Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

501 to 550 of 1,595 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Actually, Guy brings up a good point. What would you have preferred happen instead? You're making it sound a lot like damned if you do, damned if you don't

I would have preferred that liberal/leftie-Obama voters and sympathizers would have realized that the current bunch of neoliberal CIA agents and jihadist assassins installed by NATO bombardment are not going to be any better for the Libyan people than Qaddafi's previous regime.

I would also have preferred that these voters and sympathizers realize that US imperialism does nothing for altruistic reasons, and their intervention into the war had more to do with thier acquisition of power and money than liberating the Libyan people and building democracy.

Then, I guess, I would have preferred that people not point to the imperialist rape of Libya (before posters go running off about improper use of that word--they sodomized Qaddafi with a knife!) as something that restores their faith in humanity.

Alternate answer:

I would have preferred to see international proletarian socialist revolution from Cairo to Casablanca. Vive le Galt!

When O got elected, I remember people thinking there'd be more "openness." The problem is that he got the sit-down every president gets, and quickly saw that there's no such thing as "openness" with all the various plots and scams going on.


meatrace wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I would also have preferred that these voters and sympathizers realize that US imperialism does nothing for altruistic reasons, and their intervention into the war had more to do with thier acquisition of power and money than liberating the Libyan people and building democracy.
It's this sort of stuff that makes people not take you seriously. You've made it perfectly clear that you believe the US Gov't can do no right, ever, under any circumstances. Why would we lend credence to your opinion here, since it's just more of the same?

People may not take me seriously, but I've got twice as many favorited posts as you!

Seriously, though, people should lend credence to my opinion because it's true. The Libyan people just got jacked and all you leftie-liberal types sat around and applauded.


Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

You doin ok Anklebiter? I've been watching coverage of Sandy and wow.

Everybody on the East coast ok?
I am fine, thank you. Hurricanes usually blow themselves out before they get up here.
Glad to hear you're okay.
Thank you, how are you? I heard Queens got all f#!$ed up, but you're in Brooklyn, right?
Queens is in pretty bad shape with a major fire and power loss. But Brooklyn has problems- Coney Island is underwater, as is Red Hook and DUMBO. Atlantic City in Jersey has been hammered very badly- part of it has been swept out to sea.

Everything's good with you, then?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I would also have preferred that these voters and sympathizers realize that US imperialism does nothing for altruistic reasons, and their intervention into the war had more to do with thier acquisition of power and money than liberating the Libyan people and building democracy.
It's this sort of stuff that makes people not take you seriously. You've made it perfectly clear that you believe the US Gov't can do no right, ever, under any circumstances. Why would we lend credence to your opinion here, since it's just more of the same?

People may not take me seriously, but I've got twice as many favorited posts as you!

Seriously, though, people should lend credence to my opinion because it's true. The Libyan people just got jacked and all you leftie-liberal types sat around and applauded.

I do not understand. You liked Qadaffi? Was he the peoples leader you always wet dreamed about? /boggle

The Libyan people got so 'jacked' that they're protesting in support of us?

The honest question I have is that, given your pointing out of gross injustice around the world, would you honestly behind a US military toppling (even through UN action) of other despotic regimes, assuming that we have nothing to gain "imperially" through it? Can you even name one place that needs help that you wouldn't turn around and blame the US as being imperialist dogs after the fact?


And, to be fair, you also have about twice as many posts as I do altogether.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Actually, Guy brings up a good point. What would you have preferred happen instead? You're making it sound a lot like damned if you do, damned if you don't

I would have preferred that liberal/leftie-Obama voters and sympathizers would have realized that the current bunch of neoliberal CIA agents and jihadist assassins installed by NATO bombardment are not going to be any better for the Libyan people than Qaddafi's previous regime.

I would also have preferred that these voters and sympathizers realize that US imperialism does nothing for altruistic reasons, and their intervention into the war had more to do with thier acquisition of power and money than liberating the Libyan people and building democracy.

Then, I guess, I would have preferred that people not point to the imperialist rape of Libya (before posters go running off about improper use of that word--they sodomized Qaddafi with a knife!) as something that restores their faith in humanity.

Alternate answer:

I would have preferred to see international proletarian socialist revolution from Cairo to Casablanca. Vive le Galt!

I don't doubt the influence of oil in this matter.

I also don't see any benefit to Qaddafi remaining in power. Democracy might not exactly be happening now, but there's a chance. I think our involvement in Libya was far preferable to what we did in Iraq. If NATO actions in Libya can be the limit of our military actions as an imperialist power, I think that is a step of improvement over invasion and occupation.

War is never fair. We didn't just level the playing field, we picked the winner.

I agree, nation states rarely do anything out of altruism. From the moral stage theory, they rarely progress out of stage 3 and almost never past 4.

A violent proletarian revolution would contain just as many atrocities. War sucks.


Irontruth wrote:

I don't doubt the influence of oil in this matter.

I also don't see any benefit to Qaddafi remaining in power. Democracy might not exactly be happening now, but there's a chance. I think our involvement in Libya was far preferable to what we did in Iraq. If NATO actions in Libya can be the limit of our military actions as an imperialist power, I think that is a step of improvement over invasion and occupation.

War is never fair. We didn't just level the playing field, we picked the winner.

I agree, nation states rarely do anything out of altruism. From the moral stage theory, they rarely progress out of stage 3 and almost never past 4.

A violent proletarian revolution would contain just as many atrocities. War sucks.

Indeed war sucks. That's the only reason I wasn't opposed to our intervention in Libya. We didn't start the war. The war was already happening. We didn't inflict it upon the populace, it had already started.

I'd also say that I was quite happy Obama didn't try to drum up war fervor over Libya. As far as I could tell, there was no real attempt to use this for political advantage. This wasn't a "wag the dog" kind of war. If anything, Obama seemed reluctant and the pressure came from NATO allies.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

On a side note, I consider all politroll threads to be essentially one conversation, so, more on Wal-Mart.

Home site for Comrade Knife.

Organize the unorganized!

Vive le Galt!

Thanks for the link.


thejeff wrote:


Of course, if you remember my earlier post I'm not saying just continue voting for whoever even though they suck, I'm saying try what the Tea Party and Christian Coalition did with the Republicans: Organize and take over the party from the inside.
If all you're going to do is ignore it until presidential campaigns, then nothing is going to work.

I also agree with your plan for party infiltration, but it really needs to be coupled with the "stick" of voting outside the very party that your infiltrating. Otherwise, you end up just like the Tea Party or the Christian Coalition. Your rulers will pay lip service to you, but not actually change anything. How many times has a CC friendly executive and legislative branch existed together? Yet despite this, abortion is still legal, pornography is still rampant and teh gay menace is still out there lurking, waiting, ready for your children. (This is very tongue in cheek. I hold the CC in great disdain.) Or take the Tea Party. Supposedly they infiltrated the establishment Republican Party, and nominated Mitt, who pays lip service to their ideals. When hes not going on about his support for corporate bailouts/subsidies, hiding his gun-banning past, or his support for the Federal Reserve. Without providing the "stick" of throwing our rulers the hell out of office, infiltration is useless. I concede your point about only being active during presidential elections. I agree 100% there. I know Im doing my damndest locally to make sure that Mitt doesnt take PA. Im also doing my best locally to make sure Obama doesnt either. (fat chance seeing as how this is PA). All while being an elected member of the Republican party. BUT, if you dont, and continue to vote for people that you dont agree with, you are going to continue to recieve candidates that you dont agree with. For example, if Obama wins with his anti-civil liberties, pro-war, pro-corporatism stances, guess which stances the Democratic party is going to decide is a winning formula? Its not any great stretch of anyone's imagination that every successive candidate is going to continue those policies....until they lose because of them.

TL;DR: I think we're both right. Do both.

Taldor

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
There are a lot of places in the world that are ruled over by bloodthirsty, autocratic dictators. But not all of them are situated over the world's fifth largest oil reserves in a country ruled by a guy who, although very chummy with US imperialism's rendition and torture schemes, wasn't too thrilled about Africom and the New Imperialist Scramble for Africa

Right, certainly oil was a factor, but this is a guy that had state sponsored terrorist amongst other things and so most countries had eyes on him in the first place, and he had no allies at the UN willing to support him. He was a bloodthirsty, autocratic dictator that was tolerated because there was little other choice.

Now in the two articles you linked, both by the same author mind you, it's suggested that the war was orchestrated by Africom. Exactly how is left very vague, Gaddafi didn't like Africom and so they somehow were behind removing him from power, but their reasons for doing this seem obvious: Oil. Right. So how does removing Gaddafi from power get American control over the oil in Libya? Best not explain that part because it makes zero sense in the global economy. I'm sure the guy has some interesting points in the same way 9/11 conspiracists occasionally do but his premise just doesn't make sense. Some of the things he's saying are true but he's making some incredible leaps in logic.

Taldor

thejeff wrote:


Indeed war sucks. That's the only reason I wasn't opposed to our intervention in Libya. We didn't start the war. The war was already happening. We didn't inflict it upon the populace, it had already started.

I'd also say that I was quite happy Obama didn't try to drum up war fervor over Libya. As far as I could tell, there was no real attempt to use this for political advantage. This wasn't a "wag the dog" kind of war. If anything, Obama seemed reluctant and the pressure came from NATO allies.

The US didn't want to be in command either, they were willing to help, but they didn't want to be in command of the operation.


meatrace wrote:
And, to be fair, you also have about twice as many posts as I do altogether.

To be ever fairer, one third of them are favorited by Leafar and another third are favorited by Gark, but, then, what does fairness have anything to do with a flamewar?


meatrace wrote:

I do not understand. You liked Qadaffi? Was he the peoples leader you always wet dreamed about? /boggle

The Libyan people got so 'jacked' that they're protesting in support of us?

Yes, I loved him so much, especially when he was killing and torturing his own commies.

Link

Would have preferred to link to counterpunch, instead of this Libya 360 thing, which appears to be a pro-Qaddafi site, but CP seems to be down. Add to this the seizure of the Qaddafi government's assets by, IIRC, the British court, who handed them over to the TNC, who seem to have lost quite a bit of it...

Yeah, the Libyan nation is getting jacked.

Quote:
The honest question I have is that, given your pointing out of gross injustice around the world, would you honestly behind a US military toppling (even through UN action) of other despotic regimes, assuming that we have nothing to gain "imperially" through it? Can you even name one place that needs help that you wouldn't turn around and blame the US as being imperialist dogs after the fact?

Before venturing into the vagaries of hypothetical questions, can you name one place that US imperialism has intervened into just to, you know, help out?


It's taking forever to navigate between pages--I'll respond to the rest later.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I would also have preferred that these voters and sympathizers realize that US imperialism does nothing for altruistic reasons, and their intervention into the war had more to do with thier acquisition of power and money than liberating the Libyan people and building democracy.
It's this sort of stuff that makes people not take you seriously. You've made it perfectly clear that you believe the US Gov't can do no right, ever, under any circumstances. Why would we lend credence to your opinion here, since it's just more of the same?

People may not take me seriously, but I've got twice as many favorited posts as you!

Seriously, though, people should lend credence to my opinion because it's true. The Libyan people just got jacked and all you leftie-liberal types sat around and applauded.

Jacked how? They've been wanting Qaddafi out for years upon years.


Most have. Others didnt. Up to one quarter of the population supported Gaddafi. Thats how civil wars work. Its why we should try negotations and diplomacy, instead of just bombing people because they like things the way they are. We (NATO) really should have just enforced a no-fly zone to allow for negotations instead of just using it as cover to kill gaddafi and his supporters.

Source


Guy Humual wrote:

Right, certainly oil was a factor, but this is a guy that had state sponsored terrorist amongst other things and so most countries had eyes on him in the first place, and he had no allies at the UN willing to support him. He was a bloodthirsty, autocratic dictator that was tolerated because there was little other choice.

Now in the two articles you linked, both by the same author mind you, it's suggested that the war was orchestrated by Africom. Exactly how is left very vague, Gaddafi didn't like Africom and so they somehow were behind removing him from power, but their reasons for doing this seem obvious: Oil. Right. So how does removing Gaddafi from power get American control over the oil in Libya? Best not explain that part because it makes zero sense in the global economy. I'm sure the guy has some interesting points in the same way 9/11 conspiracists occasionally do but his premise just doesn't make sense. Some of the things he's saying are true but he's making some incredible leaps in logic.

I think that if the dude (and, no, I hadn't realized it was the same dude, woops!) had wanted to suggest that Africom had orchestrated the war, he would have come out and said it.

I have had exchanges with Comrade le Couard before about this, but I'll repeat myself: I don't think there was a conspiracy to take out Qadaffi. I think there was a chain of events that western imperialism, particularly French, flush from bombing the Ivory Coast, jumped on and took advantage of.

I harp on my "own" imperialists, because they're the ones I know best, but even if Obama didn't want to be in command of the operation, it was still run by Africom. (Also see the "Foreign Affairs" articles about the efforts of the African Union to negotiate a settlement between the two sides without resorting to a NATO bombardment--IIRC, the library that hosted the AU meeting was bombed a couple of days later in a fitting act of imperialist symbolism. No one spoke out against the UN resolution, true, but IIRC, the resolution was to establish a no-fly zone over Benghazi, not to bomb the shiznit out of the country.)

How was western (and US) imperialism going to control Libyan oil? The old-fashioned way! Overthrow the government and install a more pliant regime!

"Even before taking power, the rebels suggested that they would remember their friends and foes and negotiate deals accordingly.

'We don’t have a problem with Western countries like Italians, French and U.K. companies,' Abdeljalil Mayouf, a spokesman for the Libyan rebel oil company Agoco, was quoted by Reuters as saying. 'But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil.'"

But I don't even think the main prize, as far as the imperialists are concerned, is Libyan oil. I think it was the demonstration of their ability to remove and pulverize any opponents to their plans for an IMF-run, super-exploited base of cheap resources and even cheaper labor. How dare those African countries think they can borrow from China to invest in their own lands? Only we can do that!

Taldor

Oil is sold on the open market these days and is bought up by the highest bidder. Libya is in a strategic location that allows it to sell to virtually anyone in the entire world. Gaddafi was worth billions and it's a safe bet that he didn't come by that money through shrewd business investments. Now supposing that Libya transitions into a responsible government (and yes I know that's a big 'if' at the moment) but with the kind of money Gaddafi was likely skimming from oil sales they could quickly build infrastructure, invest in education and health care, and could take responsibility for their own future. If it were the west's goal to subjugate Africa wouldn't it have been more prudent to keep folks like Gaddafi and Mugabe in power? These folks did a better job then anyone at hording aid and repressing change.


Guy Humual wrote:
Oil is sold on the open market these days and is bought up by the highest bidder. Libya is in a strategic location that allows it to sell to virtually anyone in the entire world. Gaddafi was worth billions and it's a safe bet that he didn't come by that money through shrewd business investments. Now supposing that Libya transitions into a responsible government (and yes I know that's a big 'if' at the moment) but with the kind of money Gaddafi was likely skimming from oil sales they could quickly build infrastructure, invest in education and health care, and could take responsibility for their own future. If it were the west's goal to subjugate Africa wouldn't it have been more prudent to keep folks like Gaddafi and Mugabe in power? These folks did a better job then anyone at hording aid and repressing change.

You mean, like this?

Highest living standard in Africa, according to the UN, if this article is to be believed.

But, forget that. Qadaffi was a brutal, blood-stained dictator, I agree. He was probably corrupt too, I don't doubt it. And so were all the former high-ranking dudes who defected over to the TNC, which, according to some commie rag I read, included four generals who served alongside him for 42 years and, I think, his former foreign minister.

Spoilered for inarticulate primal scream of left-wing rage and temper tantrum throwing:

Spoiler:
But, come on! When does the United States take people out for being bad to their own people?!? When?!? Name one f&~$ing time! On what continent? In which century? Or, for that matter, when did Britain?!? Or France?!? I am not as conversant with their histories as I am with the U.S.'s, but I feel pretty confident here.

Spoiler:
Apologies for the swearing and the unnecessary punctuation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
But, come on! When does the United States take people out for being bad to their own people?!? When?!? Name one f*~#ing time! On what continent? In which century? Or, for that matter, when did Britain?!? Or France?!? I am not as conversant with their histories as I am with the U.S.'s, but I feel pretty confident here.

I've forgotten. What was the evil hidden motivation in Kosovo, again?


[Caught from off-guard, mumbles something about thwarting Russian sphere of influence, a factor that has come up in both Libya and Syria]


Really? Ruskies? *eyeroll*


Yes, Ruskies. The trade alliances and UN blocs (for example, over intervention into Syria) between the Russians and the Chinese have been worrying US foreign policy planners for quite a while now. Not to mention the KGB/CIA buy-an-election rivalry that's been going on throughout former Soviet republics for the past two decades or so.

But, you're right. The motives for Western intervention into the Kosovo War weren't even that obscure: starting with Germany's adoption of an independent Croatia, it was pretty much agreed upon that Yugoslavia was going to get dismantled. Croats massacred Serbs massacred Bosnians massacred Albanians, ad nauseam, but it was only one group that got bombarded by NATO. A couple of years later, the Kosovo War gives the West the excuse to go in and finish the job.

Meanwhile, this entire time, the Turks are busy killing their Kurds, but they're staunch U.S. allies, so no one in the West says shiznit.

Taldor

I'm not in the camp that thinks these folks should be put back into power. In Egypt the run off vote was between a former Mubarak minister and the Muslim brotherhood candidate. Never mind the US, people in Egypt weren't happy with the choices, an ultimately the people in Egypt voted for change. It really makes me scratch my head at the Right's reaction, as if voting for the lesser of two evils was somehow a betrayal or a rejection of the west, and I can only hope that they have the same reaction on the 5th of November.

As to the article, I could believe that Libya has one of the highest rankings in the HDI, I mean what are their rivals? Egypt? South Africa? Being the best country in Africa is like being the thinnest kid at fat camp. Sure you look better then others but it's not an accomplishment I'd put too much stock in.

Also I'd love to know how these numbers are reported and compiled. Is it one of those GDP vs population things? Because if it is Libya might have the numbers stacked in their favor right there. They only have 7 million people or so and big oil revenues. I'm sure they have a ton of undocumented people and workers living in the country as well that aren't counted.


Guy Humual wrote:


As to the article, I could believe that Libya has one of the highest rankings in the HDI, I mean what are their rivals? Egypt? South Africa? Being the best country in Africa is like being the thinnest kid at fat camp. Sure you look better then others but it's not an accomplishment I'd put too much stock in.

I don't know how they figure these things out, but according to the article, well, here:

"Of course, had NPR gone further, they could have also explained that, according to the statistics of the United Nations Development Programme, Libya, at the time of the NATO invasion, had the highest human development indicators (which measure levels of health, education and income) in all of Africa, with a life expectancy of 74.5; undernourishment of the population at under 5%; and adult literacy at over 88%. Libya was in fact ranked 53 in the world out of 169 comparable countries, ranking, for example, above Turkey, (post-Soviet) Russia, Brazil and Costa Rica in terms of the human development indicators."

Taldor

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Meanwhile, this entire time, the Turks are busy killing their Kurds, but they're staunch U.S. allies, so no one in the West says shiznit.

The Kurdish people are one of the largest ethnic groups in the region without a country of their own. They're all over. Northern Iraq is still loaded with them despite Saddam's attempts to irradiate them. I don't like seeing anyone oppressed but there's not a lot we can do to help them. Promoting tolerance and equality is the best we can do as far as I'm concerned as I don't think anyone wants the US, UK or anyone in the west to start drawing borders again.


I'm sure that's true. IIRC, meeting the Kurds' rights to self-determination would upset Turkey, Iraq, Iran, one of the Caucasian states, and, Syria(?). It's why I call for a Socialist Republic of Kurdistan.

But, regardless, sitting by while Turkey kills its Kurds and then waging war on, say, Yugoslavia for its treatment of Albanians doesn't appear to be on the up and up.

Taldor

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:


As to the article, I could believe that Libya has one of the highest rankings in the HDI, I mean what are their rivals? Egypt? South Africa? Being the best country in Africa is like being the thinnest kid at fat camp. Sure you look better then others but it's not an accomplishment I'd put too much stock in.

I don't know how they figure these things out, but according to the article, well, here:

"Of course, had NPR gone further, they could have also explained that, according to the statistics of the United Nations Development Programme, Libya, at the time of the NATO invasion, had the highest human development indicators (which measure levels of health, education and income) in all of Africa, with a life expectancy of 74.5; undernourishment of the population at under 5%; and adult literacy at over 88%. Libya was in fact ranked 53 in the world out of 169 comparable countries, ranking, for example, above Turkey, (post-Soviet) Russia, Brazil and Costa Rica in terms of the human development indicators."

I did read that, but my question is how are they getting these numbers? How do they add them up? Are certain values given more weight the others? If I have ten people, three of them I disappear, three are undocumented foreign workers, one is a Bedouin nomad with no fixed address, is this UN report only compiling data on the three citizens living the major cities? If this is the case I'd think that the UAE would do very well on such a index despite having most of the country's work done by a cheep African and Asian work force with few to no rights.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I couldn't say.

If they're anything like the lies they use to justify no-fly zones and imperialist interventions, they're probably not worth much.

Taldor

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I'm sure that's true. IIRC, meeting the Kurds' rights to self-determination would upset Turkey, Iraq, Iran, one of the Caucasian states, and, Syria(?). It's why I call for a Socialist Republic of Kurdistan.

But, regardless, sitting by while Turkey kills its Kurds and then waging war on, say, Yugoslavia for its treatment of Albanians doesn't appear to be on the up and up.

While this is bad it's no where near as bad as Yugoslavia or for that matter what the Turks did to the Kurds in WWI. Like most of life's problems this has no easy solution. I'd like to see the Kurds have their own state but where are you going to put it? I suppose having another western imposed state in the middle might deflect some hatred from Israel, but it sure wouldn't make us popular with most people including the few allies we have in the region.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

Most have. Others didnt. Up to one quarter of the population supported Gaddafi. Thats how civil wars work. Its why we should try negotations and diplomacy, instead of just bombing people because they like things the way they are. We (NATO) really should have just enforced a no-fly zone to allow for negotations instead of just using it as cover to kill gaddafi and his supporters.

Source

What would be the endgame for those negotiations? Safe haven in exile for Gaddafi?

He was crazy not stupid. Dictators who don't crush rebellions don't tend to last long. Once the rebels can force concessions, their confidence grows and they push for more. Once the illusion that the regime is unbeatable cracks, the end comes.

And what assurances could the rebels get that there won't be reprisals as soon as the west is distracted?

Unless he was willing to give up power and leave the country, I don't see what compromise there could be. And if that's the goal, then actually attacking his army is not a bad way to go about it.

More directly, even with a no-fly zone, he might well have crushed the rebels early with a ground assault. If I remember correctly, the earliest bombing raids not on airports or AA emplacements were on a column of tanks headed for Benghazi.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are you really arguing that diplomacy shouldnt have even been tried? Bombs away, then I guess.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Are you really arguing that diplomacy shouldnt have even been tried? Bombs away, then I guess.

Actually, I'm assuming diplomacy was tried. Mostly before the US got involved militarily, but probably continuing , if only on the "Step down and we'll let you get out" level.

What's the offer? What's the compromise? The one that leaves Gaddafi in an unassailable position and keeps him from carrying out reprisals. When you go into negotiations, you have to know what you're asking for. What would you have wanted out of them?

Or to move to a more current situation: What would you for Syria that would be acceptable to both Assad and the rebels? That wouldn't lead to either being dead or war breaking out again within a year or two?


I dont know. I dont know exactly what either side wants besides the reins of power. I would, if I controlled the UN, simply provide an safe, probably out of country, area where both sides could negotiate. I wouldnt want any specific concessions from either one other than a quick end to hostilities. We really shouldnt be in the business of picking sides. Every time we side with one side, we only make enemies out of the other side. (case in point: Iran. They didnt really appreciate our propping up of the Shah.) Other than providing a safe neutral area for the two sides to negotiate, negotiating with allies on both sides to keep the civil war contained, providing advice to both sides on possible solutions (exile/ two-state solution/transfers of power/reforms/etc), and working with neighboring countries to help refugees, we really shouldnt do anything.
Just my 2 cents anyway.


Obama administration fighting in courts for the right to block challenges to wiretapping program

Andoran

Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

You doin ok Anklebiter? I've been watching coverage of Sandy and wow.

Everybody on the East coast ok?
I am fine, thank you. Hurricanes usually blow themselves out before they get up here.
Glad to hear you're okay.
Thank you, how are you? I heard Queens got all f#!$ed up, but you're in Brooklyn, right?
Queens is in pretty bad shape with a major fire and power loss. But Brooklyn has problems- Coney Island is underwater, as is Red Hook and DUMBO. Atlantic City in Jersey has been hammered very badly- part of it has been swept out to sea.

Welcome to what we go through every few years. ;-)

Andoran

meatrace wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I would also have preferred that these voters and sympathizers realize that US imperialism does nothing for altruistic reasons, and their intervention into the war had more to do with thier acquisition of power and money than liberating the Libyan people and building democracy.
It's this sort of stuff that makes people not take you seriously. You've made it perfectly clear that you believe the US Gov't can do no right, ever, under any circumstances. Why would we lend credence to your opinion here, since it's just more of the same?

Why lend credence that our government is anything more than a vehicle to move wealth to the wealthy and throw the rest of us some crumbs?

Seriously, lefties that support Obama make me sick. Admit you're moderate, non-religious Republicans and get out of the way of the Progressives and liberals who the Dems sell out year after year.


houstonderek wrote:


Why lend credence that our government is anything more than a vehicle to move wealth to the wealthy and throw the rest of us some crumbs?

Seriously, lefties that support Obama make me sick. Admit you're moderate, non-religious Republicans and get out of the way of the Progressives and liberals who the Dems sell out year after year.

Because I'm not, there's just no other viable option for president. When the option is there, in local and state elections, I vote Green, Progressive or Progressive Dane (which is a party that only exists in my state). The only way to get a viable progressive candidate is to vet them in local and state offices. I'd vote for Feingold in two shakes of a lamb's tail, for any office, but he refused to run even against Scott Walker for his own reasons.

Not voting for Obama doesn't get me Feingold or Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein--it gets me Romney. I understand you refuse to see the differences, but they're there. I'm voting against the Romney/Ryan ticket because whether I like the situation or not there are only two choices.


One for Comrade Samnell, if he's still perusing this thread, and one for me (I finished Ben Franklin and moved on to Malcolm Little):

"But at the same time we won't tell them to register as a Democrat or a Republican. Any Negro who registers as a Democrat or a Republican is a traitor to his own people.

"Registering is all right. That only means 'load your gun.' Just because you load it doesn't mean you have to shoot it. You wait until you get a target and make certain that you're in a position to put that thing up next to the target, and then you pull the trigger. And just as you don't waste bullets at a target that's out of reach, you don't throw ballots just to be throwing ballots. Our people need to get registered, need to pile up political power, but they need to hold it in abeyance and throw it when they know that throwing it is going to get results. Don't just throw it because you've got it."

--Malcolm X, to a Militant Labor forum, 1964


houstonderek wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I would also have preferred that these voters and sympathizers realize that US imperialism does nothing for altruistic reasons, and their intervention into the war had more to do with thier acquisition of power and money than liberating the Libyan people and building democracy.
It's this sort of stuff that makes people not take you seriously. You've made it perfectly clear that you believe the US Gov't can do no right, ever, under any circumstances. Why would we lend credence to your opinion here, since it's just more of the same?

Why lend credence that our government is anything more than a vehicle to move wealth to the wealthy and throw the rest of us some crumbs?

Seriously, lefties that support Obama make me sick. Admit you're moderate, non-religious Republicans and get out of the way of the Progressives and liberals who the Dems sell out year after year.

Those are our options? We have to choose to a) not support Obama, or b) be branded Republican-lite?

How do you think democracy works, exactly? Do you think that you're entitled to a President who agrees with all the things that you agree with, and disagrees with all the things you disagree with? That's not what you get in a democracy. You get a President supported by a plurality of the country, and that plurality is not going to believe in all the same things you believe in. If you live in a democracy, you have to be willing to accept compromise - real compromise, compromise that hurts. You will be angry at some of the things the President does. That's how it will always be, because he's not your President, he's the entire country's President.

Fight to win hearts and minds over to your beliefs. But when it comes time to vote, you need to get over your disappointment. The Democratic party isn't "selling out" liberals. They're doing what it takes to get their guy elected. The United States is not a progressive country. It is not a liberal country. No matter how hard you might want it to be, it just isn't. A truly liberal candidate will not be elected. You run a real liberal, and you are all but guaranteed four years of Republican governing. The Democratic party is - believe it or not! - largely made up of liberal political operatives when it comes to the machinery of the party. They want to put a liberal President in the Oval Office, but they know it will not happen.

So you have a choice. Support the Democratic party and deal with the slow growth of American left-wing movement (and yes, it takes forever, but the country is making progress in liberal policy; conservative thought is fighting a losing battle, and it sucks for them), or give the Republican party a pass. You are not being sold out, you are not being marginalized, you are not being persecuted.

I support Obama because he moves the country in the direction I want to see it move. No, he doesn't go as far as I'd like him to go, but I recognize that the political realities he has to deal with make that prohibitive. That doesn't make me Republican-lite by any stretch.

If you want a progressive government, start by making your neighbors progressive. You won't get the government you want until the people want it, and right now they don't.

Andoran

meatrace wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


Why lend credence that our government is anything more than a vehicle to move wealth to the wealthy and throw the rest of us some crumbs?

Seriously, lefties that support Obama make me sick. Admit you're moderate, non-religious Republicans and get out of the way of the Progressives and liberals who the Dems sell out year after year.

Because I'm not, there's just no other viable option for president. When the option is there, in local and state elections, I vote Green, Progressive or Progressive Dane (which is a party that only exists in my state). The only way to get a viable progressive candidate is to vet them in local and state offices. I'd vote for Feingold in two shakes of a lamb's tail, for any office, but he refused to run even against Scott Walker for his own reasons.

Not voting for Obama doesn't get me Feingold or Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein--it gets me Romney. I understand you refuse to see the differences, but they're there. I'm voting against the Romney/Ryan ticket because whether I like the situation or not there are only two choices.

I love Feingold. He's the only one I trust to be about what he says he's about. In the Democratic party that is.

Andoran

And, again, I understand "pragmatism". But I refuse to vote for one more dead child overseas. Sorry.

And every time Obama orders a drone strike against civilians we aren't at war with, appoints a Summers or a Geithner to give oral gratification to Wall Street aristocrats, makes a "hit list", appoints a former Montsano lawyer to the FDA (!!!), passes a "health care" bill that isn't single payer and just hands a chunk of money to Big Pharm and the insurance industry, denies an FOIA request (which his admin has done at an amazing rate for a person who promised "transparency" in his admin), helps DEM mayors crack down on OWS protesters (he did that, sorry), had the DEA raid growers and dispensaries following their state laws (at ten times the rate Bush did) or keeps an AG just as bad as Ashcroft, he is selling us out. Big time.

That isn't "pragmatism", that's betrayal.


And, of course, Romney is worse.
That is pragmatism.


Down with the Two Parties of Racism and War!

US/NATO Troops Out Now! Out of Where? EVERYWHERE!!

Vive le Galt!

Also, Comrade Longears from the UK has been kind enough to introduce me to Cem Karaca who f@@~ing rocks and is allegedly a "Turkish rocker with political message," so consider it "Oppression of the Kurds: The Musical Interlude" although, really, I have no idea what it's about.

Also, also, Hello, HD!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
meatrace wrote:

And, of course, Romney is worse.

That is pragmatism.

QFT.

It's a choice between two more-or-less lousy choices, but it comes down to which is less lousy and which is more.


Voting is for ninnies!! and...

oh wait, I see a new politroll thread...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
I love Feingold. He's the only one I trust to be about what he says he's about. In the Democratic party that is.

I dunno, Kucinich is pretty bad ass.


Moro wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
I love Feingold. He's the only one I trust to be about what he says he's about. In the Democratic party that is.
I dunno, Kucinich is pretty bad ass.

He believes he was abducted by aliens!!! No thanks.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And we pretend to be elves. Whatever.

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Down with the Two Parties of Racism and War!

US/NATO Troops Out Now! Out of Where? EVERYWHERE!!

Vive le Galt!

Also, Comrade Longears from the UK has been kind enough to introduce me to Cem Karaca who f@#@ing rocks and is allegedly a "Turkish rocker with political message," so consider it "Oppression of the Kurds: The Musical Interlude" although, really, I have no idea what it's about.

Also, also, Hello, HD!

That's COMRADE HD to you!

Hi!

501 to 550 of 1,595 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Living under Obama's presidency All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.