Republicans: The Cocaine Monkeys of Defense Spending

[sr71plt]

I think Obama discussed the reality of there being wars in the acceptance speech--and he was right, I think, in noting up front that he really shouldn't have been given the Nobel Prize at that point because he hadn't really done anything yet. What some folks don't realize, though, is that the Nobel Peace Prize is given on occasion to nudge the recipient to act like he/she deserves it. Not really in Obama's case. I think he got it because of the world-wide euphoria and sense (albeit an over expectation) that his election lifted the world's socialization and thus was connected with a step upward toward the world peace concept.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh, most of us agree he got it for equal parts being the first black president, something a lot of people didn't think they'd live to see and for America getting rid of the insanity that was the Bush administration. You can judge which part was more important for yourself but yeah.

 

[Setanta84]

I think Obama discussed the reality of there being wars in the acceptance speech--and he was right, I think, in noting up front that he really shouldn't have been given the Nobel Prize at that point because he hadn't really done anything yet. What some folks don't realize, though, is that the Nobel Peace Prize is given on occasion to nudge the recipient to act like he/she deserves it. Not really in Obama's case. I think he got it because of the world-wide euphoria and sense (albeit an over expectation) that his election lifted the world's socialization and thus was connected with a step upward toward the world peace concept.

For the love of God, he EXPLICITLY Godwin's the speech, i.e. he makes the point that non-violence wouldn't work against the Nazis. That is, he makes basically the same argument AGAINST non-violence resistance/pacifism that Captain Kirk does in The City on the Edge of Forever.

H's not talking about the "tragedy of war" or saying it's an unfortunate reality. He's flat out saying war is how adults who don't have their heads in the clouds or up their asses deal with problems in the world.

 

[Sean Renaud]

For the love of God, he EXPLICITLY Godwin's the speech, i.e. he makes the point that non-violence wouldn't work against the Nazis. That is, he makes basically the same argument AGAINST non-violence resistance/pacifism that Captain Kirk does in The City on the Edge of Forever.

H's not talking about the "tragedy of war" or saying it's an unfortunate reality. He's flat out saying war is how adults who don't have their heads in the clouds or up their asses deal with problems in the world.

Clearly you can't read.

 

[sr71plt]

Yeah, we know that's how you want it interpreted, Setanta84. But you've also clearly demonstrated how warped and juvenile you are, so there you go.

 

[Setanta84]

Clearly you can't read.

Clearly, you're the type of Team Blue partisan who has been a good boy and made "thinking" synonymous with "going off-message." He makes that point in the speech. It's fucking hard to miss--impossible, really,

 

[Setanta84]

Fuck it, I'm done. You two aren't worth arguing a point over. You're the type who would agree with Protagoras that virtue can be taught because he sounds pretty when saying it in the context of a long speech.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Clearly, you're the type of Team Blue partisan who has been a good boy and made "thinking" synonymous with "going off-message." He makes that point in the speech. It's fucking hard to miss--impossible, really,

Saying it does not make the speech dedicated to it in anyway. He goes on and on about how terrible war is, how great peace is and the great expenses we should go through to get and maintain peace. And that peace is not just the absence of armed conflict.

If being able to read and comprehend makes me Team Blue Partisan then I'm proud to be one, because around here you learn pretty fast that Team Red can't actually read with a few exceptions.

 

[sr71plt]

Fuck it, I'm done.

Promises, promises.

I think you were overdone before you started.

 

[Setanta84]

Saying it does not make the speech dedicated to it in anyway. He goes on and on about how terrible war is, how great peace is and the great expenses we should go through to get and maintain peace. And that peace is not just the absence of armed conflict.

If being able to read and comprehend makes me Team Blue Partisan then I'm proud to be one, because around here you learn pretty fast that Team Red can't actually read with a few exceptions.

You're not reading and comprehending. You're buying the things he puts in there for spin. Reading critically and understanding the text involves more than actually just processing the visual information in front of you. There's context, structure, meaning, etc to consider.

All the crocodile tears and hand-wringing in the world can't obscure the basic positions he takes in the speech. The basic position he takes in the speech is that war is a necessary "evil."

And this is a point he brings up over and over again. In retrospect, my favorite quote of his from the 2008 campaign--on this issue--is "I'm not against war, I'm against dumb wars." As his actual record and actions show, he didn't really have a problem with what Bush was doing--he just thought he was doing poorly.

The guy is basically a champion of effective evil.

 

[Setanta84]

Promises, promises.

I think you were overdone before you started.

You really should be getting the number of the guy who got your fellow sexy playtime enthusiast in front of that judge from the other thread. You're going to need it once your mom dies or stops offering false alibis.

 

[sr71plt]

I take it this is your way of being "done"(?) We sort of fold back on the "liar" thingee, don't we?--with a big dollop of that juvenile thingee you do.

 

[Setanta84]

I take it this is your way of being "done"(?) We sort of fold back on the "liar" thingee, don't we?--with a big dollop of that juvenile thingee you do.

Lying and doing "juvenile thingees" is more your bag, e.g.:

"It won't hurt, I promise."
"I'm a friend of your mom's."
"There's a puppy in the back of this van."
"You can call your dad as soon as we take these pictures."

 

[Sean Renaud]

You're not reading and comprehending. You're buying the things he puts in there for spin. Reading critically and understanding the text involves more than actually just processing the visual information in front of you. There's context, structure, meaning, etc to consider.

All the crocodile tears and hand-wringing in the world can't obscure the basic positions he takes in the speech. The basic position he takes in the speech is that war is a necessary "evil."

And this is a point he brings up over and over again. In retrospect, my favorite quote of his from the 2008 campaign--on this issue--is "I'm not against war, I'm against dumb wars." As his actual record and actions show, he didn't really have a problem with what Bush was doing--he just thought he was doing poorly.

The guy is basically a champion of effective evil.

It's not spin at all. That's what all people to the left of say Netanyahu believe. It's the 100% gospel truth. If you think it's spin you've not only never listened to the man speak, you've never listened to a sane person speak. Which would explain why you're so crazy.

No it's not the champion of effective evil by any rational standard at all.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You're not reading and comprehending. You're buying the things he puts in there for spin. Reading critically and understanding the text involves more than actually just processing the visual information in front of you. There's context, structure, meaning, etc to consider.

All the crocodile tears and hand-wringing in the world can't obscure the basic positions he takes in the speech. The basic position he takes in the speech is that war is a necessary "evil."

And this is a point he brings up over and over again. In retrospect, my favorite quote of his from the 2008 campaign--on this issue--is "I'm not against war, I'm against dumb wars." As his actual record and actions show, he didn't really have a problem with what Bush was doing--he just thought he was doing poorly.

The guy is basically a champion of effective evil.

Good lord.. so much bullshit in one post it's tough to know where to begin.

You speak of reading and comprehending, then in the next sentence take one or two sound bites out of a speech and ignore the overall message. That is called disingenuous cherry-picking.

Newsflash: Yes, sometimes war IS necessary, as it was in WWII against Hitler. Simply mentioning Hitler as an example of justified war is not "Godwining" his speech. The point, which you missed through sheer force of willful ignorance, was that the war in Iraq was not justifiable. It was a dumb war one that wasn't necessary. There are damn good reasons to go to war... Iraq fit none of those reasons. Afghanistan however, did.

Saddam was a horrible dictator to be sure and there were any number of reasons to want him out of office in Iraq, but there was no legitimate reason for an invasion of the country and protracted war there. This distracted from the actual objective in the middle east of engaging and destroying those responsible for attacking the US on 9/11. This coupled with the absolute lack of a cohesive plan for after (because they didn't see anything after but continual occupation) is why it was a dumb war.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Um, this isn't a GOP thing. Corporate Dems, including President Obama, love war and love funding it.

I KNEW IT LOL!

Yea and the GOP is HUGE into Healthcare and public education too ya know!! Just as much as the DemOHz!!!

You're a delusional Limbaugh knob jobber if you think the size and scope of the DNC<-->DOD relationship and welfare hand outs is anywhere remotely near that of the GOP<--->DOD interaction. Absolutely fucking insane.....

If you think I'm a Republican, you're duller than I thought.

You're in here defending the bastion of GOP welfare......

What's next you're an atheist not only defending but fully supporting theocratic tyranny in America like eyer? LMFAO!!

We want to believe you!!
http://www.silverdoctors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ghostbusters.jpg


If you can combine all the DNC corporate financial interest in the DOD and they even came up to 1/4 of what any one of these companies get each year from Uncle Sam

Lockheed Martin
General Dynamics
Halliburton

All largely republican controlled companies who donate heavily to political campaigns.......then I'll bend over, kiss my own ass and apologize for being so wrong. All you gotta do is prove it....

Now then you take a look at the small arms and LE/military supply industries....how much of that do you think is Democrat controlled? Clue....for all intents and purposes NONE.

Democrat involvement in the military industrial welfare program extends to a few subcontracted techies (almost all work for one of the big three listed up above) and Blue counties/burroughs who know their existence depends largely on a military base being in their town.

Deep blue put it's corruption all up in education and HC.....not the defense/war abroad/incarceration industries, like our freedom loving RW fellow Americans.