Michelle, Steyn, Hollywood - Academy Awards 2013

[Pliny]

What does Krauthammer and Kristol have to do with Fox News?

They are regulars on there. Krauthammer is on O'Reilly and Bill Kristol is on Fox Sunday. Guess you don't watch.

Not that I am a fan of Kristol he is too far right for me. And I mean far right as in Fascist, not far right as in limited government, which the left likes to call the far right Tea Party.

[BubberMiley]

Translation: Obama isn't responsible for anything bad that happens, only the good. I won't treat him like every other president in his second term because he's inexperienced, and he's black, and he's my ideological equal. So I'll give him a complete pass for his utter failure of a record.

You're trying to change the subject because you're embarrassed that you can rarely post anything with any accuracy. For the recotd, I think Obama is a corporate tool like any other Republican president. His drone strikes are also cowardly and immoral.

Got anything else?

[roy baty]

Would someone please explain to me why the left up here and Democrats down there don't seem to give a crap that this president's policies may indeed bankrupt the US? For those who don't know, this would be BAD for not just the US, but for the entire free world. Sometimes I think they actually want their own country to tank.. I just don't get it because it defies any logic. Is it that they feel that they are untouchable or somehow "immune" to economic collapse? Trust me, the Chinese and Russians were celebrating as much as the Democrats and their voters last Nov.

[BubberMiley]

Would someone please explain to me why the left up here and Democrats down there don't seem to give a crap that this president's policies may indeed bankrupt the US? For those who don't know, this would be BAD for not just the US, but for the entire free world. Sometimes I think they actually want their own country to tank..

Where were you during the Iraq invasion?

[roy baty]

. For the recotd, I think Obama is a corporate tool like any other Republican president. His drone strikes are also cowardly and immoral.

Personally, I like to think of him as more of a puppet but I am curious to know why you find the drone program cowardly and immoral? I actually find it to be one of the few things he as done that has been effective and the least cost effective in dealing with Al Qaeda. How would you propose he could have handling this without being immoral or cowardly? It seems to me, the real cowards are the ones he is hitting with these drones who like to strap bombs on women and children, and use humans as shields in their cause to "rid the world of the infidel".

[roy baty]

Where were you during the Iraq invasion?

Please return to the here and now and provide a better answer than that.

Edited April 3, 2013 by roy baty

[BubberMiley]

Please return to the here and now and provide a better answer than that.

Okay. When government spending was out of control under Bush, you were silent. When it is proportionately going down under Obama, you freak out. Why is that?

[BubberMiley]

It seems to me, the real cowards are the ones he is hitting with these drones who like to strap bombs on women and children, and use humans as shields in their cause to "rid the world of the infidel".

Yes, they are also immoral and cowardly.

[Shady]

You're trying to change the subject because you're embarrassed that you can rarely post anything with any accuracy. For the recotd, I think Obama is a corporate tool like any other Republican president. His drone strikes are also cowardly and immoral.Got anything else?

Yeah, sure you do. You just never post about it. It's all about Republicans, and Romney, etc.

[Shady]

Okay. When government spending was out of control under Bush, you were silent. When it is proportionately going down under Obama, you freak out. Why is that?

So when Obama has added more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8 you're silent. Why is that?

[BubberMiley]

So when Obama has added more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8 you're silent. Why is that?

I guess because Obama didn't cause the military escalation and economic meltdown that Bush did.

But are you willing to provide citations to back up your figures? I only ask because your unsourced citations are almost always misrepresentations.

[Shady]

I guess because Obama didn't cause the military escalation and economic meltdown that Bush did.But are you willing to provide citations to back up your figures? I only ask because your unsourced citations are almost always misrepresentations.

Actually, he's the one that ordered the tripling of the trips in Afghanistan, and the president signing off on trillion dollar deficits every year he's been in office, even when the recession ended, you give him a pass. Even in his 5th year in office and the pathetic economic situation, you give him pass, as usual, pathetic.

[BubberMiley]

Even in his 5th year in office and the pathetic economic situation, you give him pass, as usual, pathetic.

Actually, I already said what I think of Obama. I guess the fact that you couldn't come up with a citation indicates you're lying again and just want to deflect from that by attacking me. I understand.

[Shady]

Actually, I already said what I think of Obama. I guess the fact that you couldn't come up with a citation indicates you're lying again and just want to deflect from that by attacking me. I understand.

Keep giving him a pass dude, probably because he's black. Even though he tripled the trios in Afghanistan, and presided over trillion dollar deficits even when the recession ended. Pathetic!!!!!!!

[Bitsy]

They are regulars on there. Krauthammer is on O'Reilly and Bill Kristol is on Fox Sunday. Guess you don't watch.

Not that I am a fan of Kristol he is too far right for me. And I mean far right as in Fascist, not far right as in limited government, which the left likes to call the far right Tea Party.

No, I do not watch Fox News but I do read both on-line.

[roy baty]

Okay. When government spending was out of control under Bush, you were silent. When it is proportionately going down under Obama, you freak out. Why is that?

Your definition of proportions is very interesting. Are we talking about the same USA or just the one looked at from an alternate universe?

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5wkMFMMQMAc/TDxgqaSbAOI/AAAAAAAABqo/zCzrL-Nkc7I/s1600/obama%2Bdemocrat%2Bbush%2Brepublican%2Bdebt.jpg&imgrefurl=http://simplybecauseitis.blogspot.com/2010/07/bush-republican-vs-obama-democrat.html&h=578&w=749&sz=79&tbnid=AWnedr1H5hCFSM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=112&zoom=1&usg=__fDKR_1KXNkNJgkeRLoWmLgikPVI=&docid=FkMtrX3iiNTP2M&sa=X&ei=LhBcUeSFEbDi4AOD_oC4CA&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAQ&dur=146

For the record, I didn't agree with how Iraq was handled.. However, that War is starting to look like chump change lately in the here and now spending habits.. If he doesn't stop his massive and irresponsible laissez-faire spending, the US will go bankrupt. Period. Why are the left so unwilling to admit that? Like I asked before, is it that they WANT to see their country fail? Sometimes I wonder of that is true.

Edited April 3, 2013 by roy baty

[roy baty]

Yes, they are also immoral and cowardly.

You still never answered my question. Why do you feel the drone policy and by proxy, President Obama is cowardly and immoral and what would be your moral and fair solution to Al Qaeda?

[GostHacked]

You still never answered my question. Why do you feel the drone policy and by proxy, President Obama is cowardly and immoral and what would be your moral and fair solution to Al Qaeda?

The drone policy is bad for many things.

Violation of sovereign nations.

1 - Since they are used for operations in Pakistan in which Pakistan has made it clear they are against the drone strikes.

2 - They are being used in Yemen for attacks.

What do you mean moral solution to stop Al-Queda? For everything that I am reading Al-Queda is getting a lot of support from the west. Al-Queda was NOT a problem in Iraq until after the invasion. And now NATO has lent support to the rebels aka Al-Queda in Syria.

So when you can understand that NATO are supporting the same terrorists they are trying to kill, it makes the whole thing a bit more confusing of who are the real terrorists.

[Pliny]

The drone policy is bad for many things.

Violation of sovereign nations.

1 - Since they are used for operations in Pakistan in which Pakistan has made it clear they are against the drone strikes.

2 - They are being used in Yemen for attacks.

What do you mean moral solution to stop Al-Queda? For everything that I am reading Al-Queda is getting a lot of support from the west. Al-Queda was NOT a problem in Iraq until after the invasion. And now NATO has lent support to the rebels aka Al-Queda in Syria.

So when you can understand that NATO are supporting the same terrorists they are trying to kill, it makes the whole thing a bit more confusing of who are the real terrorists.

Is there an overall plan for the middle-east? Perhaps something that could be strung into a conspiracy theory?

The removal of long-standing Dictators, like Ghadaffi, Mubarek and Assad, tell me that perhaps territories are being carved up for someone or something.

[GostHacked]

Is there an overall plan for the middle-east? Perhaps something that could be strung into a conspiracy theory?

The removal of long-standing Dictators, like Ghadaffi, Mubarek and Assad, tell me that perhaps territories are being carved up for someone or something.

You tell me, what does it look like to you?

The reason why Gaddafi is gone is simply for the gold dinar which many African nations were on board with. They woudl ditch the US petro dollar for the gold dinar to buy/sell/trade oil in.

But if you want to buy the 'humanitarian aide' bull go right ahead.

http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64145:gaddafis-libya-africas-most-prosperous-democracy&catid=39:opinion-a-analysis&Itemid=132#.UVxVJDfRh8E

Also they did not have a central type bank tied into the global markets. IN the current shape of global financial markets it would make sense to be isolated in many ways from those markets and inherent problems.

But it was all about humanitarian aid and democracy. According to the article I posted here, Libya had more of what would be called a democracy than we have here in Canada. People had a direct say in what went on in their country.

That was all ripped away when the International community gave the rebels the recognition of the legitimate standing government while the decimation of Libya was under way.

The wealth and the democracy has been outright stolen from the Libyans.

[roy baty]

The drone policy is bad for many things.

Violation of sovereign nations.

1 - Since they are used for operations in Pakistan in which Pakistan has made it clear they are against the drone strikes.

2 - They are being used in Yemen for attacks.

What do you mean moral solution to stop Al-Queda? For everything that I am reading Al-Queda is getting a lot of support from the west. Al-Queda was NOT a problem in Iraq until after the invasion. And now NATO has lent support to the rebels aka Al-Queda in Syria.

So when you can understand that NATO are supporting the same terrorists they are trying to kill, it makes the whole thing a bit more confusing of who are the real terrorists.

1 - If countries like Pakistan who was and is clearly harboring terrorist enemies of the US and who will not cooperate in defending their supposed ally (the US) against any future terrorists attacks then (IMHO of course) that country's sovereignty is trumped.

2 - Same goes w/Yemen. If these so-called allies of the West sit back and do nothing against these lunatics it is no surprise the US does strike.

What I mean by "moral solution" can be better stated now in this message as "better alternative" than striking the enemy with drones. So far no one has replied with a better method of dealing with those who are hell bent on the downfall of the West by any means possible. Looking to Allies has clearly failed, hence the drone program. The program has been very successful in downsizing Al Qaeda network and probably Obama's only truly successful program in his track record.

Please provide citations for the rest of your message claiming NATO is now officially funding Al Qaeda. I remember reading something about it recently w/France and the UK unknowingly funding them indirectly. If they did, that makes them bad decision makers with poor intelligence and not intentional terrorist organization financiers or terrorists themselves.

Edited April 3, 2013 by roy baty

[roy baty]

For the record, that whole Arab spring is not as beautiful as it was intended to be..

Edited April 3, 2013 by roy baty

[Pliny]

You tell me, what does it look like to you?

The reason why Gaddafi is gone is simply for the gold dinar which many African nations were on board with. They woudl ditch the US petro dollar for the gold dinar to buy/sell/trade oil in.

But if you want to buy the 'humanitarian aide' bull go right ahead.

http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64145:gaddafis-libya-africas-most-prosperous-democracy&catid=39:opinion-a-analysis&Itemid=132#.UVxVJDfRh8E

Also they did not have a central type bank tied into the global markets. IN the current shape of global financial markets it would make sense to be isolated in many ways from those markets and inherent problems.

But it was all about humanitarian aid and democracy. According to the article I posted here, Libya had more of what would be called a democracy than we have here in Canada. People had a direct say in what went on in their country.

That was all ripped away when the International community gave the rebels the recognition of the legitimate standing government while the decimation of Libya was under way.

The wealth and the democracy has been outright stolen from the Libyans.

Don't know.

It looks like the spread of democracy is the purpose. And is eerily similar to the routing of European Monarchies during the First World War to install democracy there.

The problem with democracy was stated by Bismarck when Germany gave their citizens a democratic vote, "the people will

merely vote themselves favours."

[Pliny]

So far no one has replied with a better method of dealing with those who are hell bent on the downfall of the West by any means possible.

The solution is to develop trade. Most dissent will then be focused internally. Export blue jeans, few may buy them intially but the market will grow and the culture will change.

It's a bit late, the lines are drawn, but it is never too late.

[GostHacked]

1 - If countries like Pakistan who was and is clearly harboring terrorist enemies of the US and who will not cooperate in defending their supposed ally (the US) against any future terrorists attacks then (IMHO of course) that country's sovereignty is trumped.

Where did the terrorists of 9/11 work out of? And what country did most of them come from?

2 - Same goes w/Yemen. If these so-called allies of the West sit back and do nothing against these lunatics it is no surprise the US does strike.

To answer the question I posed above, where we really need to go is Saudi Arabia.

What I mean by "moral solution" can be better stated now in this message as "better alternative" than striking the enemy with drones. So far no one has replied with a better method of dealing with those who are hell bent on the downfall of the West by any means possible.

Well one thing that keeps coming up is that because the west messed around there for so long, 9/11 was retaliation for those western actions.

Looking to Allies has clearly failed, hence the drone program. The program has been very successful in downsizing Al Qaeda network and probably Obama's only truly successful program in his track record.

The allies that were on board with Afghanistan (where Al-Queda was operating out of), but did not join Iraq. It's not that the allies have failed to act, more so than the proof of a real threat from the region is true. The war on terrorism failed.

Please provide citations for the rest of your message claiming NATO is now officially funding Al Qaeda.

I did not say NATO claims it. I claimed it. Based on what I have been reading. NATO has backed the FSA, not something that can be disputed. But with supporting the FSA others from other middle east countries have joined in the fight against Assad. Some of these others belong to Al-Queda and other known terrorist groups. NATO IS in fact supplying the rebels who have elements of known terror organizations.

I remember reading something about it recently w/France and the UK unknowingly funding them indirectly.

The FSA has been operating out of Turkey in the beginning. The FSA was cross border raiding often and when Syria replied with shells in the area a couple went long into Turkey. Turkey cried FOUL and sent in some airstrikes. I guess blowback is a term that people really do not understand.

If they did, that makes them bad decision makers with poor intelligence and not intentional terrorist organization financiers or terrorists themselves.

It's been stated by Ben-Ali, Gaddafi, Mubarek, and even Assad, that foreign fighters were to blame for the Arab Spring as it evolved. All of them have even put some blame on Al-Queda. The Benghazi thing is also very important as it may be a key part in how the FSA are supported by the other members of NATO. That is my speculation.

So indirectly, yes NATO is in fact supplying Al-Queda. Was it their intention? Not sure. Knowing that is taking place, is the support being cut off? No, in fact more support is being given and pledged. Regardless of them knowing that some of this support will more likely than not, come back to bite NATO in the ass. Seems to provide another 'opportunity' if you will to poke their nose into middle eastern affairs time and time again.

So to answer your question, drones are being used to solve a problem they took part in creating in the first place. Drones also offer the bravery of being out of range.