliefs changed due to something once he got into office?
I'm sure he knows a lot that we don't know, is there something that he's learned since being president that has transformed him into DroneMan?

Or... does he have a gun to his head?

I'm going with that one.
It's the explanation that I find the most palatable.
Your mileage may vary...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #127)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 01:45 PM

128. Here's an idea: HE NEVER HAD THE BELIEFS YOU THINK HE HAD IN THE FIRST PLACE. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #128)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 02:33 PM

133. Well, having read both Dreams of My Father...

 

...and The Audacity of Hope before ever getting a chance to vote for him, I felt I had a fairly clear idea of his "beliefs." And I feel that he has changed,and not for the better?

Do you think he has changed?
If so, how?
And why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RevStPatrick (Reply #133)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 02:51 PM

135. I can summarize his beliefs for you in one sentence.

He believed he wanted to be President.

And he is. And he makes the decisions, not some bullshit made up fantasy called the "MIC." Either that is made-up bullshit, or he is at the head of the table and in the middle of the trough of the MIC.

I will let you choose which.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #135)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 02:57 PM

136. OK. Well, alrighty then...

 

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:41 AM

24. Who made us the world police?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #24)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:22 AM

45. The failure of anyone else being the world police. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #45)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:05 AM

65. Yes, we were forced into building an empire

 

for our own great enrichment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #65)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:07 AM

67. Nobody else "stepped up" either.

Yes, the result is US hegemony. But no other country or combination of countries decided to spend the money to become "world police". So we are by default.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #67)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:09 AM

70. Poor us.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #67)

Fri Aug 30, 2013, 06:03 PM

160. The question is, why do you think we should have "world police"?

 

And what is your take on the UN?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #65)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:13 AM

71. Or rather, for the one-percenter's never-ending enrichment

unless you're one of them (which isn't the case, right?).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amonester (Reply #71)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:15 AM

72. Of course,

 

and of course not. Although there was some enrichment spread around mid-century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #45)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:17 AM

75. That's a laugher.

 

I think some big old atomic bombs might have had something to do with it. Also, being a superpower. And an empire. And having 2/3 of the world manufacturing base in 1946.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #75)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:32 AM

87. Yeah, it's not like there was some sort of "Union" composed of Soviets.

who also had an enormous power on the world stage after WWII.

More recently, the EU has more per-capita economic power than the US. They could have become "world police", but decided to rely on the US instead.

We're "world police" because we spent the money on our military to be able to be "world police". No other country or group has.

For example, France and the UK were supposed to handle bombing Libya. They could not. They had to rely on the US for tankers and other support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #87)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:02 PM

103. "France and the UK were supposed to handle bombing Libya."

 

Tells me you're missing the point somehow.

Who decided this had to be "handled"?

What suggests there should be a world police, especially one consisting of a nation?

"We" (dubious term) are "world police" because it - the USG and its backing interests - want to maintain an empire. Plus, the money gets spent because it's a business. (How smart of the Europeans to find better businesses to be involved in, for the most part.) War is a racket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #45)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:59 AM

100. So who is forcing anyone to be the world police?

 

Isn't it time for some other country to do this shit? Why is it always the USA? So if the USA doesn't do it then no one else will? If that is so then what the fuck are we doing it for? Yea they stand back and watch us do it while they take care of their own ...easy for them ...and much less costly for them. So we the US tax payers get to foot the bill because no one else will do what the hell ever? Fuck that! It's time to help our own for a change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #45)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 11:07 AM

161. More likely the MIC sees profits in it. Cant afford to be world's police and save Social Security.

 

Looks like a win-win for conservatives. Profits for war profiteers and the death of social safety nets.

A little American Exceptionalism added in, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:46 AM

26. Link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 03:50 PM

139. Money?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:02 AM

32. Denying the influence of the banks and MIC is absurd.

Last edited Thu Aug 29, 2013, 03:00 PM - Edit history (1)

It is disconnection from reality. And Obama has demonstrably lied.

There is constant motive in the corporate talking points to construe opposition to these policies as a personal insult aimed at Barack Obama. If anger over these policies can be smeared as mere personal insults and hatred, it can be dismissed.

No. We have a grave, even malignant problem of corporate power, money, and influence driving policy in Washington.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:32 PM

116. ^ Truth ^

 

I sometimes think that if we put up no resistance, it would come to an end faster. No need for the boiling pot of water, so to speak, and enough people in the US still think they are individuals with rights. I figure they'd get really really pissed if it was shoved in their face all at once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:06 AM

33. What is the administration's policy on banking?

 

When it transitioned to power in 2008-9, whom did it appoint to the Treasury and the economic advisory positions? Did these happen to be Geithner and Summers, leaders of the late 1990s financial deregulation wave that directly set up the later bubble and crisis? In the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, how did the new administration treat the megabanks that had engaged in the biggest known financial frauds of all time and thus caused the crash? Were these banks refused bailouts? Were they at least brought under control by the bailout packages? Were they forced to again operate by the rule of law under strict regulation? Were they broken up, given the systemic dangers of TBTF? Were executives investigated and prosecuted for the control frauds?

We could go on to the MIC, but first, do you begin to understand the difference between what you wish were true, which you deliver in the form of assertion only, and actual, empirical reality?

Nice pictures of a smiling couple you would like to idealize as good people and enshrine as role models cannot substitute for political analysis. They are actually not very important, and serve as a distraction to institutional reality. Politics and the business of power have little to do with the theatrical personality narratives that the propaganda and cultural systems forefront as a substitute.

Here's an assertion: No one becomes president if they are not serving Wall Street and the MIC. The present administration does not differ from others in this. It represents policy continuity and a further development along predictable lines, in which (partly due to crisis) the powers of globalized finance capital and of the US-based military empire have become ever more explicit, unconditional, absolute, and beyond the reach of the law. One would have to be blinded by an ideal approach to the US government and power arrangements to think a change in administrative personnel would affect that short of an accompanying popular revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #33)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:37 AM

91. O was SO good at serving Wall Street/MIC that they let him have second term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:10 AM

35. He sure has made a 180 since....

 

his time as a constitutional scholar, community organizer, and Senator. Its pretty apparant he was bought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #35)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:04 AM

64. Either bought, or "threatened" just enough (in subtle "ways") to toe the line

From the "Yes-We-Can" numerous progressive-leaning promises to the sudden 'No-We-Cannot' that preceded the 'Wanna remain a Good Father for my Daughters for a long time after my term(s)' obvious hint, one would think TPTB made sure to remind him not to say anything about their warnings to anyone...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:12 AM

37. Why discuss motives at all?

 

It's the policies that matter, not the motives behind them, and quite frankly, the policies suck.

We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as
power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out.
That assumption
allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were, the steps a statesman-
past, present, or future-has taken or will take on the political scene.
We look over his shoulder when he writes his dispatches; we listen in on
his conversation with other statesmen; we read and anticipate his very
thoughts. Thinking in terms of interest defined as power, we think as he
does, and as disinterested observers we understand his thoughts and actions
perhaps better than he, the actor on the political scene, does himself.

The concept of interest defined as power imposes intellectual discipline
upon the observer, infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics,
and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. On the
side of the actor, it provides for rational discipline in action and creates that
astounding continuity in foreign policy which makes American, British, or
Russian foreign policy appear as an intelligible, rational continuum, by and
large consistent within itself, regardless of the different motives, preferences,
and intellectual and moral qualities of successive statesmen. A realist theory
of international politics, then, will guard against two popular fallacies:
the concern with motives and the concern with ideological preferences.


~snip~

Yet even if we had access to the real motives of statesmen, that knowledge
would help us little in understanding foreign policies, and might well
lead us astray. It is true that the knowledge of the statesman's motives may
give us one among many clues as to what the direction of his foreign policy
might be. It cannot give us, however, the one clue by which to predict his
foreign policies. History shows no exact and necessary correlation between
the quallty of motives and the quality of foreign policy. This is true in both
moral and political terms.


We cannot conclude from the good intentions of a statesman that his
foreign policies will be either morally praiseworthy or politically successful.
Judging his motives, we can say that he will not intentionally pursue
policies that are morally wrong, but we can say nothing about the probability
of their success. If we want to know the moral and political qualities
of his actions, we must know them, not his motives. How often have
statesmen been motivated by the desire to improve the world, and ended
by making it worse? And how often have they sought one goal, and ended
by achieving something they neither expected nor desired?


Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (pp. 5, 6). New York: Knopf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #37)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:51 AM

56. "Men are not judged by their words......but by their actions." Frederick II

Crappy leadership begets crappy policy. Leading us into another middle eastern war of our choosing is crappy leadership guided by crappy policy built of others crappy leadership (neocon Bushs) which will result in more crappy policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #37)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 02:37 PM

134. Because policies are justified and excused by supposedly superior motives and character.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:15 AM

39. By their fruits ye shall know them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:20 AM

44. Anyone who lives on the grid is a tool of the banks and feels the heel when it is applied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:37 AM

49. Hi, Larry Summers here, and I agree completely...except war in Syria is ok.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Safetykitten (Reply #49)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 03:25 PM

138. LOL!

Perfect....just perfect.
Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:44 AM

53. Can't we just run in circles screaming ... ??

... that's been extremely successful so far.

Besides, if we go with your idea, DU's Straw-man Industry will collapse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #53)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:52 AM

95. It's funny because it's true!

The OP is simply suggesting we discuss the problems with attacking Syria without going off into hyperbole and CT land too far. But all debates usually go like this:

[URL=http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

This is why the BOG exists in the first place. I realize it offends some people that they can't dump on President Obama on every single group and forum here at DU but some are obsessed with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:47 AM

54. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:57 AM

60. I don't think he has some nefarious intent. I think he's blinded by good intentions.

What happened is sickening, I can understand anyone wanting to do something about it.
I simply disagree with the intended course of action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:23 AM

80. "President Obama is NOT a tool of the banks/MIC"

 

.
.
.

Obama may not be a "tool", as I believe;

but I think he's under tremendous pressure from them.

Barack has to balance his responses to the MIC et al with caution.

He cannot help the country if he ends up like JFK - he knows this.

JFK fought the MIC.

JFK died.

CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConcernedCanuk (Reply #80)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:40 AM

92. Bob Boudelang lives!

Really, the title of the OP: President Obama is NOT a tool of the banks/MIC, a liar or a murderous warmonger! would make a classic opening line for a Bob Boudelang rant. All that was needed was to add the phrase, "so stop saying that!" The assertion is so out of touch with the realities of the Obama administration as to defy all reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConcernedCanuk (Reply #80)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:34 PM

117. did he? his fort worth speech that morning was a wet kiss to mic

 

he starts at 5 1/2 minutes in the first link



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:27 AM

82. Amen to that!

Also, can we stop with the spurious comparisons between what is (currently) being contemplated regarding intervention in Syria and Bush's decision to invade/occupy Iraq in 2003. The situations are not identical (or remotely close)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #82)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:40 AM

93. "The situations are not identical (or remotely close)"

I agree but I also strenuously oppose any action in Syria. I just choose to do so without impugning the President as a person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #93)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:08 PM

108. It would be nice if more discussions here followed that same principle.

It's one thing to criticize our elected leaders for what they say or do, including President Obama, but it's another to lob wild accusations that baselessly impugn them as people. Beyond the fact that it smears good, decent people, it also IMHO breeds defeatism because if you believe that every elected politician is essentially a scumbag in thrall to all of the bad forces in the universe, there is no way to believe (or hope) that things can or will get better. I think that that's where a lot of my own frustration with a lot of discussions on this site comes from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:34 AM

89. Accountability

 

With the Bush Crime Syndicate and Wall St continuing on unaccounted for its difficult for me to swallow the "outrage" over Syria coming from our President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:00 PM

101. Bullshit. From failing to prosecute Bush war crimes & banksters, to mandatory crapsurance, attacking

 

The 4th amendment, prosecution of whistleblowers, etc. he has sided against us every time.

Oh yeah - chained CPI. Why did we need to starve grannies?? Oh yeah, so we could fucking go to war with Syria.

No sorry, he is a tool, alright.

Edit: oh yeah, and remember a couple months ago they were pushing for war with Iran, before that, North Korea. Whatever, wherever, war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #101)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:02 PM

102. Will you be voting for any candidate he endorses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #102)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:08 PM

106. Yes, I'm a Democrat:) hopefully it won't be yet another neo-con tool of the war machine.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #106)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:20 PM

112. Well, if it is, it will be your neo-con war machine

because you will have voted for them despite decrying them as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #112)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:45 PM

119. No, because his job is to REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, not make crap

 

up as he goes along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #119)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:50 PM

122. But you have been saying the whole time that it doesn't matter what evils are perpetrated

you'll be voting based on the color of the team jersey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #122)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 01:01 PM

123. Let me clarify. If he endorses satan, I will not vote for satan.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #123)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 01:16 PM

126. How convenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #102)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:19 PM

111. In primaries?

I'm dubious there will be much correlation between Obama's preferences in democratic primaries, and the candidates I will prefer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #111)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:46 PM

120. Presidents don't normally endorse in primaries.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #120)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:49 PM

121. This one does

Lincoln and Specter are the two immediate examples that spring to mind. I could probably find others if I took the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #101)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 04:18 PM

141. "they were pushing for Iran, before that, North Korea"

 

Who is 'they?'

Because if you argue that Obama has been pushing for a war with Iran, you're delusional.

Also, ACA was not siding against liberals/Democrats/progressives. It was just a few fringe kooks on the left who aligned with the Tea Party on that one in order to oppose it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #141)

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 05:06 PM

162. He's just been pushing for war, Iran, N Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, whatever. And if you

 

think that throwing single payer advocates in jail rather than include them in discussions is not siding against liberals/Democrats/progressives, you may not be delusional, but you sure know how to do the heavy lifting for the bad guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:22 PM

113. Obama is NOT a tool of the banks!

 

he may have just thought tossing them a trillion, pronto few stgrings attached really was a good idea

and that another war is a good idea

along with logging all our phone calls

and restarting the cold war with russia

and appointing larry sommers fed chief

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 12:42 PM

118. Sorry, but no.

 

Obama's -- and Congress' -- motivation for any action in Syria IS fair game and should be called into question at every turn.

War is ALWAYS ultimately about motivation.

If you do not see that you are blind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 02:27 PM

132. I do agree it's unfair that he is subject

 

to the litany of often vile remarks based on something he might do or not do. It's like a free pass to eviscerate him until the issue is settled one way or the other.

And no offense DU but it is eerily similar to how the GOP operates. They launch a nasty accusation and by the time it is disproved, debunked, or clarified, they've moved on to the next outrage de jour.

I am heartened that the president is mulling it over and not acting capriciously. In the end, I predict it will be a whole lotta chest-pounding and little else. Or at least I dearly hope that is the case.

Thanks for the OP. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #132)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 08:09 PM

147. the attacks on him on DU are very much like the ones i see from right wingers

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 03:05 PM

137. Well, he is a tool of the banks.

Come on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 07:42 PM

145. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 07:56 PM

146. Because some get off on the conspiracy Theories, it's exciting to them, they love to be outraged

 

they don't really care about the issue itself .

it's boring to discuss syria as it is. that assad did something bad. Obama feels he has to respond, but it could end up making things worse if he does. that in itself is boring.

it's much more exciting to see some huge decades long plan behind it, and how it was all meant for this to happen. it makes them feel like they were the special ones who always supsected and knew and it's proving it to them.

just look at the posts about how Obama loves to kill and other shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:26 PM

153. Agree!!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:49 PM

156. It depends how you define a tool.

He has and is submitting to pressure from all of these influences, and now the MIC. He's smarter than this, but he seems to have painted himself in a corner with this red line. Let Syria take care of their own issues. Iraq is certainly no better now after our war on them and the loss of a million lives. Why repeat that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:53 PM

157. I agree with the OP, but rushing to war would change many DEMS view...

Of the man we elected. I hope he listens to the vast majority and NOT rush to war

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Fri Aug 30, 2013, 12:28 AM

158. I've personally found

most of the reactions here to a possible bombing of Syria to be absolutely ridiculous. It's not actually any different over at Free Republic, actually. DU and FR have finally come together on something. Now, in their case, they hate anything Obama does. I'm quite positive that if Obama doesn't attack, they'll become pro-war again (I've seen it happen). Now, in our case, I suspect it is the same hysteria, though with a different origin, due to an absurd idea that ALL war is wrong. Certainly no war is good, yet not all war is unnecessary.

Hate to break it to you guys, but governments have the sovereign right to have a military and to use it to further the interests of our nation. In the case of Syria, they've crossed a red-line that they were warned about. If Obama does not act, it'll encourage countries like North Korea to similarly ignore our warnings and do as they please. Once we make a challenge like that, if we're going to be taken seriously as a nation, able to defend our interests abroad, we have to step up and keep our word to these thug-nations. That's the only thing they will ever respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Fri Aug 30, 2013, 02:46 AM

159. He's a big tool for both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread