ImageImageImageImageImage

Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV

Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico

fugop
Veteran
Posts: 2,744
And1: 9
Joined: Aug 09, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#81 » by fugop » Fri May 4, 2012 8:02 pm

hands11 wrote:Mitt is a scum bag.

I'm sorry. You don't go mouthing off about the Chin thing like he did just to try to make some political hay. He is only a candidate. He holds no public office. When our Country is in delicate negotiations, just STFU and wait to see what happens. There will be time to chime in later if needed.

What a drama queen. Does he really have nothing positive to run on expect for just making stuff up wholesale. And watching Michelle stand up there and fold like a chair endorsing him was comical. But Mitt would make the perfect puppet for that parties backers. If nothing else he has proven he will be whoever they want him to be.

It's not like we can just take the guy. How would it look to any of us if the shoe was on the other foot and China just took some US citizen that we had on lock down right in the middle of some other negotiations.


Mitt can say whatever the hell he wants. It doesn't hurt anything -- it's not like internationals are unaware that there is a Presidential election here. I spent weeks defending Pelosi for "running a foreign policy" when she traveled to the mideast a few years back.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02752.html
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,444
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#82 » by hands11 » Sun May 6, 2012 6:00 pm

Sure, you are right. He can say whatever he wants. And he can look like a total loser doing it.

Yes Mitt. People go to embassies for that reason.

Then he goes on with his speculations and then leaps to assigning said speculations as a dark day for freedom and day of shame for the Obama administration.

Yeah.. Ok Mitt. What a loser.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyYdeSrBdsc[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI[/youtube]
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,444
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#83 » by hands11 » Sun May 6, 2012 6:01 pm

On a side note. I found this. Ron Paul supporters will enjoy this.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwYvFZdM_UM&feature=related[/youtube]
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,444
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#84 » by hands11 » Sun May 6, 2012 6:10 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH1FaLdABFM&feature=related[/youtube]
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,444
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#85 » by hands11 » Sun May 6, 2012 6:23 pm

I think Ron would do better as a Democrat then a Republican but I am glad he is a Republican. At least that way, the people that really need to learn from him will listen. If he was a Dem, they wouldn't listen.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YjBoHAzhiU&feature=related[/youtube]
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,444
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#86 » by hands11 » Sun May 6, 2012 6:42 pm

This ideas that the Republican have sold the Republicans electorate on is total BS. They always say we should listen to the generals. Sure, there is a place for that, but they are not the ones to decide how long we are at war. That is how the military industrial complex goes on forever.

The President is the commander and chief. Not the generals. And we the people are the ones who elect the representatives that should be deciding when we go to War. Bring back the draft. Then we will see how preemptive people really want to be regarding these unpaid for debt spending preemptive wars. This is one of the main problems this country faces and because these issues are bogus crap that has been feed to us by the Republicans, that has a ton to do with why I don't support that party as it has existed for at least the last 30 years.

Preemptive War
The general decide
Deficit spending on war. Even lowering taxes while doing to war
Torture
The military industrial complex

Replication have been carrying those flags. And to keep it going, they get people to feel like they are patriotic in supporting freedom while making the poor and the welfare state the enemy. Well the military is the welfare state. All tax payer dollar spent or deficit spending that is going to educate, feed, house, medicate, etc for these people so they will go and die protecting corporate interests. They aren't protecting freedom. This isn't WWII.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua4inlXnhhc&feature=fvwrel[/youtube]
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,444
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#87 » by hands11 » Sun May 6, 2012 6:54 pm

And on lighter note. This made me spit milk out of my noise.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebexx89yohE[/youtube]
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,888
And1: 425
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#88 » by popper » Sun May 6, 2012 8:56 pm

You make some valid points Hands. But I think you're leaving out certain events in history that don't comport with your view that Dems are good and peaceful and Repubs are bad and warmongers. Wasn't it Kennedy that got us enmeshed in Vietnam? Wasn't it Johnson that escalated the war? Wasn't it Wilson that got us involved in WW1 for reasons that I cannot discern to this day. Wasn't it Dems in congress, along with Repubs, that authorized Bush to attack Iraq and Afgan..... ?
fugop
Veteran
Posts: 2,744
And1: 9
Joined: Aug 09, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#89 » by fugop » Sun May 6, 2012 9:40 pm

The alignment of the parties is fluid. The modern Democratic Party came into being between FDR's first term and Jimm Carter's presidency. The modern Republican Party is still evoloving, in a process that started in Nixon's first term.

Neither party can claim antecedents as direct ancestors. Eisenhower bears as much relationship to the modern Republican Party as Wilson to the modern Democratic.
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,444
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#90 » by hands11 » Mon May 7, 2012 2:01 am

popper wrote:You make some valid points Hands. But I think you're leaving out certain events in history that don't comport with your view that Dems are good and peaceful and Repubs are bad and warmongers. Wasn't it Kennedy that got us enmeshed in Vietnam? Wasn't it Johnson that escalated the war? Wasn't it Wilson that got us involved in WW1 for reasons that I cannot discern to this day. Wasn't it Dems in congress, along with Repubs, that authorized Bush to attack Iraq and Afgan..... ?


Modern days politics.

As for the Dems in congress supporting the Bush invasion in Iraq. Come on. You should know how that really went done. Your summary of events leaves a lot of be desired. The Dems pushed hard for them to have a vote before invading Iraq. The Reps said sorry, you already gave us what we need right after 911. See ya suckers.

The initial vote was right after we were attacked. Of course the Dems voted to support the president given that situation. But the idea was that War would be a last resort, not a preemptive strike against a country that had nothing to do with the attack on the US.

Going after them in Afghanistan was supported. Iraq. No

But you know that. Right ?


As for the great Dems of the JFK time period. They were killed. John. Bobby. MLK
Bame. Bame. Bame.

You really think Johnson was going to follow that up by exiting the War ?

That is when this country really started down him. The military industrial complex had a hold and they were not going to let go. Military spending exploded under Reagan and this has been the basis of the Republican party ever since. Dems had to move to the right or they wouldn't get elected. Republican were beating them over the head like baby seals about cutting military spending and being weak military leaders. Elect a Dem and you will die. That was pretty much the fear mongering they did. And they did it effectively. It is only now that Ron Paul is a voice of reason on the Republican side of the isle. I have respect for him. He is willing to speak the truth about the military industrial complex and how we can't afford it. We never could. It was all deficit spending. All the way back to Reagan. Every President before him since the end of WWII was paying down the national debt.
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,444
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#91 » by hands11 » Mon May 7, 2012 2:05 am

fugop wrote:The alignment of the parties is fluid. The modern Democratic Party came into being between FDR's first term and Jimm Carter's presidency. The modern Republican Party is still evoloving, in a process that started in Nixon's first term.

Neither party can claim antecedents as direct ancestors. Eisenhower bears as much relationship to the modern Republican Party as Wilson to the modern Democratic.


I would say the modern Dem party may have come into power with FDR but then it faded. The current Dem party come into power under Clinton. But as they moved to the new middle to compromise and get things done, the Rep kept moving more and more to the right. Now they wouldn't even elect Reagan based on his policies.

I think the Rep party if sorely lacking a home grown leader. Someone who has come up from the bottom like Clinton and Obama did. Someone who is really smart. This insider rich kid thing where my daddy was in politics has run its cycle for them.

Has they gotten CP to run back in the day, that would have breathed new life into the party. That is someone I could have voted for that had an R next to their name. This year, they should have gone with Huntsman. But he wasn't enough of a clown to get any ones attention. Him or Ron Paul.
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,888
And1: 425
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#92 » by popper » Mon May 7, 2012 2:51 am

hands11 wrote:
fugop wrote:The alignment of the parties is fluid. The modern Democratic Party came into being between FDR's first term and Jimm Carter's presidency. The modern Republican Party is still evoloving, in a process that started in Nixon's first term.

Neither party can claim antecedents as direct ancestors. Eisenhower bears as much relationship to the modern Republican Party as Wilson to the modern Democratic.


I would say the modern Dem party may have come into power with FDR but then it faded. The current Dem party come into power under Clinton. But as they moved to the new middle to compromise and get things done, the Rep kept moving more and more to the right. Now they wouldn't even elect Reagan based on his policies.

I think the Rep party if sorely lacking a home grown leader. Someone who has come up from the bottom like Clinton and Obama did. Someone who is really smart. This insider rich kid thing where my daddy was in politics has run its cycle for them.

Has they gotten CP to run back in the day, that would have breathed new life into the party. That is someone I could have voted for that had an R next to their name. This year, they should have gone with Huntsman. But he wasn't enough of a clown to get any ones attention. Him or Ron Paul.


Yikes. It is easy to impart the worst motives to those you don't agree with. i do the same from time to time but am reminded, most often retrospectively, that there are extenuating circumstance or information not readily available that sometimes justify/mitigate the reason behind certain political decisions.
montestewart
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 14,846
And1: 7,982
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#93 » by montestewart » Mon May 7, 2012 3:19 am

Hands, isn't Huntsman just another insider rich kid whose daddy was in politics? Also, who's CP? Chris Paul?
User avatar
zardsfan
Pro Prospect
Posts: 840
And1: 7
Joined: Jul 20, 2005
Location: Chambersburg, Pa
Contact:

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#94 » by zardsfan » Mon May 7, 2012 4:33 am

montestewart wrote:Hands, isn't Huntsman just another insider rich kid whose daddy was in politics? Also, who's CP? Chris Paul?


That's "General" Chris Paul to you. ;-)
Knuckleheads need not apply!
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,444
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#95 » by hands11 » Mon May 7, 2012 8:08 am

montestewart wrote:Hands, isn't Huntsman just another insider rich kid whose daddy was in politics? Also, who's CP? Chris Paul?


Yes but I was picking from the group at hand.

Colin Powell
montestewart
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 14,846
And1: 7,982
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#96 » by montestewart » Mon May 7, 2012 2:13 pm

hands11 wrote:
montestewart wrote:Hands, isn't Huntsman just another insider rich kid whose daddy was in politics? Also, who's CP? Chris Paul?


Yes but I was picking from the group at hand.

Colin Powell


Got it. Remember Bush vs. Gore? A clash of "insider rich kid whose daddy was in politics" titans.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 71,564
And1: 24,233
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#97 » by nate33 » Mon May 7, 2012 3:22 pm

Colin Powell was popular because he was prominent during the first Gulf War, and he was a
black Republican. Unfortunately, he didn't have any political opinions that coincided with those of the Republican platform. He was a Rhino. There is no way he would have survived any serious scrutiny in a primary.
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,888
And1: 425
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#98 » by popper » Mon May 7, 2012 3:50 pm

Interesting article ..................



• NAPOLITANO: Obama’s private war
• President’s drone killings in Pakistan could eventually happen here
• By Andrew P. Napolitano
• Friday, May 4, 2012

Did you know the U.S. government is using drones to kill innocent people in Pakistan? Did you know the Pakistani government has asked President Obama to stop it and he won’t? Did you know Pakistan is a sovereign country that has nuclear weapons and is an American ally?

Last week, the Obama administration not only acknowledged the use of the drones, it also revealed that it has plans to increase the frequency and ferocity of the attacks. White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennanargued that the attacks are “in full accordance with the law” and are not likely to be stopped anytime soon.

Mr. Brennan declined to say how many people were killed or just where the killings took place or who is doing them. But we know Mr. Obama has a morbid fascination with his plastic killing machines, and we know that those machines are among the favored tools of the CIA. We also know that if the president had been using the military to do this, he’d be legally compelled to reveal it to Congress and eventually to seek permission.

We know about the need to tell Congress and ask for permission because of the War Powers Act. This law, enacted in 1973 over President Nixon’s veto, permits the president to use the military for 90 days before telling Congress and for 180 days before he needs congressional authorization. Mr. Obama must think he can bypass this law by using civilian CIA agents, rather than uniformed military, to do his killing.

The Constitution limits the presidential use of war powers to those necessary for an immediate defense of the United States or those exercised pursuant to a valid congressional declaration of war. In the case of Pakistan, the president has neither. International law prohibits entering a sovereign country without its consent. But Mr. Brennanargued that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), whichCongress enacted in the aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to enable President George W. Bush to pursue the perpetrators, is essentially carte blanche for any president to kill whomever he wants. The use of drones, rather than using the military or arresting those thegovernment thinks have conspired to harm us, is a “surgical” technique that safeguards the innocent.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made a similar unconstitutional argument a few months ago when he stated in defense of the president’s use of drones to kill Americansin Yemen that the AUMF, plus the careful consideration that the White House gives to the dimensions of each killing and the culpability of each person killed, somehow satisfied the Constitution’s requirements for due process.

What monstrous nonsense all this is.

Those killings 10,000 miles from here hardly constitute self-defense and are not in pursuit of a declaration of war. So what has Congress done about this? Nothing. What have the courts done about this? Nothing.

Prior to the president’s ordering the killing of the New Mexico-born and unindicted and uncharged Anwar al-Awlaki, the deceased’s American father sued the president in federal district court and asked a judge to prevent the president from murdering his son in Yemen. After the judge dismissed the case, a CIA-fired drone killed al-Awlaki, his American companion and his 16-year-old American son.
In his three-plus years in office, Mr. Obama has launched 254 drones at persons in Pakistan, and collectively they have killed 1,277 persons there. The New America Foundation, a Washington think tank that monitors the presidential use of drones in Pakistan, estimates that between 11 percent and 17 percent of the drone victims are innocent Pakistani civilians. So much for Mr. Brennan’s surgical strikes. So much for Mr. Holder’s due process.

The president is waging a private war against private persons - even Americans - whose deaths he obviously thinks will keep America safe. But he is doing so without congressional authorization, in violation of the Constitution and in a manner that jeopardizes our freedom.

Who will keep us safe from a president who wants to use drones here? How long will it be before local American governments - 313 of which already possess drones - use them to kill here because they are surgical and a substitute for due process? Can you imagine the outcry if Cuba or China launched drones at their dissidents in Florida or California and used Mr. Obama’s behavior in Pakistan as a justification?

How long will it be before even a semblance of our Constitution is gone?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst on the Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).
User avatar
gesa2
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,306
And1: 433
Joined: Jun 21, 2007
Location: Warwick MD
       

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#99 » by gesa2 » Mon May 7, 2012 5:12 pm

Sorry, but I had to juxtapose these two posts:

popper wrote:
It is easy to impart the worst motives to those you don't agree with. i do the same from time to time but am reminded, most often retrospectively, that there are extenuating circumstance or information not readily available that sometimes justify/mitigate the reason behind certain political decisions.


popper wrote:Interesting article ..................



• NAPOLITANO: Obama’s private war
• President’s drone killings in Pakistan could eventually happen here
• By Andrew P. Napolitano
• Friday, May 4, 2012

...Mr. Obama has a morbid fascination with his plastic killing machines, ...
Making extreme statements like "only" sounds like there are "no" Jokics in this draft? Jokic is an engine that was drafted in the 2nd round. Always a chance to see diamond dropped by sloppy burgular after a theft.
-WizD
montestewart
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 14,846
And1: 7,982
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV 

Post#100 » by montestewart » Mon May 7, 2012 5:31 pm

The morbid fascination might just be with anything plastic, and the fact that they are killing machines entirely incidental

Return to Washington Wizards