Carville: Wake up Democrats; you could lose

[Jim Raynor]

If your only defense of His Imperial Majesty is "the Republicans will push even harder for the same stuff he pushes for", I can really only say concession accepted, since that is agreeing that there isn't significant difference on major policy issues.

Sorry, did I forget the part where Obama did not invade Iraq, and is thus not just the same as Bush?

Black and white! Who cares about little things like details!

[Lord Zentei]

I'm cool with the President sending drones after terrorists and someone rather openly working with terrorists. And I don't give a rat's ass that Awlaki was an American citizen - the logical conclusion to that being that it's better if Obama orders the killing of non-Americans for the same reasons.

This may sound like a cliche, but: who decides who is a "terrorist"? Incidentally, I hope you realize that the whole point of rule of law is not to provide criminals with an avenue of escape, but to have a formal protocol to distinguish the guilty from the innocent.

And here we go with MORE outrageous exaggerations!

Unfortunately, those are not exaggerations - the Obama administration has done all of those things.

[Jim Raynor]

Of course "terrorist" is a gray label that can open the door to doing all sorts of things. That said, I don't give a damn about Awlaki.

And I will clarify that the "exaggerations" that I was speaking of there was Bakustra ridiculous accusing me of endorsing all that crap ("you are saying that these are A-OK") just because of a brief little post of mine telling people not to exaggerate about Obama being the "dictator" of this country. Who, if we're to believe two people here, is just like Bush despite the lack of a massive ground invasion of another country.

[Lord Zentei]

Of course "terrorist" is a gray label that can open the door to doing all sorts of things. That said, I don't give a damn about Awlaki.

OK... but that's a problem then, isn't it? Because Awalki was a target simply because the president deemed that he was a "terrorist". Gray label that opens the door on all kinds of things - that's exactly the issue here.

And I will clarify that the "exaggerations" that I was speaking of there was Bakustra ridiculous accusing me of endorsing all that crap ("you are saying that these are A-OK") just because of a brief little post of mine telling people not to exaggerate about Obama being the "dictator" of this country. Who, if we're to believe two people here, is just like Bush despite the lack of a massive ground invasion of another country.

Um, when you post stuff like this:

I'm cool with the President sending drones after terrorists and someone rather openly working with terrorists. And I don't give a rat's ass that Awlaki was an American citizen - the logical conclusion to that being that it's better if Obama orders the killing of non-Americans for the same reasons.

Then it rather does give the impression that you're A-OK with it. Unless "I'm cool with X, Y and Z" means something other than "I'm A-OK with X, Y and Z".

As for the "dictator" quip, obviously that's hyperbole - if he really were a dictator, he wouldn't need to worry about Congress or the judiciary and could simply circumvent rule of law, and issue rulings on war and on life and death judgements by dictat or something.

[Lord Zentei]

^
One question of importance right now is, would Emperor Mitt be worse than Emperor Barack? *

What are your thoughts on that one (though I surmise you're voting for a third party)?


* See, monarchs are identified by their FIRST names.

[Jim Raynor]

Sorry, did I forget the part where Obama did not invade Iraq, and is thus not just the same as Bush?

Again, I didn't say he's the same as Emperor Bush. I said he's fucking worse.

Because selectively killing people with a drone program that started small, and is still far short from what the US military can do in an all-out effort, is "fucking worse" than pushing for and getting a ground war that has resulted in thousands upon thousands of deaths. Not ending an occupation right away is worse than starting an unnecessary war in the first place.

Are you going to keep flailing around with your hyperbole?

Does everyone else want this thread to go back to level-headed posts about the actual original topic?

[Lord Revan]

aren't monarchs identified by their regal name which generally is one of their given names (but not nesserly their first name) and almost never their family name.

[Jim Raynor]

I like how you accused me of forgetting about Afgahnistan, selectively bringing up the death rate there in the last few years. Meanwhile, Bush was distracted away from Afghanistan because he was busy invading Iraq, with a far greater death toll involved. What are the numbers on that again? Regardless, you're "sure" that Obama will kill enough people (that again, have not died yet in a war that's already drawing down) to be "fucking worse" than Bush.

Yeah, I can see this is going nowhere.

[Rogue 9]

Yea, and just yesterday there was another one: we "stopped" another underwear bomb plot.... where the guy who was going to do it was an undercover Saudi agent working with the CIA.

So if we actually use effective means to stop a terrorist cell, it doesn't count as stopping it? The Yemeni cell would simply have given the bomb and the mission to someone else if the double agent hadn't volunteered; they certainly weren't funded by the FBI.

[Zinegata]

We better be careful with what we're posting in this thread. King-dictator-emperor Obama and his black helicopters might come for us!

Yeah, and I'm still not seeing any drones over the House of Testingstani either despite of all the "We hate America and we're the only ones who are smart because of it!" elitist echo chamber nonsense that goes on there (particularly from Bakustra and D XIII).

It's so pathetic it's sad.

[Jim Raynor]

What are the numbers on that again?

In my previous post: "I'm sure if we don't stop him, he'll rack up a megadeath too before the eight years are out."

Megadeth is the band that did Symphony of Destruction.

Megadeath is 1,000,000 deaths.

So Obama's going to kill somewhere in the neighborhood of a million people in the near future, and you're sure about that. Why am I even continuing with this? That's right, I shouldn't.

The numbers on Iraq's dead are in contention. Some put it thereabouts 100,000, but there's also studies that put it as high as 2,000,000. Nobody really knows, since we don't give enough of a shit about brown people to even count the bodies we leave in our wake.

Way the hell higher than the number who died in Afghanistan in the last couple of years, going by your own numbers.

[Mr Bean]

The numbers on Iraq's dead are in contention. Some put it thereabouts 100,000, but there's also studies that put it as high as 2,000,000. Nobody really knows, since we don't give enough of a shit about brown people to even count the bodies we leave in our wake.

Correction we do care enough to do the count both the Pentagon and the State department have done counts, those counts range from 109k to unknown since the best three counts were all classified after being preformed and we only got a peak at one of the three because of Wikileaks the Pentagon count is still classified. We also have Lancent and OBR counts using survey methodologies that turned out 400k-1200k casualties plus the acknowledged UN numbers of 1.9 million refugees as a result of the Iraq war. Myself I place the real number somewhere between 200k-500k just based of the Iraq death count numbers which are low-ball (116k and they only count bodies which make news story in the morgue which won't happen in areas in 2003-2007 where there was no one to bring the bodies to)

Again we do care but under the Bush administration there was an urge to both get an accurate count and not tell anyone.
Under the Obama administration we can't look backwards least we see that unpleasantness.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But, maybe not. Maybe without the US government these plots would have fizzled on their own. How do we know if the danger is real?

Are you insane? No, seriously. Have you seen cthulhu rise from the depths of R'lyeh and descended into madness from which there is no return?

Entrapment is when you induce an individual to do something they would not typically do. For example, it is illegal for the police or their agents to go under cover as a building owner and offer the inspector a bribe for violations they have intentionally rigged. They can only intentionally rig violations and then wait for the inspector to solicit the bribe.

Setting someone up to do something they are already planning to do is not entrapment. In the same way, the CIA sending in a guy to join a terrorist group and then work through the ranks of said terrorist group by giving said group carefully controlled bits of intelligence, so that they take him into the workings of larger plots is not encouraging them. It is not entrapping them. It is how fucking spies and undercover operatives work and it is as integral in civilian law enforcement as it is in military intelligence and counter-terrorism.

Does our CIA sometimes go off the rails? Of course. But not in this case.

But, we've heard the same story since then a lot of times: we foiled this terror plot when they went to an undercover agent, so the public was never actually in any real risk.

That is how it works you addle-brained sack of rat piss. You saturate terrorist organizations with spies so they cannot take a shit without you knowing. When you do that, you are in no danger. If you dont, there is little way outside of blatantly illegal and unethical human rights violations to find out what said groups are planning to do. Spies, counter-intelligence, and careful misdirection are how you protect the truth with a bodyguard of lies, and rip crucial secrets from your enemy's own efforts. It is how you destroy an enemy bent on destroying you, without necessarily having to kill a shit load of people.

Would you oppose the use of spies in WW2 as well? The spies absolutely critical to our winning that war including the double agent who was head of the Abwehr? Oh, wait... I forgot, you would have had us stay out of WW2 and permitted an evil greater than war to consume Europe, West Asia, and North Africa.

[Zinegata]

Like I said, me, being white, am likely not going to become a target for this personally. That doesn't make it right. That doesn't mean I won't do what I can for my brothers and sisters who follow Islam, or who have a different skin color, or were born on the other side of the world.

Dude, I'm from a non-white country, and what the Philippine government has done to Muslims in Mindanao over the past 30 years is arguably an act of ethnic cleansing and genocide (which is why some of our Muslims seriously prefer having American help rather than from our own government) . Yet do we ever hear a peep about that from people who are supposedly "doing what they can for their brothers and sisters who follow Islam"?

The answer? Almost never, because if it ain't being done by Americans it's apparently okay. It's totally okay for the Taliban to stone women to death, but America bombing them is an act of iredeemable evil. That's called blatant anti-American double standards. It's nothing new. It's frankly old and tired. And the reason people aren't listening (except for your various friends in NT) is because they can tell a lot of it is bullshit and have tuned out the hacks who keep repeating the same nonsense. It's on the same level as Sean Hannity saying over and over than same-sex marriage is evil.

This is why constantly shitting up every thread with hyperboles about Obama is sad and pathetic. Because exaggerations on this level prevent actual, real serious issues from being discussed.

We're already talking about more interesting and IMPORTANT things - like the need for Democrats to step up to keep an actual fucknuts insane president from taking power in America.

Because in the next election we might seriously see somebody like Michelle Bachman on the Republican ticket - and she's so insane that she seriously advocated using nuclear weapons against folks like Iran. That's not gonna be good for EVERYONE.

[Bakustra]

I'd like you to provide direct quotes where either I or Adam have declared that it is A-OK for the Taleban to stone women. Or else admit that you're simply making shit up and unable to distinguish criticism of America from hatred of it.

Would you oppose the use of spies in WW2 as well? The spies absolutely critical to our winning that war including the double agent who was head of the Abwehr? Oh, wait... I forgot, you would have had us stay out of WW2 and permitted an evil greater than war to consume Europe, West Asia, and North Africa.

I'd also like you to present direct quotes concerning this as well. I mean, you're already in full "pacifists-must-all-be-horribly-slaughtered" mode so I don't expect much, but even some equivocations would be nice.

[Jim Raynor]

This is why constantly shitting up every thread with hyperboles about Obama is sad and pathetic. Because exaggerations on this level prevent actual, real serious issues from being discussed.

Damn straight. This thread has been effectively derailed from the actual topic that it started with.

Obama is worse than Bush and will surely butcher a million within the next few years...also, Hu Jintao is another Mao, and Hugo Chavez is bound to catch up to Saddam. Man, what a great and productive discussion this is.

[Bakustra]

This is why constantly shitting up every thread with hyperboles about Obama is sad and pathetic. Because exaggerations on this level prevent actual, real serious issues from being discussed.

Damn straight. This thread has been effectively derailed from the actual topic that it started with.

Obama is worse than Bush and will surely butcher a million within the next few years...also, Hu Jintao is another Mao, and Hugo Chavez is bound to catch up to Saddam. Man, what a great and productive discussion this is.

The actual topic is "James Carville is the left-wing centrist Henry Kissinger" so let's talk about that. I heard- I heard that James Carville, former commentator on CNN's Crossfire and former Clinton strategist, regularly takes heavy breaths and moans when thinking about the branding and marketing of politicians. I heard that this is a thing he does and it is pretty gross to see in person.

When asked if we would launch a nuclear first strike against the great (and innocent) people of Iran, Emperor Obama replied "no options are off the table".

My answer would have been "no, absolutely not".

And the thing is, this probably doesn't reflect on him as a person so much as on the national security/intelligence establishment, which is obsessed with keeping things close to the chest. Thus, they endorse downright evil actions like this because they see it as a way to deny information/intelligence to the "enemy" and this is a systemic problem. It can't be fixed by shuffling NSA/DIA/CIA directors. The change has to be massive.

[Zinegata]

I'm against all death. Stopping America's evil is simply step two toward a greater world. (It is step two because it is closest to my personal control; step one was making a personal decision that I shall not kill).

Then stop shitting all over the thread where we're worrying over a possible Bachmann-like candidate getting access to nuclear weapons because Mittens losing results in the Republicans deciding to go MOAR CONSERVATIVE.

When asked if we would launch a nuclear first strike against the great (and innocent) people of Iran, Emperor Obama replied "no options are off the table".

My answer would have been "no, absolutely not".

This is one of the saddest and most pathetic lies I've ever seen.

This was the actual context of Obama's "no options are off the table" quote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... B120120125

United States would keep up pressure on its disputed nuclear program with "no options off the table" but said the door remained open to talks for a peaceful resolution

No, Obama wasn't threatening Iran with nuclear weapons. He was issuing a warning, but still said the door was open to peace talks. That's totally not like Bachman saying she'd totally use nukes in response to an attack.

You're fucknuts insane for making this comparison.

So seriously, stop pretending that you're not doing anything but to troll. Really, you're just following your modus operandi:

a) Say something stupidly anti-American not supported by the facts.

b) Wait for someone to call you out.

c) Go back to your little forum and giggle with your friends about how "Jim, Zine, and Alyeska" are all pro-American douches for pointing out that your facts are faulty. And your friends will back you up anyway because it's an echo chamber that cares not about the facts.

It's really so sad and pathetic; that it pays to point it out so people stop feeding this nonsense.

Bakustra->

The actual topic is "James Carville is the left-wing centrist Henry Kissinger" so let's talk about that. I heard- I heard that James Carville, former commentator on CNN's Crossfire and former Clinton strategist, regularly takes heavy breaths and moans when thinking about the branding and marketing of politicians. I heard that this is a thing he does and it is pretty gross to see in person.

Oh please, if you want to swoon over James Carville's hot body do it over at NT where less people can see it.

[Zinegata]

Then stop shitting all over the thread where we're worrying over Bachmann getting access to nuclear weapons.

Ms. Bachmann has been out of the race for a while, FYI.

Tallking about the next election, if you'd actually read instead of shitposting.

Oh, you follow me around the internet. I'm flattered, but sorry, but I'm kinda taken.

Not really; given that you conveniently put all of your whining about me and SDN in general (God knows why you don't just leave when you apparently hate the place) I find it useful to check if you actually want to talk, or you're just busy being a troll so you can look good to your friends.

If anything, me needing to check NT to see if you're actually interested in a discussion as opposed to simple mud-slinging is really a sign of how cripplingly disfunctional your mental processes are than anything else. You're so fucked up that you seriously think trolling people and running giggling to your friends is useful and helps America on the PATH TO PEACE; to the point you apparently "punish" yourself by going to a forum you apparently don't even like.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Unless, of course, you're one of the people being spied upon.

If some guy comes up to you and says "would you like to bomb the empire state building" you say no. It might be abhorrent to do domestic surveillance without legal oversight. However, doing something like infiltrating the american Nazi party, potentially dangerous militia groups, or heaven forbid a terrorist cell in something-stan is how you get the best intelligence with the minimum of civil and human rights violations. The same technique is used in civilian law enforcement against everything from cocaine distributors, to the mob, to busting corrupt officials.

I notice you dont even bother to address the practical utility of such methods, how they are performed, and what value they are.

If we're doing body counts, over 60,000,000 people perished in WW2. Are you so sure the other evil is greater?

The subjugation of all of Europe, the enslavement of every non-germanic living east of the Elbe, the complete destruction of the jewish and romani peoples? Yeah. Yeah I am. A quarter of those sixty million were killed in death camps. The majority of the rest were suffered by russians defending their existence as an ethnic group from Nazis bent on enslaving them to death in a quest for agricultural ethnic Lebensraum.

To say nothing of the Japanese. Does the Rape of Nanking ring a bell?

And, as I've said before, if I had my way, WW2 would never have happened. Proactive peace, we might, just might be able to do the right thing today to prevent the wrong thing tomorrow.

And what would that right thing have been with Hitler?

But, here's an interesting question though, let's say we're at 1939 in our own timeline. I've read some historians say that the average German citizen didn't care too much about the Jews, and besides, had bigger things on their mind with the war.

Their democratic system stopped being legitimate once the Gestappo formed. Besides, there still would have been war because Hitler invaded Poland, France, the Low Countries, Denmark, Russia, and Norway. You think he would have done these things had France and Britain put their head in the sand?

You dont need Willing enemies to start a war. Dumbfuck. Invasion is unilateral.

Without the war to keep them focused outward, would more and more people have stood up for the Jews internally?

You said it yourself. Those who did were martyred. They did it in countries actively resisting Nazi occupation. You dont think they could have done so internally?

Would there have been a coup had we just waited a little bit longer?

The Abwehr tried. It was called the Stauffenberg plot. It failed and the head of the Abwehr was tortured to death. Even had an assassination been completed against Hitler, Himmler would have taken over, and he was the platonic form of murderously insane.

Maybe a more general coup? How exactly would that have been accomplished? Do you you have any idea how hard it is to coup a properly industrial state, let alone a militarized totalitarian one, say after a purge of every officer who might rabble rouse in the ranks?

Was there any other way to save the Jews (and homosexuals and so many more) that wouldn't involve throwing away tens of millions of lives and bringing massive destruction?

No. Propose an alternative that is not thoughtless drivel and we might be able to discuss it. I dont think you will have one though.

[Simon_Jester]

The pacifist solution to World War II is: don't put Hitler in charge of anything. That's Plan A.

After Plan A, it gets really hard to think of a Plan B that doesn't make the planner sound like a complete idiot who's doomed to fail and get millions more people killed.

Pacifism has some of the world's best Plan As. It also has some of the world's worst Plan Bs.

To update this example into a frame of reference D-13 talks about more often, let's cast Americans as the heavies of the piece, which is actually not hard to do. Suppose you are a Middle Eastern country and you become convinced that the Americans are going to start bombing and invading and generally freedomizing you no matter what you do or say, because their idea of negotiation is "what's ours is ours, what's yours is negotiable."

What do you do? Seriously, do you just sort of sit around? Do you reform your government along lines that you hope will please them? Do you just let them walk in and do whatever the hell they want?

[Thanas]

We better be careful with what we're posting in this thread. King-dictator-emperor Obama and his black helicopters might come for us!

Yeah, and I'm still not seeing any drones over the House of Testingstani either despite of all the "We hate America and we're the only ones who are smart because of it!" elitist echo chamber nonsense that goes on there (particularly from Bakustra and D XIII).

Quit trolling and stop bringing other boards in on this.

[Aaron MkII]

For fuck sakes Adam, lay off the dope. WWI was pretty much inevitable after the Treaty of Versailles fucked Germany. No Allied involvement pretty much means a German occupied Europe for far longer, my Grandmother and her family would have starved to death in Amsterdam.

Was WWII happy fun time? Fuck no, but perhaps someone should invent a time machine, go back to 1918 and smack the French with a bat?

[MKSheppard]

I'm against all death. Stopping America's evil is simply step two toward a greater world.

So how do you propose to end all death? This sounds like the schism that sparked off the civil war in the Total Annihilation-verse.

[Simon_Jester]

Shep, don't bother, this is like arguing with a brick wall.

"There's got to be a better way, even when things are this bad!"

"Like... what?"

"I don't know. But I don't believe that I could be wrong about this. There's got to be a better way!"

"How?"

"If we all worked together we'd all see it!"

"But... does this actually work?"

"It doesn't matter! Anything is better than the alternative, no matter what happens!"

Destructionator has done a really amazing job of making me feel disillusioned with pacifism, I have to say.