Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 39821 - 39840 of total 45391 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 3, 2014 - 11:33am PT
dirtbag

climber

Mar 3, 2014 - 08:30am PT
^^^^ coward

You're calling Obama a coward? Wow. That's harsh.

I don't think he's a coward. But I do think he's naive about power politics. He seems to think that if he makes nice, then the other side will reciprocate. He doesn't seem to get that leaders like Putin want all the marbles.
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 3, 2014 - 11:36am PT
Putin is defending his Military base, Crimea!

We can't get involved you morons, it's like Texas seceding, Russia would not get involved, now would they?

Ukraine should let Russia have Crimea, it's the only rational option.
Or maybe share it.

The comments from these Conservatives is just sad, that they froth over such things is despicable and dangerous.

Obama is taking the High Road once again, and of course the Republicans think we should take the low road, so of course they will never be happy.
They can't handle the fact that Obama is acting as the real Leader he is, and they think he should be pushed around by the worst evil inherent in American Politics, war mongering Republicans
Elcapinyoazz

Social climber
Joshua Tree
Mar 3, 2014 - 11:38am PT
“The era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.”

Do you have an understanding of the word "context"? This was a Kerry statement aimed at the Org of Am states and specifically intended for South America, and is a return to the original Monroe Doctrine concepts of mutual cooperation within the Americas, rather than the corollaries added by later presidents.

It has nothing to do with powers outside the Americas meddling in affairs within the Americas, and the Monroe doctrine stands. GOP, riddled with ADD man-children
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 3, 2014 - 11:43am PT
We can't get involved you morons, it's like Texas seceding, Russia would not get involved, now would they?

Wow!
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 3, 2014 - 11:43am PT
Seems like foreign confidence in the US is not only growing, it's accelerating. Money talks:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/10/this-surprising-chart-shows-which-countries-own-the-most-u-s-debt/

Foreign asset ownership in the U.S. tracks similarly.

The number one fear of these foreign investors is U.S. government dysfunction - shut downs, not increasing the debt ceiling, default. It's probably not news to anyone by now that the Tea Party Caucus - a handful of people, really, is solely responsible. It's been the only political movement in recent history willing to destroy our national credibility (the measurable kind) and well-being for single issue politics.

Regarding the oft trotted out and nearly always hysterical non-scientific measure of HOW SCARED OF OUR GUNS ARE THEY?...

The power of asymmetrical warfare, thanks in part to the play field leveling effect of technology, has diminished viability of tradition military might somewhat.

That's a good thing. Neither Russia nor the U.S. has been particularly wise with regards our over-use of military force as a means to get what we want. US influence is limited by many factors, as it should be. This forces the US to be recognize that a) its not going to get everything it wants b) war breeds too many long term unintended consequences to be a viable option for anything other than the most extreme circumstances and c) the US military has long siphoned far too much national wealth away from maintaining our own crumbling domestic infrastructure and diminished well being.

American influence in Crimea is limited - and there will be no American guns involved, of course. Both superpowers signed up for that arrangement just after WWII, and most of our mutual populations prefer keeping nukes out of their daily existences. Concerted international pressure can have an effect of containing the damage, however. Put pressure on Russian bidnesses, and Russian oligarchs in turn pressure Putitang. Once again, money talks.

Ask most Americans what threatens them most - it isn't Iran, North Korea or Russia. It's losing their job, medical bankruptcy, and other self-inflicted threats stemming from decades of erosive policy choices. Regarding future generations, you know, 'the children', its the man made destruction of the climate we evolved in.
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 3, 2014 - 11:47am PT
Ask most Americans what threatens them most - it isn't Iran, North Korea or Russia. It's losing their job, medical bankruptcy, and other self-inflicted threats stemming from decades of erosive policy choices. Regarding future generations, you know, 'the children', its the man made destruction of the climate we evolved in.

Republicans are a threat to the future of Everything
They are much worse than the Russian's which can care less what we do over here.
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Mar 3, 2014 - 11:48am PT

"The number one fear of these foreign investors is U.S. government dysfunction - shut downs, not increasing the debt ceiling, default. It's probably not news to anyone by now that the Tea Party Caucus - a handful of people, really, is solely responsible. It's been the only political movement in recent history willing to destroy our national credibility (the measurable kind) and well-being for single issue politics."...



The Tea Party is the fuking BIGGEST joke in America currently...

Nothing more than a bunch of panty wad, Un-American, dumb fuks...



Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 3, 2014 - 11:51am PT
It has nothing to do with powers outside the Americas meddling in affairs within the Americas, and the Monroe doctrine stands. GOP, riddled with ADD man-children

That explains why we've maintained military bases all over the World, since WWII.

How does this fit with your Monroe Doctrine position?

Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 3, 2014 - 11:55am PT

Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal

Topic Author's Reply - Mar 3, 2014 - 08:47am PT

Republicans are a threat to the future of Everything

Somebody's been drinking too much of the kool aid.
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 3, 2014 - 11:57am PT
Tell us what they haven't f-ed up junior?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 3, 2014 - 12:03pm PT
To be fair, many in the Tea Party's current high leadership are far from dumb. Neither Ted Cruz nor Rand Paul are dumb. At all. Michelle Bachmann is not the sum total of the Tea Party.

The movement has been a major destructive force in American politics, however, for all the aforementioned reasons. In general, any cabal whose primary purpose is obstruction can't be good for the organization it's tasked to serve. The Tea Party has brought political cynicism to new lows - ANYTHING, including the burning of Rome, for the next local electoral win in bumf*#k, TX. For that utter lack of principled action it has understandably earned an increasing share of the nation's derision.

The news isn't all bad, though. Tea Party lawmakers strongly support regulation on government drone use in my home state of WA, for example. In fact, they are softening their positions on a variety of civil liberties related efforts - ending the death penalty, reigning in police violence, surveillance in general.

The Tea Party is also moving, too slowly perhaps, away from the Kristian funded God Hates Fags movement - granted, that only came in the face of certain defeat, but still. It continues to be primarily a social conservative movement, however - despite its 'fiscal responsibility' cloak. The Tea Party spends an inordinate amount of money, effort, and political capitol in its attempts to deny family planning to primarily poor women . As this policy turd invariably costs the taxpayers more in the end - more poor kids = more social services used, it's hardly a formula for decreasing spending. An ounce of prevention and all that.

Ya takes yer allies where ya kin find em.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Mar 3, 2014 - 12:04pm PT
If He Believes It, It Must Be So
Obama's scary interview.
Elliott Abrams
March 3, 2014 11:35 AM

On the eve of the Netanyahu visit to Washington, President Obama gave a lengthy interview to Jeffrey Goldberg that shows a chief executive who has learned next to nothing about the world in his five years in office.

First, kudos to Goldberg: he pressed Obama repeatedly, challenging vague formulations and seeking clarity. Goldberg pushed Obama hard, especially on Iran and Syria.

Obama isn’t good off the cuff, especially when challenged; he is far better with a prepared speech. And what emerged is an awful portrait of the president and his conception of the world.

Take Syria. Here’s what Obama said:

“I think those who believe that two years ago, or three years ago, there was some swift resolution to this thing had we acted more forcefully, fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the conflict in Syria and the conditions on the ground there. … Over the last two years I have pushed our teams to find out what are the best options in a bad situation. … But I’ve looked at a whole lot of game plans, a whole lot of war plans, a whole bunch of scenarios, and nobody has been able to persuade me that us taking large-scale military action even absent boots on the ground, would actually solve the problem. And those who make that claim do so without a lot of very specific information.”

Who are these people who have inadequate information, misunderstand the conflict in Syria, and think there is much more the United States could have done? They include both of Obama’s secretaries of state, Clinton and Kerry, his former defense secretary Leon Panetta, and his former CIA director David Petraeus—all of whom wanted much more U.S. support for the Syrian rebels. And perhaps more to the point, take the case of Fred Hof.

Hof has been working on Syria and the broader Middle East since the 1970s, first as a career Army officer and then for the State Department. He was given the rank of ambassador and the title of “special adviser” on Syria by Obama in 2012. Hof has left the government and is now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where he writes regularly about Syria at the Council’s web site. He knows far more about Syria than Mr. Obama and saw the same intelligence Mr. Obama did (in fact, he no doubt read a lot more of it). And what he writes is filled with growing anguish and anger about Obama’s failure to act in the face of mass murder by the criminal regime in Damascus. But to Obama, any such criticism “fundamentally misunderstands…conditions on the ground there,” which of course only Obama really understands.

Obama’s “arguments” about Syria in the Goldberg interview are insulting to his former (and, in Kerry’s case, current) top advisers, whose advice he rejected, and misleading about their advice. He describes a situation where ignorant critics seek “large scale military action,” which is akin to the administration’s claim that those who want sanctions on Iran are “warmongers.” But that is a false description, for what was recommended time after time was serious help to the rebels, and a one-time strike (“incredibly small,” said Kerry, not “large scale”) at chemical weapons assets. So we have the president deriding those who disagreed with him—who include his top aides and top experts—and refusing, even now, to understand that his policy of passivity in Syria has produced nearly the worst of all possible worlds: 150,000 dead, 6 million homeless, and a menacing gathering of perhaps 25,000 jihadists at the heart of the Middle East.

On Israel, Obama was harsh and unfriendly to Netanyahu just days before the Netanyahu visit—quite a welcome to Washington. But the errors of his own analysis are striking. He says we must give the Palestinians “the dignity of a state,” but the Tunisians and Egyptians and other Arabs who rebelled in the “Arab Spring” had a state. They lacked dignity because that state treated them with contempt, giving them no real freedom and jailing them if they asked for it. Under Mr. Obama corruption in the Palestinian Authority has exploded and they have gone five additional years without an election.

Mr. Obama says this:

“Palestinians would still prefer peace. They would still prefer a country of their own that allows them to find a job, send their kids to school, travel overseas, go back and forth to work without feeling as if they are restricted or constrained as a people.”

If they would also prefer freedom of the press and of speech, and free elections, and an independent court system, and a government that does not steal their money, well, that isn’t of much interest to Mr. Obama. It isn’t even worth mentioning. So he would give the Palestinians the “dignity” that led to oppression and uprisings elsewhere in the Arab world, and seems to have no interest in the actual conditions of political life in the state he would create.

The burden of making peace is put entirely on Israeli shoulders. PA president Abbas (whose term ended five years ago, and who is surrounded by growing corruption) is portrayed as a lovely man ready for peace—no mention that he refused it when it was offered by then-prime minister Olmert in 2008. Is Abbas really ready, now, to sign what he would not back then: an agreement that ends the conflict entirely and finally tells Palestinian “refugees” that they have no right to go to Israel? An agreement that acknowledges Israel as a Jewish state? These doubts are never acknowledged by Obama, who assumes that the only problems are on the Israeli side.

Then comes the kind of vague threat that Secretary Kerry has also made, in his case perhaps without meaning to:

“What we also know is that Israel has become more isolated internationally. We had to stand up in the Security Council in ways that 20 years ago would have involved far more European support, far more support from other parts of the world when it comes to Israel’s position.”

Now in truth the Obama administration has stood up in the Security Council with great reluctance, trying desperately at times to avoid vetoes of anti-Israel resolutions that deserved a quick and easy refusal. And that American reluctance to side clearly and early on with Israel in the Security Council has encouraged the Europeans to draw back as well, so the Obama account has it backwards. But the message remains clear: if Israel refuses the terms we give it, life will become tougher.

The difference between an American prediction of greater international isolation and an American promise that it will come is not very great.

OBAMA: “if you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction -- and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time -- if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.

GOLDBERG: Willingness, or ability?

OBAMA: Not necessarily willingness, but ability to manage international fallout is going to be limited. And that has consequences.

As to that “aggressive settlement construction,” it is worth noting that at Obama’s request Netanyahu suspended construction in settlements for ten months in 2009. Apparently that gesture, its political cost for Netanyahu, and the fact that it gained Netanyahu and Israeli absolutely nothing from the Palestinians or the Europeans, is now forgotten.

Israelis remember, as perhaps Mr. Obama does not, that getting out of Gaza required Ariel Sharon to fight a two-year political battle that caused him to lose his party: he had to leave Likud and found a new party, Kadima. And that was about Gaza, where only 7,500 Jews lived in a small number of settlements in an area of no religious significance. The political battle over the West Bank would be far greater, so Obama is telling Netanyahu he must risk his own and his party’s future—on faith in both Abbas’s reliability and Mr. Obama’s own. In the Sharon case, he took the risks only when he had secured an absolute promise of support from George W. Bush, whom he viewed as a reliable partner. Mr. Obama did not help his cause when, upon coming to office, he disregarded all the pledges Bush made to Sharon in 2004. In Kerry’s negotiations, any real peace deal would be reached next year or in 2016, when Obama will be a lame duck. Who knows what American pledges will be worth, when after all Obama disregarded all of the ones his own predecessor made.

When it comes to Iran, Obama shows an attitude that can only be described as solipsistic: what’s in his mind is reality. And any other reality is just plain silly. Here is the key exchange:

GOLDBERG: So just to be clear: You don’t believe the Iranian leadership now thinks that your “all options are on the table” threat as it relates to their nuclear program -- you don’t think that they have stopped taking that seriously?

OBAMA: I know they take it seriously.

GOLDBERG: How do you know they take it seriously?

OBAMA: We have a high degree of confidence that when they look at 35,000 U.S. military personnel in the region that are engaged in constant training exercises under the direction of a president who already has shown himself willing to take military action in the past, that they should take my statements seriously. And the American people should as well, and the Israelis should as well, and the Saudis should as well….

GOLDBERG: So why are the Sunnis so nervous about you?

OBAMA: Well, I don’t think this is personal. I think that there are shifts that are taking place in the region that have caught a lot of them off guard. I think change is always scary.

It’s pretty obvious to all analysts that Iran does not fear an American military strike much these days, especially after Mr. Obama’s failure to act in Syria last summer. But Obama denies it, referring to himself in the third person as someone “who has shown himself willing to take military action.” Drones, sure; a quick raid as well. But in Libya and Syria, he showed himself extremely reluctant to take military action. Remember “leading from behind?” If he genuinely thinks he is viewed as a scary guy with his finger near the trigger, we all have a problem.

Goldberg pushes him, asking why (as is obvious) no one in the Gulf believes Obama. “I don’t think it is personal,” says the president; the problem is them, not him, and his analysis is therapeutic: change is always scary, and they are having trouble catching up with it. But talk with Gulf Arabs and one finds quickly that it is in fact quite personal: they don’t trust Mr. Obama. They believe his handling of Iran and Syria and for that matter of Russia have made the world a more dangerous place.

Change is apparently not scary to Mr. Obama, who is confident all his policies are right. Those who disagree are uninformed, or itching for conflict, or ignorant about the risks they will soon face, or sadly unable to adapt to world events. This is the Obama who said of his own nomination that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” If he believes it, it must be so. The Goldberg interview reveals that five years in, nothing has changed.
dirtbag

climber
Mar 3, 2014 - 12:07pm PT
^^^^^coward


Sketch: GFYS
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 3, 2014 - 12:10pm PT
welcome aboard Tvash
Keep up the great posts

You can just ignore bookworm, he ignores us.
He has never responded to a question or rebuttal, he's just a loser troll that hates for the Gov that pays his salary.
Typical hypocrite
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Mar 3, 2014 - 12:11pm PT
Bookworm...Goldberg is a light weight...Same category as Geraldo Rivera...Just a matter of time before Goldberg gets hit by a flying chair...
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Mar 3, 2014 - 12:16pm PT
The Stepping Stones to the Ukraine Crisis
By Victor Davis Hanson

Each step to the present Ukrainian predicament was in and of itself hardly earth-shattering and was sort of framed by Obama’s open-mic assurance to Medvedev to tell Vladimir that he would more flexible after the election.

Indeed, Obama, as is his wont, always had mellifluous and sophistic arguments for why we had to take every soldier out of Iraq after the successful surge; why we needed to drop missile defense with the Poles and Czechs; why we needed both a surge and simultaneous deadline to end the surge in Afghanistan; why we first issued serial deadlines to Iran to ask them to please stop proliferation, then just quit the sanctions altogether just as they started to work; why we needed to “lead from behind” in Libya; why the Muslim Brotherhood was largely secular and legitimate and then later not so much so; why we issued redlines and bragged about Putin’s “help” to eliminate WMD in Syria, and were going to bomb and then not bomb and then maybe bomb; why we kept pressuring Israel; why we cozied up to an increasingly dictatorial Turkey; why we reached out to Cuba and Venezuela; and why we sometimes embarrassed old allies like Britain, Canada, and Israel.

Amid such a landscape of deadlines begetting redlines begetting step-over lines always came the unfortunate pontificating — the Cairo mytho-history speech, the adolescent so-called apology tour, the sermon about “exceptionalism,” — and also the dressing down delivered to a mute Obama by a pompous Daniel Ortega, the bows and hugs, and Obama’s constant apologies for past American sins. Again all this was trivial — and yet in aggregate not so trivial for the lidless eye of a Putin.

Amid both the deeds and the facts came the serial $1 trillion annual deficits, the surge in borrowing for redistributionist payouts, the monetary expansion and zero-interest rates, and finally the vast cuts in the military budget, all of which fleshed out the caricature of a newly isolationist and self-indulgent America, eager to talk, bluster, or threaten its way out of its traditional postwar leadership role.

Again, each incident in and of itself was of little import. None were the stuff of crises. But incrementally all these tiny tesserae began forming a mosaic, fairly or not, of the Obama administration as either weak or clueless or perhaps both.

Accordingly, Mr. Putin, in empirical fashion, after factoring in the rhetoric and the facts, has decided that it is time, in the fashion of 1979–80, to move with probable impunity. Others are, of course, watching what Obama derides as Cold War chess games. Should Iran now go full bore on its nuclear program? Should China test Japanese waters and airspace a bit more aggressively? Should North Korea try to gain new concessions from its nuclear lunacy? Should the failed Communists of Latin America try forcibly exporting their miseries to neighbors? And all are operating on the shared assumption that the American reaction will be another “outrageous,” “unacceptable,” “don’t cross this line,” or another solemn Kerry lecture about the existential threats of global warming.

For some, like the now furrow-browed Europeans who once giddily lapped up the Victory Column pabulum, there is irony. For the Baltic states, Georgians, the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, the Japanese, the Taiwanese, and the South Koreans, there is increased anxiety about regional strains of Putanism spreading to their own backyards. And among our allies such as the British, Israelis, Canadians, and Australians, there is still polite bewilderment.

This will probably end in either two ways : Either Barack Obama will have his 1980 Jimmy Carter revelatory moment as something like an “Obama Doctrine,” or we could see some pretty scary things in the next three years as regional thugs cash in their chips and begin readjusting the map in their areas of would-be influence.
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Mar 3, 2014 - 12:16pm PT


"To be fair, many in the Tea Party's current high leadership are far from dumb"...

FALSE!!!...

To join is a CHOICE...

A really DUMB one that ONLY a DUMB person would make...







But I get your point, too...

;-)
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 3, 2014 - 12:32pm PT
Any random population of hairless monkeys will include conservative and liberal personalities, as defined by a few basic traits - willingness to try new things, importance of loyalty to one's tribe, etc. Societies arguably need both conservatives and liberals for survival. Building a society is hard - so preserving what is good in that society is important. The world is a dynamic place, however, so trying new things is also important. You get the idea. Here's an excellent treatment of this topic:

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

The inclusion of both conservative and liberal personalities also increases survivability in other populations - birds, rats (yes, their personalities also vary along the same basic lines as ours).

Realizing that conservatism and liberalism are natural variations in personality grants one permission to find common ground with 'those people' so we can get stuff done, together. Like d Russian homos, "they" are not going away - ever, so "we" might as well find a way to get along with "them".
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 3, 2014 - 12:39pm PT
You mean to say that they aren't all the same???
Conseravtives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats are not completely the same???
So many morons here tell us that they are

They're all the same!!!
It doesn't matter who you vote for, so why vote
B7 came down after they said to pull it!!! That proves my point.
moron

And those Liberals closed down my favorite climbing area!!
all because of some stoopid frog.
so I will have to vote for Repubs for now on, because they will keep all Climbing areas open, I can bank on it...
And another thing, I refuse to pay for the roads that will get me to my favortie climbing area. Why should I have to pay for that, I can spend my money on better things, like more blow.
moron
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Mar 3, 2014 - 12:53pm PT
Tvash said
The inclusion of both conservative and liberal personalities also increases survivability in other populations - birds, rats (yes, their personalities also vary along the same basic lines as ours).

Is there any data on the survivability of creatures that insist on splitting everything into two contrived "for" and "against" camps?
Messages 39821 - 39840 of total 45391 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews