Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

By "appeasement", do you mean "drone strikes from the sky"?

:)

No...he means the much-cherished conservative fantasy, demonstrably ridiculous, that the historically militarily-aggressive Democrats are something other than what they are.

An often-used notion is that they are "feminine" on military matters, while the Republicans are "masculine"--a formulation which itself begs all sorts of interesting questions, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 769
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And here's Obama on The View, specifically asked about the attack on the Libyan embassy. He refuses to call it an act of terrorism.

By "appeasement", do you mean "drone strikes from the sky"?

What Pliny means is Obama's apologies for the cornerstone of American society: the first amendment. The initial response to the terrorist attack on the consulate in Benghazi, which persevered for a little over two weeks until even the leftists in the media couldn't keep it afloat, was to blame the attack on a YouTube film trailer.

Pliny's also talking about the political targeting of the producer of the film "Innocence of Muslims" in order to provide a sacrificial lamb to appease the angry Islamists who reject the cornerstone of civilisation: freedom of speech and expression.

I also think Pliny is talking about the political decision made by Obama to maintain a "low profile" (Obama's own words) in Libya in order not to anger the "peaceful Muslims" that are driven into a bloody rage at the mere sight of Americans the decision at the core of the vulnerability of the consulate in Benghazi.

Pliny's also talking about Martin Dempsey calling irrelevant nobodies like Terry Jones to beg him not to burn a Quran, another acquiescence to Islamist rejection of basic freedom.

Pliny is probably also thinking about the desire of Eric Holder to prosecute 9/11 Khaled Sheikh Muhamad in civilian court in NYC, as if somehow an enemy combatant is entitled to full constitutional guarantees of due process, combined with Obama's continuing support for closure of the Guantanamo Bay holding facility.

Maybe Pliny's also thinking about the Obama administration cleansing of the political lexicon, which has demonstrated since day one an inability to ever use the the I-word or M-word in association with anything negative, such as extremism, fundamentalism, or terrorism.

Pliny's might also be thinking about TSA protocols screening wheelchair-bound seniors and inspecting colostomy bags in order not to make the usual suspects upset, lest they believe that they are being unjustifiably profiled and file suit against the federal government with the ACLU.

Maybe Pliny's going all the way back to Obama's first foreign policy delivery at the American University of Cairo, where he began what was aptly described as the apology tour - extending undeserved praise to the "Muslim world" for its perceived accomplishments, denigrating America's history in the region, and undermining the legitimacy of Israel.

Should I continue, or is that enough? Obama's policy of appeasement and weakness, which is of course the greatest provocation for conflict and war, is not a secret. Of course, some socialists like to parrot the Democratic Party's talking points, assisted by the media palace guards or course, of Obama being tough when it comes to American security.

Link to post
Share on other sites

smile.png

No...he means the much-cherished conservative fantasy, demonstrably ridiculous, that the historically militarily-aggressive Democrats are something other than what they are.

An often-used notion is that they are "feminine" on military matters, while the Republicans are "masculine"--a formulation which itself begs all sorts of interesting questions, I think.

So did you figure out the difference between right and left yet, as it relates to political discussion? Baby steps.... then you can pretend to be familiar with American political history and try to reinforce your imagined biography of being a former-conservative-turned-socialist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how many of you folks caught this (virtually all leftists on this board clearly do not follow the news), but Obama recently described the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate and the murder of four Americans as "not optimal" while doing a hard-hitting interview with the brilliant Jon Stewart.

The mother of Christopher Stevens has responded to this callous description of the murder of her son:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/slain-libya-diplomats-mother-my-son-is-not-very-optimal-%E2%80%93-he-is-also-very-dead/

“My son is not very optimal,” Smith told the Daily Mail. “He is also very dead."

Here was a pretty emotional and brief interview she did with Anderson Cooper, diplomatically chastising the lies she's been fed from Obama and his administration about the circumstances that led to the murder of her son.

http://on.aol.com/video/mother-of-slain-official-demands-answers-from-obama-517504454

This is, of course, a pattern of detachment from Obama. We saw the same absurd non-reaction to the mass murder at Fort Hood, where it took him a few minutes of giving "shout outs" to irrelevant Native Americans before actually acknowledging what had happened. He heaps more outrage at a YouTube video he falsely blames for the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate than he does on the actual terrorism itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So did you figure out the difference between right and left yet, as it relates to political discussion?

This isn't a response to my post. Odd that you'd quote it, before rambling about whatever demons ail you at the moment.

Baby steps

Agreed. Start with "libertarian," kraychik, just for fun.

..

and try to reinforce your imagined biography of being a former-conservative-turned-socialist.

What are you on about now?

Oh yeah: your bizarre and one-note obssession.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Start with "libertarian," kraychik, just for fun.

Of course, originally a leftist ideological movement. Because libertarianism has its roots in statism (another term you demonstrated not to understand). You what libertarianism used to be called before folks like you discovered the internet? Classical liberalism. I suppose classical liberalism was also originally a leftist movement? laugh.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies in advance, I just cannot let you get away with the monumental stupidity and political ignorance from someone who puts on a facade of actually being familiar with basic political concepts. Most people grasp these terms before they even take their first "Introduction to Political Science" course (which you've obviously never done, not that that is essentially a bad thing...). But here you are, a patron of a political board, and you literally don't even know what the terms 'left' and 'right' mean in political discourse. I'm being completely sincere when I say I've never met anyone this political ignorant in such an environment. This is a new low (or high, from an entertainment perspective).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think the President of the United States is going to move towards any serious disarmament, that will effect its ability to impose its might at will, you're honestly more delusional than I thought.

You're entering truly wild-eyed territory now.

Like I said... baby steps. We'll talk about what constitutes "serious disarmament" when you learn the difference between the political right and the political left. Once we do that, we can move along to nonsensical contradictions like left-wing libertarians and free market communists.

Edited by kraychik
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, originally a leftist ideological movement.

As demonstrated. I know, the fact bothers you. That's not my fault, though oddly you seem to think that it is.

Because libertarianism has its roots in statism (another term you demonstrated not to understand).

No, you don't understand, because you think it means "leftist," rather than an actual phenomenon to which many on the left have frequently adhered.

Because you think objective facts begin and end with "left" and "right," after which we determine the world created by these factors, you're unable to see anything.

So you think that statist right-wingers--of which we have an overabundance, obviously--are actually left-wingers.

Since they're statists (or dictators, or killers, or terrorists) they must be leftists.

A more self-serving and masturbatory approach to udnerstanding the world around you is difficult to imagine.

You what libertarianism used to be called before folks like you discovered the internet? Classical liberalism. I suppose classical liberalism was also originally a leftist movement? laugh.png

You're beginning to babble now, an unfortunate side-effect of being trounced in debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep proving my point, statism IS leftism. The right pole of the political spectrum is inherently anti-state, or conversely, ultra-individualistic. Again, this is elementary. All you do is put on display that a grasp of the most basic political terms is outside of your understanding. This is why you regularly throw these terms around in nonsensical and contradictory statements.

Although I'm not big on recommending that people use universities as their primary sources of political education, you certainly do prove that in many cases you get what you pay for. Case in point, a Wikipedia political education from you. I found more nonsense for you to continue with your internet (mis)education, free market communism!

Enjoy,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is sort of your saving grace, because you can be forgiven for your absurd political commentary because of your massive political ignorance. If you were actually knowledgeable, perhaps we'd have to suspect nefarious motives. In a way, this political ignorance explains a lot of what we get from both you and fellow socialist BubberMiley.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how many of you folks caught this (virtually all leftists on this board clearly do not follow the news), but Obama recently described the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate and the murder of four Americans as "not optimal" while doing a hard-hitting interview with the brilliant Jon Stewart.

The mother of Christopher Stevens has responded to this callous description of the murder of her son:

http://www.mediaite....also-very-dead/

“My son is not very optimal,” Smith told the Daily Mail. “He is also very dead."

Here was a pretty emotional and brief interview she did with Anderson Cooper, diplomatically chastising the lies she's been fed from Obama and his administration about the circumstances that led to the murder of her son.

http://on.aol.com/vi...obama-517504454

This is, of course, a pattern of detachment from Obama. We saw the same absurd non-reaction to the mass murder at Fort Hood, where it took him a few minutes of giving "shout outs" to irrelevant Native Americans before actually acknowledging what had happened. He heaps more outrage at a YouTube video he falsely blames for the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate than he does on the actual terrorism itself.

I heard about this. Obama just lost the election. After getting no bounce out of the debate, saying this is a major gaff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is where you got your political (mis)education? Hahahaha!

http://en.wikipedia....arian_socialism

No, I linked that for you, because I thought it would be a good place to start.

At any rate, you now see that your denial of the very fact of old, leftist libertarianism was explicitly incorrect.

Your concession leaves a little to be desired, kraychik--because of your cowardice in matters of political debate--but a concession it nevertheless is.

I should add--since I can always anticipate and predict the responses of our resident effete little reactionaries--that any complaints you have about how sensible the notion of Libertarian Socialism is, and problems or weaknesses you no doubt attribute to it, are totally beside the point here:

...the point being that you denied it was even the case that leftwing libertarianism exists; or that it predated rightwing libertarianism; or that the very word was coined by its leftist adherents. You simply refused to countenance any of it.

So again, I do appreciate your concession (finally!), even if I find your concession a bit weak.

No doubt it stings to be exposed as more ignorant than he whose ignorance you have deemed unprecedented.

smile.png

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly bleeding heart, you are low-hanging fruit for me and it's just me being a bully by using you as a chew toy. It's nothing personal, I'm sure you're a nice person and all, but you really need to educate yourself about some basics when it comes to politics. Once that happens, you won't be using non-sequiturs like leftist libertarianism, or pretending that libertarianism has its origins in the left. Put down the Chomsky and get the Cliff's Notes on Locke or Montesque.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard about this. Obama just lost the election. After getting no bounce out of the debate, saying this is a major gaff.

Well, it's certainly not over, it's gonna be a close race. But the media palace guards are circling the wagon and doing everything they can to shield Obama from his endless failures and gaffes. Remember, they need to preserve the facade that he is a "deep thinker" with a "curious mind" (Brokaw's own words), and a great speaker. Nevermind the fact Obama stated that lower gasoline prices during Bush's presidency were a function of "the economy being on the verge of collapse". Oh yeah, Biden also stated yesterday that American forces were active in Iraq and Iran (he kinda got Iran confused with Afghanistan), but of course, the narrative is that Sarah Palin in inept while Biden has "foreign policy credentials".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly bleeding heart, you are low-hanging fruit for me and it's just me being a bully by using you as a chew toy.

I don't think of you as a bully...or at least not a successful one. (Which speaks better for you than if you were good at it, in my view.)

It's nothing personal, I'm sure you're a nice person and all, but you really need to educate yourself about some basics when it comes to politics. Once that happens, you won't be using non-sequiturs like leftist libertarianism, or pretending that libertarianism has its origins in the left. Put down the Chomsky and get the Cliff's Notes on Locke or Montesque.

I appreciate this, but we're not talking about opinion here, kraychik. We're not talking about whether left-libertarianism is viable, or sensible; this particular debate is not about making any value judgement on it whatsoever.

What we are talking about is the fact that it exists, the historical truth that libertarianism has as its origins in the radical Left: the anti-Leninists, the anarchists.

These are the things you have repeatedly denied.

You're denying objective reality, in service to cherished doctrinal pieties.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are going to be some major freak outs in the elite media if Obama loses. Chris Matthews should start a cycle of Prozac immediately! Other than that, there will be the usual nonsense about Romney having no mandate, needing to reach out to the left(that was trying to stick a knife in his campaign for months) and pretty much not be an effective president. They are so predictable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama just lost the election.

Quick! Mortgage the house and put all the money on Romney on Intrade. Obama's still the favourite, so take those odds while you can.

Unless, of course, you don't really believe what you say is true.

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, a Wikipedia entry. Case closed.

You think because something is a wikipedia entry, it doesn't exist?

Okay. How about if the American Conservative website provided you with a summary of left libertarianism, including a detailed analysis of how it differs from right-wing libertarianism? Would you realize that you didn't learn all there was to know when you got that C in Intro to PoliSci?

Somehow I doubt it. :lol:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/libertarian-left/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Exegesisme
      2016 Election Should Debate For Real Solution On Real Issue​s
      By Exegesisme
      1 the moods of peoples may be driven by many transient factors, the social institutions have the duty to rule the moods of peoples into the efforts for a real solution of real issues.
      2 safety is always a fundamental concern for all existence, which should not be twisted to lose balance by momentum from any transient factors.
      3 a strategy of safety should always be considered as a whole solution on all issues of safety, any special issue of safety should be considered on its relative importance to the whole solution.
      4 for a whole solution of all issues of safety, I think all these factors should be considered on its importance.
      http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/suicide
      5 even only to the categories of homicide, suicide and accidents, there were 180,000 deaths in 2013 in USA. The 2016 election should debate how to decrease this number as most as possible, and should not be twisted to a few rare but striking events. If the attention is twisted, a solution may be good for one reason but bad for other reasons, then as a whole the solution may not make a proper contribution to the decrease of the whole number.
    • By Mighty AC
      It seems that Harper's office is in hot water for hiding information, yet again. During the investigations into senators Duffy, Harb, Brazeau and Wallin, which has had Harper tripping over his own lies, requests were made for 28 pages of emails relating to the fab four. However, Harper's office, in usual fashion, simply withheld 27 of the pages.
      The federal information commissioner will now ask a federal court to order the documents released.
      http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/09/14/news/information-commissioner-taking-pmo-court-over-withholding-senate-documents
      When discussing Harper's penchant for lying Preston Manning once said "words don't mean much to Stephen." When voters support a party and PM already proven to be a corrupt, lawbreaking, liar, aren't we basically sanctifying their immoral and illegal acts?
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...