Obama

If Obama REALLY wanted to protect the US servicemen, why does Obama continue to place them at risk in many illegal and immoral wars? And how does the indiscriminate death of women and children ("collateral damage"?, what an awful phrase) from drone attacks alleviate the risk of US servicemen? Seems to me Obama is violently stoking the entire region by his INCREASED drone strikes. You do realize Crash, for every drone attack that murders women and children, Obama has just guaranteed the recruitment of more "terrorists".
Do you really believe Obama is winning the hearts and minds of these people by murdering their women and children?Take note: No one or governmental system MADE Obama INCREASE these drone attacks. These actions are all from his little "liberal" mind.

that is one of the reasons that most people i know that are not from the US label US as the terrorists.You always stick your nose in businesses that does not concern you. Like the milaterry drills on the border of north Korea. It is like you WANT to start a WW3. Personally if north Korea would have launched a NUKE and sunk all the ships on the border i would say they had the right to That border was never a TRUE border it was a border they agreed upon during the ceasefire and the 2 countries are still in ceasefire not peace and that border CANNOT be legitimate because NO COUNTRY CAN DRAW A BORDER LINE WHILE IT IS IN WARE AND CEASEFIRE IS STILL WARE WARE ONLY ENDS WITH A PEACE CONFERENCE WITCH NEVER HAPPENED. Luckily the north Koreans are not as stupid as they look and they did not act upon the aggressors the us and south Korea.

quote:

---

I don't know where the heck that came from or why you thought such a reply was warranted to me.

---

You don't know Jazzns? Really? I understand you are busy away from the forum, but if you are not reading the thread, then I suppose you cannot fully understand where I am coming from. A quick update:The USA used to stand for goodness. Now it stands for Child Torture, war imperialism, and quickly declining living standards. I am disgusted and angry about this. But you SEEM to be content, perhaps even happy about this "progress"?I guess am finding it difficult that we seem to be on polar opposites now. A pity.

Thanks Frako.Actually another good point. After both N and S Korea exchanged gunfire, that area is a incredibly volatile right now. N Korea IS cuukoo. And HEAVILY armed. So what does Obama do? He sends an aircraft carrier into the gulf to do war games. Obama is again escalating the risk of war. Massive war.Does this sound like actions of a "liberal" president?

F%&/ massive ware, north Korea has nukes not like Irak "had them". And all it would take is one nuclear spark to ignite the world and send us back to the dark ages. If the north would have sent a nuke to the US the US would retaliate the Chinese would get pissed and would fire back and if the Russians would feel like it they would join in for the fun of it. All because they wanted war games on a very questionable border of a very questionable dictator like it would kill them to have their games on the south side of South Korea. It is like kids where running your country.

Somewhat relevant to this discussion (from Statism and Wikileaks):

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I do understand where your frustration is coming from, but your original reply to me had nothing to do with what I was trying to say to crash. Progressives are allowed to both be frustrated with the pace of change and in touch with reality at the same time. Thats all I was trying to say. REALLY!??? Thats news to me. When? Lets add slavery, genocide, the raping of our earth to that list shall we? I'll ask again, when specifically did the USA stand for "goodness" in the context of what is being discussed in this thread? Then you didn't understand what I was saying at all. I have re-read my original reply to crash 4 times now I absolutely cannot understand how the hell you are extrapolating that I am "happy" with how things are.I'll try to visit back because I am interested in this line of discussion but bear in mind that replies from me may take as long as 24 hours.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

"Many" is a funny way to say "two", and you seem to have forgotten that Obama is withdrawing troops from Iraq. You don't understand how unmanned drones - piloted remotely from the ground - are less risky than piloted, conventional airplanes?You're coming unglued at the seams, it looks like.

Um, what? Um, what? Neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton are the president of Israel.

Torture by the US military and intelligence services, that's correct.Obama's action in this regard has been to reinstate the Army Field Manual guidelines to interrogations of terrorists by the US military and intelligence services, which prohibit torture. He has complete control over the US military, and some degree of control over US intelligence agencies, which is why those organizations are no longer allowed to torture detainees.

Right, which is why I said:

quote:

---

There's no realistic possibility in the United States of drone attacks coming to an end, due to how the federal government is structured to privilege military hegemony.

---

I realize that my statements to you are little more than speedbumps on your way through a series of increasingly incomprehensible rants, but you should really be reading them regardless. You'd sure look at lot less stupid.

Is there supposed to be some response to my argument in this?

If not the President, then who the hell controls them? They do fall under the executive branch. Or didn't you know that?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

How the hell should I know? The fact of the matter is, Lamont lost to Liebermann in the election. I don't recall ever asserting that he was a "good and decent fellow". And that's really the core of it. I think someone who does take single payer off the table and who does bring insurance companies to the table, because passage of any HCR whatsoever would be impossible without doing so can be a liberal and can do more for the progressive agenda than someone who insists on dying on the hill for any and all liberal "principles", with the ultimate result that absolutely nothing is accomplished.You keep insisting on the improbable Lamont counterfactual, so address mine - do you really think single-payer health care was ever going to pass a Senate with only 57 Democratic votes? I don't think you could have got 30 Senate votes for it. Single-payer didn't even pass a majority in the House; I don't think Tony Weiner's single-payer bill even came up for a vote.Tying single-payer Medicare for all to the bill was a poison pill. That was never going to happen, and rather than being an effective "give-away" negotiating point, it would have been a political goldmine for the Republicans. Even as a point to trade away in negotiations it would have killed the bill. You need to remind yourself of what you actually predicted:

quote:

---

While the House has passed the bill, it will require two Republicans to switch their votes in order to pass it in the Senate during this lame duck session. The Republicans just released a unanimously-signed pledge indicating that they will not take up anything until tax cuts for the rich are dealt with first.

​

While Scott Brown has flip-flopped (yet again) regarding this issue and says he might vote for repeal, that isn't enough. Susan McConnell (currently) claims to support repeal but she is holding to the pledge: No vote until tax cuts for the rich are passed. McCain is going to do everything he can to block the bill and I very much doubt that there will be a vote on it before the end of the term...which means we have to start all over again. Since the Democrats lost the House, it won't pass there (only 5 Republicans voted for repeal) and with more Republicans in the Senate, their obstructionism only gains strength.

​

If it's going to happen, it's going to take a miracle. The Democrats had their chance and they blew it.

---

"McCain is going to do everything he can to block the bill and I very much doubt that there will be a vote on it before the end of the term.." Is that what you call "batting 1.000"? Not at all. But the "mandate" is hardly a mandate; it's just a tax penalty for not buying insurance. The mandate is there to prevent people from dropping their insurance until the day before they need to make a claim, not to convince some vast untapped market of uninsured-but-healthy people to purchase insurance.The mandate doesn't do any of the heavy lifting in your argument you expect it to. The increase in insurance coverage is primarily coming as a result of the end of adverse selection.

Frighteningly, nobody at all, for the most part.