According to Limbaugh, Democrats are responsible for high-seas piracy

[jthomas666]

I guess I'm missing the connect between the war on terror and Somali pirates (petty theft writ large). I think there's probably as good a chance these pirates are members of Sam's Club as they are of Al Quada

The logic appears to work something like this (Disclaimer: this is an approximation--I took classes in logic, not neocon hyperpseudologic (or as it is sometimes called, "truthiness")):

1. Something bad happens.
2. It's Obama's fault.

I guess someone in the neocon propaganda office finally figured out how to do a search and replace. On the plus side, it's gotta be a relief for Bill Clinton. :eek2:

 

[It's On A Slab]

Meh - if someone posts something you do not agree with, and it's (in your opinion) so far out of the realm of normalcy, and you feel the need to berate, belittle and humiliate, then why bother?

92 - not you personally, of course. I'm speaking in general terms of some of the replies that appear here routinely.

I don't think berate, belittle and humiliate was something dreamed up by the few of us here who don't pay homage to the official right-wing orthodoxy.

Sometimes I get the feeling that it's not the ideas that they disagree with, it's that they're even allowed to be expressed at all.

 

[Relayer]

The logic appears to work something like this (Disclaimer: this is an approximation--I took classes in logic, not neocon hyperpseudologic (or as it is sometimes called, "truthiness")):

1. Something bad happens.
2. It's Obama's fault.

Replace Obama with Bush and you have the logic of the left.

It's a shocker, I know. Comes with the territory, but the side in power always like to whine about it.

 

[jthomas666]

Replace Obama with Bush and you have the logic of the left.

No, for the most part our pattern was:

1. Bush does something stupid
2. Something bad happens as a result.
3. We blame Bush.
4. Neocons ask us why we hate America.

But you're new here; I wouldn't expect you to understand our ways.

 

[TRUTIDE]

Okay. Then I get to put this out there.

Clinton = 6 people died in attacks on the World Trade Center

Bush = 3000 people died in attacks on the World Trade Center

My point is these things happen, and it doesn't matter who is president. If McCain was President, that would not have stopped these pirates from attacking. Incidently, the increase in Somoli pirating in that area started while Bush was in office.

I do not see a similar link in your example. I would think we had consoderably less terrorist attacks against us under Bush. He took a hit once but that was it. I could make numerous unrelated comparisons between Bush and Clinton.

You seem to be ignoring basic human nature. If a criminal fears one potential victim more than another then he will most likely prey on the victim he fears the least. A mugger may let a big burly man walk by but hit the little old lady with the walker. I think it is less about coincidence and more about confidence of success. Bravado and fear has to be part of the equation. These people are not raiding other ships for a cause, they are doing it for money. It is only common sense that the would go after countries that would be more willing to play the game by their rules. Regardless of what one may "feel" about Bush, one would have to admit that he has shown the world that he will not hesitate to retaliate. Obama is straight off his apology tour, where he bows to Muslim leaders and was critical of America's treatment of people who wish harm on us.

 

[Relayer]

No, for the most part our pattern was:

1. Bush does something stupid
2. Something bad happens as a result.
3. We blame Bush.
4. Neocons ask us why we hate America.

But you're new here; I wouldn't expect you to understand our ways.

Nope.

Your pattern was no different. You can't see it, of course.

To the left, all Bush criticism are quite justified and well grounded. Obama criticism, just so unfair and completely baseless.:eek2:

That level of self-delusion is not easy to obtain. Congrats!

 

[It's On A Slab]

Nope.

Your pattern was no different. You can't see it, of course.

To the left, all Bush criticism are quite justified and well grounded. Obama criticism, just so unfair and completely baseless.:eek2:

That level of self-delusion is not easy to obtain. Congrats!

It's actually all part of the same cycle. Just replace the president and the one making the charges.

During Bush 43's term, the lefties blamed Bush, while the righties blamed Clinton.

Now, the lefties continue to blame Bush, but the righties blame Obama AND Clinton.

So it's 50% Bush, 50% Obama, and the other half is Clinton. Apologies to Yogi Berra.

 

[jthomas666]

Nope.

Your pattern was no different. You can't see it, of course.

To the left, all Bush criticism are quite justified and well grounded. Obama criticism, just so unfair and completely baseless.:eek2:

That level of self-delusion is not easy to obtain. Congrats!

Whatever. A charge of self-delusion coming from the self-deluded is suspect at best.

I'm so deluded that I thought Biden was a terrible choice for VP. I'm so deluded that I thought Obama did a crappy job of vetting his cabinet appointments. I'm so deluded that I thought that too many of his appointees have been old guard politicians. I'm so deluded that I thought the stimulus package wasn't particularly well designed.

Yeah, I'm deluded.

 

[It's On A Slab]

Whatever. A charge of self-delusion coming from the self-deluded is suspect at best.

I'm so deluded that I thought Biden was a terrible choice for VP. I'm so deluded that I thought Obama did a crappy job of vetting his cabinet appointments. I'm so deluded that I thought that too many of his appointees have been old guard politicians. I'm so deluded that I thought the stimulus package wasn't particularly well designed.

Yeah, I'm deluded.

As I posted earlier, many of these posts become virtual cartoons.

I suppose that's the nature of msg boards. And it happens on both sides of issues.

 

[gmart74]

be careful jthomas, you keep that up and Rush will send you a congratulatory letter on forsaking your commie loving pinko socialist "Chosen One" psycho babble.

I wonder how many of you that voted for McCain or Obama would change your vote to a third party if you could. Once again the powers that be made you choose between scat and stank and all of you keep wondering why we feel our leaders smell like ****.

 

[jthomas666]

be careful jthomas, you keep that up and Rush will send you a congratulatory letter on forsaking your commie loving pinko socialist "Chosen One" psycho babble.

It's hard to forsake what you never had. In any event, as I won't he blindly accepting his bloviating self-congratulatory bile-filled vicodin-fueled ravings, I doubt he'd be interested.

I wonder how many of you that voted for McCain or Obama would change your vote to a third party if you could. Once again the powers that be made you choose between scat and stank and all of you keep wondering why we feel our leaders smell like ****.

Gimme a viable third party candidate and we'll talk.

 

[doctorgonzo]

I guess I'm missing the connect between the war on terror and Somali pirates (petty theft writ large). I think there's probably as good a chance these pirates are members of Sam's Club as they are of Al Quada

Which was the point of my OP. I thought the suggestion made by Rush(and apparently backed up by members of the Non-Sports Board) that Somali pirates have been laying in wait until the inauguration of Obama was hilarious.

Maybe this brings up a larger question: Is any criminal act committed by a Muslin a terrorist act? If a Muslin mugs me for my wallet this afternoon is that an act of war? What if two of the pirates are confessed Muslins and another two Roman Catholic? Should we consider the former enemy comabtants and the latter run of the mill criminals?

 

[TexasBama]

Gimme a viable third party candidate and we'll talk.

Sans another self-financier like Perot, ther would need to be a viable 3rd party. With Barr running and Paul endorsing Baldwin, the Lib party is too....churchy
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[CrimsonChuck]

I do not see a similar link in your example. I would think we had consoderably less terrorist attacks against us under Bush. He took a hit once but that was it. I could make numerous unrelated comparisons between Bush and Clinton.

Exactly my point. It is unreleated who is president.

You seem to be ignoring basic human nature. If a criminal fears one potential victim more than another then he will most likely prey on the victim he fears the least. A mugger may let a big burly man walk by but hit the little old lady with the walker. I think it is less about coincidence and more about confidence of success. Bravado and fear has to be part of the equation. These people are not raiding other ships for a cause, they are doing it for money. It is only common sense that the would go after countries that would be more willing to play the game by their rules. Regardless of what one may "feel" about Bush, one would have to admit that he has shown the world that he will not hesitate to retaliate. Obama is straight off his apology tour, where he bows to Muslim leaders and was critical of America's treatment of people who wish harm on us.

You seem to be ignoring the nature of these thugs. Somolia has been a lawless place for a long time. I heard yesterday that the amount of money that they make through piracy is greater than their entire GDP. They don't care who is in charge of the United States. They just care which ship is closest to them, and in this case it happened to be a U.S. ship.

When it comes matters like this, Obama is handling it the same way that Bush would have. There isn't a Democrat way or a Republican way.

I would argue too that Obama, in his foreign policy actions, are pretty much the same as Bush's. Both supported a surge in Afghanistan. If Obama is so against showing force, why would he support that? And really, there isn't too much difference between Bush's plan to withdraw from Iraq and Obama's. The only difference in the two is that Bush called his plan a "time horizon", while Obama called his a "time line". Obama, just like the Bush administration, was calling for negotiations with Iran if certain conditions were met.

The major difference, I would say, between Bush and Obama is that Obama has turned the rhetoric down A LOT. Not much else. Obama is following Teddy Roosevelt’s advice of walking softly and carrying a big stick. Bush walked loudly and carried a big stick.

 

[TRUTIDE]

You seem to be ignoring the nature of these thugs. Somolia has been a lawless place for a long time. I heard yesterday that the amount of money that they make through piracy is greater than their entire GDP. They don't care who is in charge of the United States. They just care which ship is closest to them, and in this case it happened to be a U.S. ship.

I just do not see these attacks as being that random. I think that they are planned out to the point where they know where the patroling vessals are and what ships will fight back and what flag they sail under. American vessals have been going in and out of that port for years without such an occurance. I don't know that Bush would be negotiating with the pirates.

I would argue too that Obama, in his foreign policy actions, are pretty much the same as Bush's. Both supported a surge in Afghanistan. If Obama is so against showing force, why would he support that? And really, there isn't too much difference between Bush's plan to withdraw from Iraq and Obama's. The only difference in the two is that Bush called his plan a "time horizon", while Obama called his a "time line". Obama, just like the Bush administration, was calling for negotiations with Iran if certain conditions were met.

I do not disagree with you here. I think Obama is basically carrying out the plan that was in place untill he comes up with something different. I do and have credited him for this. It probally eliminated the chaos of totally changing strategies.

The major difference, I would say, between Bush and Obama is that Obama has turned the rhetoric down A LOT. Not much else. Obama is following Teddy Roosevelt’s advice of walking softly and carrying a big stick. Bush walked loudly and carried a big stick.

Possibly. We will see. I think that he has dialed down the rhetoric but to the point of weakness. He needs to at least stand up for our country and certainly not discredit it. We have not yet seen the big stick yet. He has been tested by the N. Koreans and now by these Somalian pirates. I guess time will tell.

 

[bamacon]

The major difference, I would say, between Bush and Obama is that Obama has turned the rhetoric down A LOT. Not much else. Obama is following Teddy Roosevelt’s advice of walking softly and carrying a big stick. Bush walked loudly and carried a big stick.

I will believe that when I see it. I think it would have to be a Pearl Harbor style attack from a nation state's army before Obama will use the military. He clearly is going back to the police action style tactics against terrorism and he has already announced planned cuts in the military. Our allies want to know where he stands and they probably won't like it (especially those in Eastern Europe). He supports the federal Europe plan which many feel would be a disaster. He's going to close Gitmo. I feel he is going to speak softly, bow to foreigner leaders, and defund the stick. Hope I'm wrong. I pray I am wrong.

 

[swoop10]

First you say that you can never know the mind of a terrorist, then you claim to know the mind of a terrorist.

I'm sorry, VJ, but he had it coming.

I never said I know the mind of a terrorist, I can only give my opinion just as you are doing.

Chuck, since you want to talk about the WTC bombings I think you can say that Bush inherited Bin Laden just like Obama has inherited everything he doesn't want to take blame for. If Clinton had done something about Bin Laden 9/11 may have never happened.

Also, if Clinton had not tucked tail and ran out of Somola, who knows if these pirates would be in business.

 

[jthomas666]

I never said I know the mind of a terrorist, I can only give my opinion just as you are doing.

OK. So when you said "You can never know the minds of these terrorist so to say that they will never attack anytime is crazy, but I am that they may be less likely when they know that they won't just be babied.", you were just projected your own warped thought patterns onto the terrorists. Got it.

Chuck, since you want to talk about the WTC bombings I think you can say that Bush inherited Bin Laden just like Obama has inherited everything he doesn't want to take blame for. If Clinton had done something about Bin Laden 9/11 may have never happened.

Ah, so now it isn't a matter of who's currently in office, but rather who the last guy was. Make up your mind! Besides, if you want to play that misguided game, if Reagan hadn't abandoned Afghanistan after the soviets withdrew, its unlikely the Taliban or al Quaeda would have even formed.

Also, if Clinton had not tucked tail and ran out of Somola, who knows if these pirates would be in business.

Where is this Somola of which you speak?

With regard to Somalia, it was probably Clinton's single biggest blunder, going in without a clear plan, and basing actions on public outrage--IIRC, greatly fueled by the media, in particular Dan Rather, who made a big show about refusing to call Aidid a warlord, but rather the awkward neologism, "war-thug".

As to whether the pirates would still be in business, who knows--piracy isn't exactly a new phenomenon. Also worth noting is that the planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion clearly failed to heed hard-won lessons about urban warfare.

 

[swoop10]

OK. So when you said "You can never know the minds of these terrorist so to say that they will never attack anytime is crazy, but I am that they may be less likely when they know that they won't just be babied.", you were just projected your own warped thought patterns onto the terrorists. Got it.

Ah, so now it isn't a matter of who's currently in office, but rather who the last guy was. Make up your mind! Besides, if you want to play that misguided game, if Reagan hadn't abandoned Afghanistan after the soviets withdrew, its unlikely the Taliban or al Quaeda would have even formed.

Where is this Somola of which you speak?

With regard to Somalia, it was probably Clinton's single biggest blunder, going in without a clear plan, and basing actions on public outrage--IIRC, greatly fueled by the media, in particular Dan Rather, who made a big show about refusing to call Aidid a warlord, but rather the awkward neologism, "war-thug".

As to whether the pirates would still be in business, who knows--piracy isn't exactly a new phenomenon. Also worth noting is that the planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion clearly failed to heed hard-won lessons about urban warfare.

First off, do you not know what MAYBE means? Well, it means that it may or may not happen. Nothing is written in stone here, so why are you getting so worked up talking about my warped thinking. Relayer showed some of your warped thinking but you still probably still don't see it.

Next, okay I misspelled Somalia, big deal. I was in a hurry because I had to take the wife out to dinner for her birthday and I didn't really check. So you are going to be the grammer police, send me a ticket.

As far as the whose president when something happens, I was using the Obama way of thinking for that example. If he can use that way of thinking then so can I. The secret is to know when to change to suit your needs.

What are you suggesting Reagan should have done in Afghanistan that the bleeding heart libs wouldn't have had a cow? Oh, you should have capitalized Soviets, just thought the grammer police should get it right.

 

[bayoutider]

This thread is getting too personal and off topic.