Partisan Lies...

News Buzzard wrote:People like us got our president reelected, overwhelmingly, and I have no regrets. The voodoo economic plan that Romney and Ryan were trying to sell us obviously didn't work. The problem with the Tea Party is they don't like democracy anymore. It's their way or the highway. We'll get over it!

People like you want this country to be a True Democracy. We do not live in a Democracy; we live in a Constitutional Republic. In a True Democracy 51% can vote to take rights away from the 49%. That is why one can’t have a true Democracy, it will ALWAYS fail. Once people figure out they can vote themselves to other peoples stuff, its over. Obama has lived up to his promise on this. He united enough like minded thinkers and drains on society with promises of other peoples’ stuff.

The left wants free this and free that. Well nothing is free, somebody always pays. The left wants free medicine. The medicine belongs to the pharmaceutical company that developed it and nobody has a right to it. The left wants free healthcare. Healthcare Professionals do not owe their labor to anyone. Nobody is entitled to another’s labor. The left wants the rich to pay more because healthcare is a right. Nobody has a right to another’s property or labor.

By advocating “free stuff”, you are suggesting…no demanding a person give up part of their very existence to benefit another.

The Tea Party wants our government to follow the Constitution. Yeah, that is just crazy talk; follow the Constitution…how fringe is that?


Your right to be you includes my right to be from you.

Obama has had FIVE years to get us out of these wars and he hasn't. That is plenty of time. Yet you still protect him.

And I second the "Hear, hear!"

News Pigeon wrote:

fshnski wrote:Your president has had 5 years to do something. All he accomplished is to divide our country.

He hasn't divided this country...people like you have done it!!!!

It's driving them crazy that Obama won the election, 332 to 206 electoral votes!! They couldn't even deliver New Hampshire to the HOME BOY!!

And now they're going to scuttle immigration reform, so Hillary can start measuring for the window curtains!!  

News Pigeon wrote:

WHL wrote:
You would think they would be as upset with the progressives as they were with Bush, but it doesn't work that way.  You hardly hear a peep.  And do you notice the drive by media hardly says a word about he wars either, but when Bush was in, we heard about the wars every single night.

You can't possible be so naive as to think we approve of these wars...it's BECAUSE of the Bush/Cheney ideology that we are now seeing endless upheavel in the Middle East.

Even Bush Sr knew enough to stop before he destabilized the area....

And we won't even discuss the fact that the US has meddled in their affairs for decades, installing puppets that would do our bidding.

You approve of the president that is following the exact same policies as Bush/Cheney WRT to Middle Eastern and foreign policy interventionism.

News Buzzard wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:

fshnski wrote:Your president has had 5 years to do something. All he accomplished is to divide our country.

He hasn't divided this country...people like you have done it!!!!

It's driving them crazy that Obama won the election, 332 to 206 electoral votes!! They couldn't even deliver New Hampshire to the HOME BOY!!

And now they're going to scuttle immigration reform, so Hillary can start measuring for the window curtains!!  

What if TPTB decide it is the RedTeam's turn again?

So all the people you are antagonizing now, will be gloating, and you will be the frustrated one.

And we will all continue to lose liberty.

This back and forth is as foolish as arguing over RedSox/Yankees.

This board needs a "facepalm" smiley.

News Buzzard wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:

fshnski wrote:Your president has had 5 years to do something. All he accomplished is to divide our country.

He hasn't divided this country...people like you have done it!!!!

It's driving them crazy that Obama won the election, 332 to 206 electoral votes!! They couldn't even deliver New Hampshire to the HOME BOY!!

And now they're going to scuttle immigration reform, so Hillary can start measuring for the window curtains!!  

And you're proud that the supposed leader of the free world was elected by the least educated, the most dependent and the least qualified in our country.

Anti Federalist wrote:You approve of the president that is following the exact same policies as Bush/Cheney WRT to Middle Eastern and foreign policy interventionism.

Don't tell these people around here that Obama is a centrist. It doesn't fit their narrative!

100 Ways Barack Obama is Just Like George W. Bush

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/08/bush-20-100-ways-barack-obama-is-just.html

The election of President Obama was in no small part, a referendum on the administration of George W. Bush, and his victory was interpreted as a sound rebuke to eight years of open ended warfare, a vast and growing police state, the destruction of civil liberties, disregard for the Constitution, unchecked executive power, lies and broken promises, hypocrisy and arrogance, a lack of transparency in government, out-of-control federal spending, fever-pitch fearmongering, rampant corruption, and some really stupid gaffes. But what have we gotten instead?

More of the same. A LOT more of the same. In fact, every negative aspect of the Bush Administration has come back with a vengeance in the presidency of Barack H. Obama. Everything the American people detested so strongly about Bush has not only characterized the presidency of his successor, it's gotten much worse. Don't believe me? The following is a list of 100 ways President Obama is just like President Bush. We might as well consider it a third Bush term on steroids, or call Mr. Obama "Bush 2.0."

If you honestly didn't like Bush, you can't possibly justify liking Obama, not unless you ignore these facts...(all 100 at the link - read 'em and weep)

News Buzzard wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:You approve of the president that is following the exact same policies as Bush/Cheney WRT to Middle Eastern and foreign policy interventionism.

Don't tell these people around here that Obama is a centrist. It doesn't fit their narrative!

So you approve of the Bush/Cheney foreign policy vision?

Obama is no centrist.

He is a tyrant, using the tools of the Imperial Presidency that were left behind by the last tyrant, W.

A chief executive that claims the right to strip an American citizen of their rights and citizenship, declare them an enemy combatant and kill them, on his say so alone, is a tyrant.

You're not even close with your comparisons of Obama to Bush. We have a national health care program that has already taken effect and will continue. We have an economy that is slowly improving, despite the deliberate attempts by the right wingers to scuttle it. We still have Medicare and Social Security in place for future generations, not privatization and voucherization. We are out of Iraq, and hopefully out of Afghanistan soon enough. The NSA program continues, but not in Bush/Cheney fashion of domestic warrantless wiretaps and torture, and I would be willing to give up a little privacy to maintain security. We are not being run by a group of Neo-cons, like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, who believed in pre-emptive war!! No sir, you're not even close!!!

As far as the Red Sox/Yankees are concerned, the Red Sox are in first place and the Yankees are not even close!!

Anti Federalist wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:

WHL wrote:
You would think they would be as upset with the progressives as they were with Bush, but it doesn't work that way.  You hardly hear a peep.  And do you notice the drive by media hardly says a word about he wars either, but when Bush was in, we heard about the wars every single night.

You can't possible be so naive as to think we approve of these wars...it's BECAUSE of the Bush/Cheney ideology that we are now seeing endless upheavel in the Middle East.

Even Bush Sr knew enough to stop before he destabilized the area....

And we won't even discuss the fact that the US has meddled in their affairs for decades, installing puppets that would do our bidding.

You approve of the president that is following the exact same policies as Bush/Cheney WRT to Middle Eastern and foreign policy interventionism.

Once again, we don't approve of the policies that  put us in a constant state of tamping down terrorist operations, Bush knocked down the hornets nest and now every Arabic nation on the planet wants our death/destruction. What do you think Obama can do, just walk away and act like the hatred/ill intent doesn't exist? I wouldn't want a president that ill equipped and neither would you, I'm guessing.
I'm just thankful that we have a president with logic and common sense who always seems to make the right call on these complicated affairs.
We better ALL hope he makes the right call on this Syrian situation...

Manipulating the facts and giving misleading stories the right call? We can't even believe him anymore.

Plus you said logic and common sense!

News Buzzard wrote:...and I would be willing to give up a little privacy to maintain security. We are not being run by a group of Neo-cons, like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, who believed in pre-emptive war!!

First: when did you get to decide that for me?

So you only have a "right to privacy" when it comes to abortion, but nothing else, is that about it?

Second:



Cheney Likes Something Obama's Doing: Drone Strikes

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/12/171803738/cheney-likes-something-obamas-doing-drone-strikes

Some of the results:



He's a tyrant, and your justification of his tyranny is even worse than the neo-con justification for W's tyranny:

"I don't care what he does, I'll happily give up freedom for security, and if some kids get vaporized, well, so what? I got my free health care and retirement."

SMMFH...

And the progs will rally around their hero, and use the exact same arguments that the neo-cons used to justify invading Iraq.

ETA - Which should come as no surprise of course, since neo conservatism is essentially a "left wing" philosophy.

U.S. moves closer to military action against Syria

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/26/syria-obama-pentagon-cruise-missiles/2701263/

Defining characteristics of a neo-con:


They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.

They express no opposition to the welfare state.

They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.

They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).

They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Of course, Bill Clinton and his coke dealing partner Bush Sr. were no better.


The 'Kosovo Precedent' for US War on Syria

Justifying the Unjustifiable: US Uses Past Crimes to Legalize Future Ones

Link

The liberal warhawks are groping around for a pretext they can call “legal” for waging war against Syria, and have come up with the 1999 “Kosovo war”.

This is not surprising insofar as a primary purpose of that US/NATO 78-day bombing spree was always to set a precedent for more such wars. The pretext of “saving the Kosovars” from an imaginary “genocide” was as false as the “weapons of mass destruction” pretext for war against Iraq, but the fakery has been much more successful with the general public. Therefore Kosovo retains its usefulness in the propaganda arsenal.

On August 24, the New York Times reported that President Obama’s national security aides are “studying the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations.” (By the way, the “air war” was not “in Kosovo”, but struck the whole of what was then Yugoslavia, mostly destroying Serbia’s civilian infrastructure and also spreading destruction in Montenegro.)

On Friday, Obama admitted that going in and attacking another country “without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence” raised questions in terms of international law.

According to the New York Times, “Kosovo is an obvious precedent for Mr. Obama because, as in Syria, civilians were killed and Russia had longstanding ties to the government authorities accused of the abuses. In 1999, President Bill Clinton used the endorsement of NATO and the rationale of protecting a vulnerable population to justify 78 days of airstrikes.”

“It’s a step too far to say we’re drawing up legal justifications for an action, given that the president hasn’t made a decision,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. “But Kosovo, of course, is a precedent of something that is perhaps similar.”

Ivo H. Daalder, a former United States ambassador to NATO, suggests that the administration could argue that the use of chemical weapons in Syria amounts to a grave humanitarian emergency, just as the Clinton administration argued in 1999 that “a grave humanitarian emergency” presented the “international community” with “the responsibility to act”.

This amounts to creative legality worthy of the planet’s number one Rogue State.

An Illegal War as Precedent for More War

The US/NATO war against Yugoslavia, which used unilateral force to break up a sovereign state, detaching the historic Serbian province of Kosovo and transforming it into a US satellite, was clearly in violation of international law.

In May 2000, the distinguished British authority on international law, Sir Ian Brownlie (1936-2010), presented a 16,000-word Memorandum, evaluating the war’s legal status for the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of the British Parliament.

Brownlie recalled that key provisions of the United Nations Charter state quite clearly that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Brownlie added that the alleged right to use force for humanitarian purposes was not compatible with the UN Charter.

During the past decade, the Western powers have invented and promoted a theoretical “right to protect” (R2P) in an effort to get around the UN Charter in order to clear the way for wars whose final purpose is regime change. The use of R2P to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya gave the game away, ensuring Russian and Chinese opposition for any further such manoeuvre in the UN Security Council.

Concerning the Kosovo war, in his Memorandum Professor Brownlie reached the following major conclusions:

- The primary justification for the bombing of Yugoslavia was always the imposition of the NATO plans for the future of Kosovo. It was in this context that the bombing campaign was planned in August 1998.

-The threats of massive air strikes were made in the same context and were first made public in October 1998. Neither the purpose of the planned air strikes nor their implementation related to events on the ground in Kosovo in March 1999.

- The cause of the air strikes was quite simple: given that Yugoslavia had not given in to threats, the threats had to be carried out.

- The legal basis of the action, as presented by the United Kingdom and other NATO States, was at no stage adequately articulated.

- Humanitarian intervention, the justification belatedly advanced by the NATO States, has no place either in the United Nations Charter or in customary international law.

- If the view had been held that the Permanent Members of the Security Council would recognise the need for humanitarian action, then no doubt a resolution would have been sought.

- The intentions of the United States and the United Kingdom included the removal of the Government of Yugoslavia. It is impossible to reconcile such purposes with humanitarian intervention.

- The claim to be acting on humanitarian grounds appears difficult to reconcile with the disproportionate amount of violence involved in the use of heavy ordnance and missiles. The weapons had extensive blast effects and the missiles had an incendiary element. A high proportion of targets were in towns and cities. Many of the victims were women and children. After seven weeks of the bombing at least 1,200 civilians had been killed and 4,500 injured.

- In spite of the references to the need for a peaceful solution to be found in Security Council Resolutions, the public statements of Mrs Albright, Mr Cook, Mr Holbrooke, and others, and the reiterated threats of massive air strikes, make it very clear that no ordinary diplomacy was envisaged.

The “Kosovo treatment”

As a final synopsis, Brownlie wrote a prophetic note on future use of “the Kosovo treatment”:
The writer has contacts with a great number of diplomats and lawyers of different nationalities. The reaction to the NATO bombing campaign outside Europe and North America has been generally hostile. Most States have problems of separatism and could, on a selective basis, be the objects of Western ‘crisis management’. The selection of crises for the ‘Kosovo’ treatment will depend upon the geopolitical and collateral agenda. It is on this basis, and not a humanitarian agenda, that Yugoslavia is marked out for fragmentation on a racial basis, whilst Russia and Indonesia are not.
He added: “Forcible intervention to serve humanitarian objectives is a claim which is only open to powerful States to make against the less powerful. The fate of Yugoslavia will have caused considerable damage to the cause of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

The Brownlie Memorandum to the British Parliament is the most thorough assessment of the legal status of the Kosovo War. It is quite remarkable that the liberal warhawks around Obama talk of using that war as a “legal precedent” for a new war against Syria.

This amounts to saying that a crime committed once becomes a “precedent” to justify the crime being committed the next time.

How Many Times Can You Fool Most of the People?

If understood correctly, the Kosovo war was indeed a precedent that should act as a warning signal.

How many times can the United States use a false alarm to start an aggressive war? Non-existent “genocide” in Kosovo and Libya, non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and now what looks to much of the world like a “false flag” chemical weapons attack in Syria.

The United States habitually announces the presence of a desired casus belli, dismissing demands for concrete evidence.

In Kosovo, the United States obtained withdrawal of international observers who could have testified whether or not there was evidence of “genocide” of Kosovars. The accusations escalated during the war, and when, afterwards, no evidence of such mass murder was found, the matter was forgotten.

In Iraq, there was never any proof of WMD, but the US went ahead and invaded.

In Libya, the pretext for war was a misquoted statement of Gaddafi threatening a “massacre of civilians” in Benghazi. This was exposed as a fake, but again, NATO bombed, the regime was toppled, and the pretext falls into oblivion.

Sunday, just as the Syrian government announced readiness to allow international inspectors to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use, the White House responded, “too late!”

A senior Obama administration official demanding anonymity (one can reasonably guess the official was Obama’s hawkish National Security Advisor Susan Rice) issued a statement claiming that there was “very little doubt” that President Bashar al-Assad’s military forces had used chemical weapons against civilians and that a promise to allow United Nations inspectors access to the site was “too late to be credible.”

In the world beyond the beltway, there is a great deal of doubt – especially about the credibility of the United States government when it comes to finding pretexts to go to war. Moreover, setting “chemical weapons” as a “red line” obliging the US to go to war is totally arbitrary. There are many ways of killing people in a civil war. Selecting one as a trigger for US intervention serves primarily to give rebels an excellent reason to carry out a “false flag” operation that will bring NATO into the war they are losing.

Who really wants or needs US intervention? The American people? What good will it do them to get involved in yet another endless Middle East war?

But who has influence on Obama? The American people? Or is it rather “our staunchest ally”, who is most concerned about rearranging the Middle East neighborhood?

“This situation must not be allowed to continue,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, expressing remarkable concern for Syrian civilians “who were so brutally attacked by weapons of mass destruction.”

“The most dangerous regimes in the world must not be allowed to possess the most dangerous weapons in the world,” Netanyahu added.

Incidentally, polls have been taken showing that for much of the world, the most dangerous regime in the world is Israel, which is allowed to possess the most dangerous weapons – nuclear weapons. But there is no chance that Israel will ever get “the Kosovo treatment”.

News Buzzard wrote:And now they're going to scuttle immigration reform, so Hillary can start measuring for the window curtains!!  

 

Love that bumper sticker!!!     

I want a "Run, Hillary, Run!" bumper-sticker.

I want it on my front bumper...