Mr. DB -- Please add this to Barry's "Autocratic" List

[mrplunkey]

NLRB Decisions | Secret Ballot Elections | Micro Unions | The Daily Caller

Barry couldn't get his union paybacks covered in the "Card Check" bill that died in Congress a few years ago, so he mandated huge parts of it through his NRLB.

So here's a quick autocratic summary:

1) Entering Libya without even consulting Congress

2) Implementing portions of the failed Dream Act via executive orders.

3) Refusing to enforce existing laws (DOMA) via the concept of prosecutorial discretion -- a nice way of saying you can pick-and-choose the laws you want to enforce.

4) Implementing portions of the failed Card Check bill via executive agency.

Barry's on quite a roll -- and far more autocratic than his predicessor.

 

[Whiskey]

What was the Card Check bill? Is that the bill that made it easier to unionize a company?

Whiskey

 

[mrplunkey]

What was the Card Check bill? Is that the bill that made it easier to unionize a company?

Whiskey

It was a union payback bill for all the money they gave him in the last election. It made it easier for unions to get into businesses and harder for them to get out. It even eliminated secret ballot elections, making it easier for union thugs to pressure workers into just signing a card to certify the union.

It died in a democratic-controlled congress (it was that bad), but now Barry's NLRB is implementing pieces of it at the agency level and bypassing congress.

He really does think he's king, but we're the morons that made government do large that he can pull it off.

 

[Whiskey]

ah yes. what's bad, right now if someone does not vote on a measure to get a union into a company, it is automatically counted as a NO vote. It was part of the bill to eliminate that. It's amazing how so many are either lazy or forget to vote on important things that could determine their immediate future

Whiskey

 

[mrplunkey]

ah yes. what's bad, right now if someone does not vote on a measure to get a union into a company, it is automatically counted as a NO vote. It was part of the bill to eliminate that. It's amazing how so many are either lazy or forget to vote on important things that could determine their immediate future

Whiskey

Card Check was much nastier than that.

First, let's cover the current process (I've been through three of these over the past 20 years):

1) The union that wants to be voted-in starts off being super-nice and enthusiastic. They're everyone's friend.

2) Then they secure a fairly small, but vocal foothold. Those guys sign cards to indicate they want an election. But technically, the cards only say the worker is interested in holding an election -- not which way he'll vote.

3) There's a minimum percentage of cards the unions need by law, but typically they go for a higher number because they want a margin of safety.

4) To get that next percentage, they start going to people's homes or confronting them at work. The pitch is simple: "Why wouldn't you sign the card? You aren't voting FOR the union, you are voting for MY RIGHT to get to vote. Why are YOU denying ME the right to vote by refusing to sign the card?".

5) Then the unsuspecting worker signs the card, thinking all he's doing is letting the vote occur. But after that, the union supporters explain to him that everyone knows he's signed the card now, so he better support the union and not be a "traitor" to his friends.

6) Once a sufficient number of cards are signed, the election process begins, which is at least technically a secret ballot vote.

7) The election occurs some weeks later, but it's not some low-profile event. Participation will be massive because it's an at-work, during-work-hours event. Most of the people who don't vote will have called in sick that day for work, because they want no part of the union thuggary that will happen during that day (and it will).

-----------

Now what does Card Check try to do? It says that once the cards are signed, a union can be instantly certified based on those cards alone -- no vote at all.

Even hoards of libetards didn't like this idea. It's wrong on many, many levels.

 

[Mr. dB]

When did we "enter" Libya?

 

[Mr. dB]

Barry may be extremely flawed, but he's still better than anything the GOP have to offer.

 

[Whiskey]

lol, oh mrplunky, you sound paranoid your biz will become unionized. "don't even know what you do for a living"

It could be worse, like when I worked for Sams Club back in 99, they verbally made it known that if we ever talked to any union about trying to get one started up that it would be considered... "it was a phrase, but basically said we were being insubordinate" that it would be terms for dismissal.

Whiskey

 

[mrplunkey]

lol, oh mrplunky, you sound paranoid your biz will become unionized. "don't even know what you do for a living"

It could be worse, like when I worked for Sams Club back in 99, they verbally made it known that if we ever talked to any union about trying to get one started up that it would be considered... "it was a phrase, but basically said we were being insubordinate" that it would be terms for dismissal.

Whiskey

Just making a comment like that at work (or even NOT at work) would be an instant unfair labor practice under even Bush's NLRB. The company would be hauled in front of an administrative law judge (in essentially a kangaroo court) and fined.

If you made a comment like that during an active union campaign, you'd run the risk of violating what NLRB considers "test tube conditions" and risk having the results of the election set aside and the union certified regardless of the vote.

I have no doubt that businesses make anti-union threats, but the downside risk of those threats is incredibly high even under the most conservative republican administrations.

 

[mrplunkey]

When did we "enter" Libya?

I'd say us dropping around a billion dollars worth of bombs on them count as "entered". Or is it not rape if you just use the tip?

 

[mrplunkey]

Barry may be extremely flawed, but he's still better than anything the GOP have to offer.

So even middle-of-the-road milktoast Huntsman doesn't pass your liberal litmus tests?

And I like the term "flawed" for Barry. The ultimate irony is how he leveraged his entire presidency on a horribly flawed health care takeover. That, combined with his other economic policies have killed millions of jobs. And when one person loses their job, their entire family loses the health care insurance that went with it. So guess what? Barry has produced more uninsured people than any mean-spirited republican ever could have achieved.

Good times!

 

[Mr. dB]

And Huntsman's chances of finishing higher than 6th in any of the Primary Elections is...???

 

[mrplunkey]

And Huntsman's chances of finishing higher than 6th in any of the Primary Elections is...???

You must have a different definition of "anything" than the rest of us. Is it like "man-made-disaster" or "judicial discretion" now?

 

[Mr. dB]

I don't consider Huntsman "better", just a whole lot less unacceptable than the rest of the Clown College alums in the GOP primary race.

 

[mrplunkey]

I don't consider Huntsman "better", just a whole lot less unacceptable than the rest of the Clown College alums in the GOP primary race.

That's emblematic of the entire "moderate conservative" myth. Basically libtards are going to shell anyone who isn't a Barry clone. I guess "President Perry" is a possibility after all.

 

[Mr. dB]

That's emblematic of the entire "moderate conservative" myth. Basically libtards are going to shell anyone who isn't a Barry clone. I guess "President Perry" is a possibility after all.

"President Perry" could happen if enough ignorant people in fly-over states are galvanized by his line of bullshit. It would be proof of the failure of the US education system. I think even Sarah Palin has more command of reason and logic than that guy. He's a charismatic buffoon.

Would you vote for him in the GOP primary?

I think, or at least hope, that Perry would repel the Middle America fence-sitting swing voters. But would he send them running to Obama, or would they just stay home in November?

 

[Mr. dB]

My hope is that as the GOP hopefuls all jockey for position, things will get ugly enough that they all come out damaged.

And when is Sarah gonna commit one way or the other? She's like the Bret Favre of politics now.

 

[javaguru]

When did we "enter" Libya?

Under old timey rules when the United States Constitution was written...blockades were acts of war...we blockaded Libya and we killed Libyans with air strikes and even drone strikes after Barry said it would be over.

If you're killing people in another country it's an act of war which must be approved by congress...even if you're doing it via video game. It's also widely accepted in the media we have boots on the ground in the form of air controllers and other special ops forces. If I were a left winger and Obama was Bush, being the only sitting US President to win a Nobel peace Prize, I would be calling for his impeachment as a war criminal and enemy of the state.

 

[javaguru]

Barry may be extremely flawed, but he's still better than anything the GOP have to offer.

and that's the reason this country is where it is...You're supporting a third term of George W. Bush on steroids and don't even realize it because he has a D after his name and speaks the talking points.

Do you really think Warren Buffet will pay more taxes for his "fair share" even if you raise the top rate to 100%? Of course not...even if you raised capital gains to capture his income the rich will just lobby exceptions and Warren will still be taxed less than his secretary. As I understand it, Warren's company owes a shitload in back corporate taxes to the feds...

The solution isn't bill xyz it's simply reducing the power of the federal government...We have empirical evidence the amount of fed spending doesn't improve anything...education being my example. How has education improved since 1978 even though federal spending has exploded? I'm a consultant that focuses on outcomes as opposed to inputs...bureaucrats love input based metrics because they are easy to promote...just spend more and things will improve.

 

[mrplunkey]

"President Perry" could happen if enough ignorant people in fly-over states are galvanized by his line of bullshit. It would be proof of the failure of the US education system. I think even Sarah Palin has more command of reason and logic than that guy. He's a charismatic buffoon.

Would you vote for him in the GOP primary?

I think, or at least hope, that Perry would repel the Middle America fence-sitting swing voters. But would he send them running to Obama, or would they just stay home in November?

I believe I will. Anyone who get liberals this upset can't be that bad.

 

[75th]

You're supporting a third term of George W. Bush on steroids

Breath of fresh air to see another conservative on here actually acknowledge that.

To the rest of your points, why not simply start with campaign finance reform and reimpose restrictions on political spending by corporations?

 

[Mr. dB]

I believe I will. Anyone who get liberals this upset can't be that bad.

So you admit that your politics are based on spite rather than policy?

I'll admit that my "support" for Obama at this point is mostly as a place-holder to keep the GOP out. Although I still think he has the potential to rise to the occasion.

 

[mrplunkey]

So you admit that your politics are based on spite rather than policy?

I'll admit that my "support" for Obama at this point is mostly as a place-holder to keep the GOP out. Although I still think he has the potential to rise to the occasion.

For me, the right answer is to make the government much, much smaller. That includes vouchering some near-and-dear programs like medicare, medicaid and education.

But if we're stuck with huge nanny-style government, I can live with the Republican version better than the Democratic one. I don't particularly care for either (as an atheist, the religious right seems pretty ridiculous to me).

So if we do see a President Perry, it might wake voters up enough to realize that large government is bad regardless of the specific agenda they're trying to push through the machine.

 

[canadianhitman]

For me, the right answer is to make the government much, much smaller. That includes vouchering some near-and-dear programs like medicare, medicaid and education.

But if we're stuck with huge nanny-style government, I can live with the Republican version better than the Democratic one. I don't particularly care for either (as an atheist, the religious right seems pretty ridiculous to me).

So if we do see a President Perry, it might wake voters up enough to realize that large government is bad regardless of the specific agenda they're trying to push through the machine.

Well said.

 

[Mr. dB]

Under old timey rules when the United States Constitution was written...blockades were acts of war...we blockaded Libya and we killed Libyans with air strikes and even drone strikes after Barry said it would be over.

If you're killing people in another country it's an act of war which must be approved by congress...even if you're doing it via video game. It's also widely accepted in the media we have boots on the ground in the form of air controllers and other special ops forces. If I were a left winger and Obama was Bush, being the only sitting US President to win a Nobel peace Prize, I would be calling for his impeachment as a war criminal and enemy of the state.

Absurd. First of all, this wasn't a US-led operation. It was Nicky's war, with a UN Resolution behind it. The French, UK, and Italians had far more to do with the politics of this thing.

And at least, unlike the last two operations, this one seems to have been brought to some sort of conclusion, without the need for an occupying force.

Something a friend said on another board:

OTOH, under this Administration, while still far too slow for my personal preferences, we have reduced our presence in Iraq by over 2/3s--a rather significant number; and we're finally starting to pull the numbers back in Afghanistan--keep in mind we had to drop back 20 and punt with Afghanistan after wasting so many years and resources with the Iraqi detour. And I have to admit as slow as this reversal is taking, in reality, we've probably moved as fast as practical without allowing the entire show in both regions to disintegrate into utter chaos.

Maybe it's worth speculating where we'd likely be today if we were still "holding the course", "searching for WMD" or "spreading Western Democracy" across the region--and how may thousands more American and Coalition troops would be dead because of it.

 

[mrplunkey]

Absurd. First of all, this wasn't a US-led operation. It was Nicky's war, with a UN Resolution behind it. The French, UK, and Italians had far more to do with the politics of this thing.

And at least, unlike the last two operations, this one seems to have been brought to some sort of conclusion, without the need for an occupying force.

Something a friend said on another board:

Barry is the commander in chief. He authorized the operation.

Perhaps no one in the White House knew about the deployment?

 

[javaguru]

Absurd. First of all, this wasn't a US-led operation. It was Nicky's war, with a UN Resolution behind it. The French, UK, and Italians had far more to do with the politics of this thing.

And at least, unlike the last two operations, this one seems to have been brought to some sort of conclusion, without the need for an occupying force.

Something a friend said on another board:

It's interesting the GOP has the reputation for war mongering but just look at FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson...followed by Clinton and Obama...they like acting as kings with their war mongering. How many wars have been declared since WWII...fucking zero.

I agree with Dennis Kucinich, one of the most progressive members of the Dem congress on this issue. If you're going to kill brown skins in another country, it's been the modus operandi of the United States, then you better declare an official war because the United States Constitution requires it....which every member of congress pledged to defend.

Finally, NATO is the United States and it was lead by the United States until the air defenses were destroyed, killing many brown skins, and after that the United States just supported and paid for it....How is supporting and paying for the operation not the same as being a part of it? It's like the "wheel man" of a bank robbery claiming he wasn't a bank robber because he was just giving a lift to his friends. Even MSNBC contributors acknowledge there are "US boots on the ground" in the form of special operators...that's how the Western rebels were more successful than the Eastern ones....Keep supporting your Libya wasn't a war theory by claiming you're a Dem and not the Satan that was George Bush because that's your only argument.

 

[mrplunkey]

Well the rebels were so grateful for our involvement that they're going to give us the lockerbie bomber back!

Oh wait... no they aren't.

I guess a billion dollars worth of bombs doesn't buy what it used to.

 

[Mr. dB]

It's interesting the GOP has the reputation for war mongering but just look at FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson...followed by Clinton and Obama...they like acting as kings with their war mongering. How many wars have been declared since WWII...fucking zero.

I agree with Dennis Kucinich, one of the most progressive members of the Dem congress on this issue. If you're going to kill brown skins in another country, it's been the modus operandi of the United States, then you better declare an official war because the United States Constitution requires it....which every member of congress pledged to defend.

Finally, NATO is the United States and it was lead by the United States until the air defenses were destroyed, killing many brown skins, and after that the United States just supported and paid for it....How is supporting and paying for the operation not the same as being a part of it? It's like the "wheel man" of a bank robbery claiming he wasn't a bank robber because he was just giving a lift to his friends. Even MSNBC contributors acknowledge there are "US boots on the ground" in the form of special operators...that's how the Western rebels were more successful than the Eastern ones....Keep supporting your Libya wasn't a war theory by claiming you're a Dem and not the Satan that was George Bush because that's your only argument.

What "Libya wasn't a war theory"??? All I said was that it was Nicky's war, not Barry's.

And I agree that it's odd that "war" hasn't been declared since WWII. And even weirder that none of those operations since WWII have been brought to a proper conclusion. They've just festered as quagmires for years and years.

Vietnam - that one's got so many dirty fingerprints on it. Truman started it in 1946. The French were doing our bidding in the first Indochina War. That complicity continued through Eisenhower, where Nixon was his Vietnam points man after 1957. We had the Kennedy "police action" and "advisors", then finally Johnson stepped it up to a full combat and occupying force situation. Nixon continued the policy while giving lip service to ending it - his interference with Nguyen Van Thieu in 1968 before he was even elected President, before he had even secured the GOP nomination, should have resulted in charges. And after all the lives, materiel and treasure wasted over there we still lost.

US post-WWII foreign policy is a shambles.

 

[mrplunkey]

US post-WWII foreign policy is a shambles.

Barry was supposed to fix that and improve our reputation throughout the world. Aren't the Muslims supposed to start liking us soon?

How's Gitmo coming along? I sure am glad he scaled-back the patriot act and the rendition program. Oh, and I sure am glad he's not sending drones into foreign countries we aren't even at war with.

Go Barry go!

 

[ledhead]

What "Libya wasn't a war theory"??? All I said was that it was Nicky's war, not Barry's.

And I agree that it's odd that "war" hasn't been declared since WWII. And even weirder that none of those operations since WWII have been brought to a proper conclusion. They've just festered as quagmires for years and years.

Vietnam - that one's got so many dirty fingerprints on it. Truman started it in 1946. The French were doing our bidding in the first Indochina War. That complicity continued through Eisenhower, where Nixon was his Vietnam points man after 1957. We had the Kennedy "police action" and "advisors", then finally Johnson stepped it up to a full combat and occupying force situation. Nixon continued the policy while giving lip service to ending it - his interference with Nguyen Van Thieu in 1968 before he was even elected President, before he had even secured the GOP nomination, should have resulted in charges. And after all the lives, materiel and treasure wasted over there we still lost.

US post-WWII foreign policy is a shambles.

Wrong, Nixon had great foreign policy skills. First pres to visit Red China. Second, he bombed the hell out of Cambodia and Laos because the NVA were taking that route to supply the VC with arms and other supplies, so how in the world could you say Nixon gave lip service? Actually, the Vietnamese surrender was on ink then they pinned Watergate on Nixon.

The French were doing our bidding in the first Indochina War, where under the sun did you come up with that one? Vietnam was colonized by the French in 1869. The Vietnamese were fighting for their independance.

What about Reagan's foreign policy? He stopped the Cold War without an overt war. What about how he dealt with terrorists, they tried to get funky once, and then they got it, and never made another sound while he was in office.

 

[Mr. dB]

[/B]



The French were doing our bidding in the first Indochina War, where under the sun did you come up with that one?

From the classified US documents that were leaked in 1971: "United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense".

 

[Mr. dB]

[/B]

Wrong, Nixon had great foreign policy skills. First pres to visit Red China. Second, he bombed the hell out of Cambodia and Laos because the NVA were taking that route to supply the VC with arms and other supplies, so how in the world could you say Nixon gave lip service? Actually, the Vietnamese surrender was on ink then they pinned Watergate on Nixon.

Gee, if Nixon visiting China was such genius, why didn't Reagan visit Russia? Why is normalizing relations with one Communist dictatorship genius, yet helping cause another to crumble also genius?

And I said Nixon gave lip service to the peace process, ending the war. He ran on that in the 1968 election, while at the same time he was secretly interfering with Nguyen Van Thieu and the negotiations.

Nixon and Kissinger's middle east policy is what has landed us in the present situation with the Arabs.

 

[ledhead]

Gee, if Nixon visiting China was such genius, why didn't Reagan visit Russia? Why is normalizing relations with one Communist dictatorship genius, yet helping cause another to crumble also genius?

And I said Nixon gave lip service to the peace process, ending the war. He ran on that in the 1968 election, while at the same time he was secretly interfering with Nguyen Van Thieu and the negotiations.

Nixon and Kissinger's middle east policy is what has landed us in the present situation with the Arabs.

First, Reagan didn't have to go to Russia, he refused to meet with them unless it was on his terms. He was the puppet master and it worked.

LBJ was afraid to bomb Cambodia and Laos in fear of the Chinese and Soviets getting involved. Nixon wasn't afraid of either one of them, so he wrecked those two countries. Remember, that's what spawned the Kent State Riots. Nixon knew peace negotiations were impossible with them people because they have/had no regard for human life. Their philosophy was they didn't care how many people they lost, and they felt we cared how many people we lost, but the bombings worked, they indeed were ready to surrender, but like I said they pinned Watergate on him. Politics and multinationalism is what kept that war going, they were defeated.

No, Eisenhower, John Dullas, and Dean Rusk are the real catalysts for our problems we are having in the Middle East today.

In 1953, the CIA helped to engineer a coup that put the SHAH of Iran in power. The Agency overthrew Mossadegh and put Shah Pahlevi in power. The CIA fixed the parliamentary election in Lebanon in 1957, where Christians were running the show instead of Muslims. The agency put Camille Chamoun in charge. Those situations are what left a bitter taste in mouths of Middle East people. All, that was done to appease Mr. Rockefeller.

 

[ledhead]

From the classified US documents that were leaked in 1971: "United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense".

You can't use this as a comprehensive tool. There is way too much history involved. Anyway, does the article tell you how the CIA set up the French in the Highlands and the French refused to listen to the CIA and a result of that was Dien Bien Phu( (1954), the French were slaughtered by the Viet Minh. Then the U.S started to really get involved.

 

[Mr. dB]

But the big Cambodian carpet-bombing campaign was in 1970, and Watergate wasn't until 1972/1973.

Anyway, we should have never been there in the first place, and every President from Truman through Ford got their hands dirty in it.

Maybe we coulda/almost/shoulda won, but we didn't. It was a complete waste, vs. just letting Uncle Ho take it in the '50s.

My point is that the US shouldn't be starting wars we can't finish, and we don't have the stomach to do what it takes to finish one, it's just too brutal. We won't stand for another Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. So we end up in these stalemates and quagmires like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Mr. dB]

 

[canadianhitman]

My point is that the US shouldn't be starting wars we can't finish, and we don't have the stomach to do what it takes to finish one, it's just too brutal. We won't stand for another Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. So we end up in these stalemates and quagmires like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Agree 100%. When you have an enemy down, slit his damn throat...don't let him stand back up over and over and over.

 

[mrplunkey]

But the big Cambodian carpet-bombing campaign was in 1970, and Watergate wasn't until 1972/1973.

Anyway, we should have never been there in the first place, and every President from Truman through Ford got their hands dirty in it.

Maybe we coulda/almost/shoulda won, but we didn't. It was a complete waste, vs. just letting Uncle Ho take it in the '50s.

My point is that the US shouldn't be starting wars we can't finish, and we don't have the stomach to do what it takes to finish one, it's just too brutal. We won't stand for another Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. So we end up in these stalemates and quagmires like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

You left out Libya. Or are you declaring "Mission Accomplished"?

 

[ledhead]

But the big Cambodian carpet-bombing campaign was in 1970, and Watergate wasn't until 1972/1973.

Anyway, we should have never been there in the first place, and every President from Truman through Ford got their hands dirty in it.

Maybe we coulda/almost/shoulda won, but we didn't. It was a complete waste, vs. just letting Uncle Ho take it in the '50s.

My point is that the US shouldn't be starting wars we can't finish, and we don't have the stomach to do what it takes to finish one, it's just too brutal. We won't stand for another Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. So we end up in these stalemates and quagmires like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

I know you are a older fellow, so I don't want you to think I'm being disrespectful, I'm not..

The media got a hold of the bombings because it was done in secrete, then when the media leaked it all hell broke loose because the left-wing, faggot-pacifists that pretended they were these great humanitarians were crying about women and children being killed. I say so what! There are no rules to war. Anyone, that has engaged in real combat would utterly agree. Those who havn't opinions mean nothing...

Anyway, they were ready to surrender, but the media held things up, Nixon was ready to start waxing them again then they framed him... Do you know how long it takes to withdraw from a war? Check the stats, by 1971-72 the draft rate fell dramatically, a leading indicator the war was almost over, but the left wanted us to lose...So they played their games with the media and universities, ect. The only reason why Nixon was bombing them like that was because they were shady little pricks who would not fight head up unless they had us out numbered 10-1 and then they still would hit and run.

Now, I don't want to sound like some crazy nationalist, jingoist, cultic maniac, but the breed I came from never felt any war was too brutal, the ones I knew/know got off on combat.

Desert Storm: won
Iraq War: won
Afghan: will be won soon
Vietnam: lost politically, won military

 

[Mr. dB]

You left out Libya. Or are you declaring "Mission Accomplished"?

I don't see an occupying force on the ground there.

 

[mrplunkey]

I don't see an occupying force on the ground there.

Outstanding!

So now we can bomb whoever the hell we want as long as there's no occupying force there? We'll see how well that definition works when President Perry bombs Iran and North Korea.

And where are Syria's bombs? They've surpassed the Libyan atrocities now. Surely we don't just pick on the smallest of the little guys, do we?

 

[Mr. dB]

Outstanding!

So now we can bomb whoever the hell we want as long as there's no occupying force there? We'll see how well that definition works when President Perry bombs Iran and North Korea.

I didn't say that makes it okay, I said that makes it not a never-ending quagmire like Iraq or Afghanistan.

And where are Syria's bombs? They've surpassed the Libyan atrocities now. Surely we don't just pick on the smallest of the little guys, do we?

I guess we're waiting for the French to take the initiative there too.

 

[mrplunkey]

I didn't say that makes it okay, I said that makes it not a never-ending quagmire like Iraq or Afghanistan.

You don't think the US will be dealing with the mess in Libya for the next 25 years? We were part of breaking it -- we bought it.

Technically we didn't have boots on the ground in Afghanistan when we fought against the Russians either. And we all know how well that turned out.

I guess we're waiting for the French to take the initiative there too.

So our humanitarian interventional policy is now routed through the French?

 

[Mr. dB]

So our humanitarian interventional policy is now routed through the French?

Irony impaired much?

Look, I don't know how they pick and choose these gigantic foreign policy follies, for every one that garners some sort of intervention there's two more that get ignored to death, like Somalia or Darfur or Rwanda. Perhaps it all boils down to business interests, maybe ExxonMobil needs Libya and doesn't need Syria?

What I do know is that having a discussion with you is one of these Afghanistan-like quagmires, because you keep taking an adversarial position no matter what, and subtly change the subject instead of replying directly, it's like you're not interested in any actual exchange of ideas, but just setting up your opponent to paint themselves into a corner so that you can win. It's tiresome.

 

[-SD-]

Mr. dB just needs to have sushi dinner with plunk to gain a true understanding lol

 

[Mr. dB]

Mr. dB just needs to have sushi dinner with plunk to gain a true understanding lol

He'd sneak wasabi into my green tea while I was distracted by the onion volcano.

 

[mrplunkey]

Look, I don't know how they pick and choose these gigantic foreign policy follies, for every one that garners some sort of intervention there's two more that get ignored to death, like Somalia or Darfur or Rwanda. Perhaps it all boils down to business interests, maybe ExxonMobil needs Libya and doesn't need Syria?

So Barry is just a pawn of ExxonMobil and willing to risk US lives for fossil fuel interests?

Surely you must loathe him then. Please expound on what a terrible president he is.

 

[75th]

Mr. dB just needs to have sushi dinner with plunk to gain a true understanding lol

loolololoo

Keep in mind it also has to be in the location of discussion.

If deebs wants to know plunk's real opinions on Afghanistan, they must eat in a cafe in Kabul. Preferably closing some type of business deal (of the monkey stock picking or x-ray machine selling variety).

After all, if you havent been there, how can you expect to know a damn thing about it?

 

[Spartacus]

tell me I' not the only one to confude caligirul85 and cindylou

 

[Spartacus]

scratch two flat tops

 

[Spartacus]

damn the Japs were unlucky at midway

 

[Spartacus]

that bill o'reilly tshirt
navyseals : 1
binladen: 0

 

[Spartacus]

isn't so hot now that a dozen or so seals went down in that helo

 

[Spartacus]

lions:5
christians: 0

 

[Spartacus]

what baloney