Reuters attempts to salvage obama blunder

[Fearandloathing]

What differentiates the US from empires like The Soviet Union is we don't invade and then make the other country part of the US. We tend to war over self interest or to liberate but not to annex.

That's a very interesting distinction; the net result is still a lot of dead bodies for that "self interest".

I wonder when Obama's 'most open and accountable government in the history of America' is going to fess up about civilian casualties as a result of drone attacks?

 

[Grand Mal]

As for your definitions of left and right it honestly depends. I consider myself am extreme liberal speaking on the classical definition being for property rights and limited government. In the same light, I'm considered very far right according to our current political scale. Also, please don't confuse the GOP with conservatism. Very far from it in most cases assuming conservatism is small government free-market property rights etc.

It's annoying, how some don't know what the word liberal means and they just lump together everything they object to and call it all 'liberalism'. It's either laziness or ignorance or both but it's not too hard to actually look something up and be accurate.

As for the OP, I would not put it past Obama to say that as a slip but it is most likely his unfriending of Putin on Facebook.

 

[bubbabgone]

You appear to have someone thinking that Putin is an effective pursuer of Russian national interests confused with someone being a personal fan of Putins'. Again, this whiny petulance only serves to demonstrate that you have no response to Republican charges that our naif in chief is letting Putin run circles around him other than a particularly weak and insipid ad hominem.



No - the idea that conservatives must be cheering on Putin because we think that our administration is failing to handle him was your idiotic idea. I can quote you on it, if you like.



:lol: Pat Buchanan left the Republican Party, and is a crank whom even other conservatives consider to have neo-progressive / fascist tendecies. He's the guy that the main stream media calls on whenever they want to have a big-name "conservative" criticize the GOP, or say something way outside the norm so that they can all nod their heads and say "yup, that's how they are". I could just as easily bring on Michael Moore's description of Al Qaeda in Iraq as "Minute Men" to "prove" that liberals praised and respected and loved Islamist terrorists who targeted children.



No they don't - else 1. we never would have had Bush's idiotic "I looked into his eyes" approach of 2002 or 2. Obama's idiotic "reset" button of 2009. The Obama administration thought it could trust Putin to be a good-faith actor. That's why they pulled the rug out from under the Poles - because they assumed if they went first, that Putin could be trusted to follow through and help us out with the Iranians. They honestly thought that the mere fact that they were now in power was somehow going to change US - Russian relations into something more amenable.



Not at all - plenty of folks who aren't Republicans recognize the truth of Putin's Realpolitik. Even Hillary is (now that she is out of the administration) coming out and giving some pretty up-front descriptions of what is going on. But the guy in the White House who thinks that giving a speech is the same thing as doing something isn't one of those people.



Again, that is sadly incorrect - liberalism is demonstrating it's failure on the world stage again as their beliefs about "what can be done about it" emphasize measures about which Putin cares little.



So..... that caused Russia's centuries-long desire to exert unopposed hegemony over it's near abroad, or desire to limit U.S. power on the global stage? :roll:



:doh That was the purpose of the reset button.



:lol: that Obama is an an evil mastermind who has spent the last several years willfully ruining the country from within for his Muslim buddies? I tell you what - let's look at the polls and compare the percentage of Republicans who think that Obama is an evil mastermind willfully ruining the country from within for his Muslim buddies to the percentage of Democrats who think that President Bush was complicit in the attacks on 9/11.

 

[Moot]

Yup ... so in that sense the USA is a regional power as is, then, Russia.

Yup. So where's the insult?

 

[cpwill]

No, I'm talking about conservatives. There's no 'conservative movement', that's an oxymoron. Conservatives have always, always been on the side of big, oppressive governments.

:shrug: that is simply false. Expansion of government is a left-wing ideal. Shrinking government to the minimum necessary is a right-wing ideal. There is a reason that the conservative movement (and yes, it exists) is more libertarian in nature than the GOP.

Those aren't liberals, they're socialists. Go ahead, show me again how you don't know the difference.

:roll: Progressives abandoned that phrase in the 20s and 30s, spearheaded by a number of thinkers but most significantly perhaps Dewey, and picked up the title "Liberal" instead. In modern American political parlance, "Liberal" means "the modern form of Progressive", an ideology defined largely by its' desire to have state organization of society and opposition to other power centers competing effectively with the state.

First, Obama isn't much of a liberal. Second, many conservatives here express a higher respect for Putin than for their own president.

They will state (correctly) that he is smarter and tougher than Putin. That's not a morally positive statement, it's a morally neutral statement. Stalin was tough and smart. Mao was tough and smart. Most of the really effective and abusive dictators over the past few decades have been tough and smart. That requires tough, smart people on the side of liberty to counteract. Unfortunately, our President is neither tough nor terribly wise (he is intelligent), meaning that he lacks the ability to pursue national policy goals effectively, even if he could figure out what those are.

 

[Grand Mal]

:shrug: that is simply false. Expansion of government is a left-wing ideal. Shrinking government to the minimum necessary is a right-wing ideal. There is a reason that the conservative movement (and yes, it exists) is more libertarian in nature than the GOP.

Conservatives brought you the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security. Here in Canada when the Liberal Party formed the government we had eight or nine successive surplus federal budgets- since the Conservative Party's been in power we're back in the red again. Big budgets for big government.

:roll: Progressives abandoned that phrase in the 20s and 30s, spearheaded by a number of thinkers but most significantly perhaps Dewey, and picked up the title "Liberal" instead. In modern American political parlance, "Liberal" means "the modern form of Progressive", an ideology defined largely by its' desire to have state organization of society and opposition to other power centers competing effectively with the state.

Liberal means what it always has. Five of you conservatives will give me at least five definitions of liberal- I'll go with what I've always known and what has always been confirmed by just looking it up. How is communication supposed to work if I have to start by guessing what you mean when you type a word?

They will state (correctly) that he is smarter and tougher than Putin. That's not a morally positive statement, it's a morally neutral statement. Stalin was tough and smart. Mao was tough and smart. Most of the really effective and abusive dictators over the past few decades have been tough and smart. That requires tough, smart people on the side of liberty to counteract. Unfortunately, our President is neither tough nor terribly wise (he is intelligent), meaning that he lacks the ability to pursue national policy goals effectively, even if he could figure out what those are.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yup. So where's the insult?

I'm not the one who tried to claim Obama said it as an insult to Russia/Putin.
I said it was Obama trying to minimize what Putin/Russia did, and trying to explain why it's okay that he himself is looking impotent and not being willing to acknowledge that Romney was right.

 

[cpwill]

Conservatives brought you the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security. Here in Canada when the Liberal Party formed the government we had eight or nine successive surplus federal budgets- since the Conservative Party's been in power we're back in the red again. Big budgets for big government.

Well there's your problem right there - you are using unlike terms. I agree upfront I was using United States' terminology. In older, British formats, "Liberal" is the party with the heaviest overlap with "conservative" in modern US parlance.

Liberal means what it always has.

Sadly that is incorrect, and the term has been stolen to mean something very different entirely.

 

[Moot]

I'm not the one who tried to claim Obama said it as an insult to Russia/Putin.
I said it was Obama trying to minimize what Putin/Russia did, and trying to explain why it's okay that he himself is looking impotent and not being willing to acknowledge that Romney was right.

Thats a lot of assumption and guessing on your part. I doubt that Obama thinks of himself as impotent or that Romney was right....probably because it isn't true.

 

[bubbabgone]

:shrug: that is simply false. Expansion of government is a left-wing ideal. Shrinking government to the minimum necessary is a right-wing ideal. There is a reason that the conservative movement (and yes, it exists) is more libertarian in nature than the GOP.



:roll: Progressives abandoned that phrase in the 20s and 30s, spearheaded by a number of thinkers but most significantly perhaps Dewey, and picked up the title "Liberal" instead. In modern American political parlance, "Liberal" means "the modern form of Progressive", an ideology defined largely by its' desire to have state organization of society and opposition to other power centers competing effectively with the state.



They will state (correctly)

that he is smarter and tougher than Putin.

That's not a morally positive statement, it's a morally neutral statement. Stalin was tough and smart. Mao was tough and smart. Most of the really effective and abusive dictators over the past few decades have been tough and smart. That requires tough, smart people on the side of liberty to counteract. Unfortunately, our President is neither tough nor terribly wise (he is intelligent), meaning that he lacks the ability to pursue national policy goals effectively, even if he could figure out what those are.

Right again ... mostly ... say, you're good at this.
But what did you mean that Obama is tougher than Putin? In what way? More devious? More driven? Explain.

 

[bubbabgone]

Thats a lot of assumption and guessing on your part.

I doubt that Obama thinks of himself as impotent

or that Romney was right....probably because it isn't true

I have no doubt Obama considers himself a real wunderkind in all things but, really, there's no evidence foreign affairs holds much interest for him. Changing the home front is his baby.

You mean after witnessing Putin, what just happened with Crimea, is poised to happen in Ukraine, is happening in Syria, is about to happen in South America and the Caribbean, monkeying around with the Iran talks ... who would be a greater geopolitical threat than Russia?

 

[Moot]

I have no doubt Obama considers himself a real wunderkind in all things but, really, there's no evidence foreign affairs holds much interest for him. Changing the home front is his baby.

Do you see his speech on foreign affairs today? Would he have spent an hour discussing foreign affairs with the country if he wasn't interested?

You mean after witnessing Putin, what just happened with Crimea, is poised to happen in Ukraine, is happening in Syria, is about to happen in South America and the Caribbean, monkeying around with the Iran talks ... who would be a greater geopolitical threat than Russia?

Are we war yet? If not, then Obama must doing something right.

 

[bubbabgone]

Do you see his speech on foreign affairs today?

Would he have spent an hour discussing foreign affairs with the country if he wasn't interested?

Yes he would. Foreign policy is not what concerns him but his self-image does.

Are we war yet? If not, then Obama must doing something right

That's quite the criteria to judge whether he needs to rethink his debate answer about geopolitical threats ... war or no war.
Yup, it's kind of an all-purpose excuse since we're not at war with any Country.
That's really your bottom line?

 

[polgara]

Yes he would. Foreign policy is not what concerns him but his self-image does.

That's quite the criteria to judge whether he needs to rethink his debate answer about geopolitical threats ... war or no war.
Yup, it's kind of an all-purpose excuse since we're not at war with any Country.
That's really your bottom line?

I thought he was at the G7 meeting in Europe...I assumed that's where he made the speech today. Has that changed?

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

 

[bubbabgone]

I thought he was at the G7 meeting in Europe...I assumed that's where he made the speech today. Has that changed?

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

Yeah. Tomorrow he visits the Pope. I'd love to hear that convo.

 

[polgara]

Yeah. Tomorrow he visits the Pope. I'd love to hear that convo.

Well, you heard what the Pope told the mafia! :mrgreen:

 

[Grand Mal]

Well there's your problem right there - you are using unlike terms. I agree upfront I was using United States' terminology. In older, British formats, "Liberal" is the party with the heaviest overlap with "conservative" in modern US parlance.



Sadly that is incorrect, and the term has been stolen to mean something very different entirely.

All I have to say is, look it up. If we don't agree on definitions we can't communicate.

 

[Slyfox696]

You appear to have someone thinking that Putin is an effective pursuer of Russian national interests confused with someone being a personal fan of Putins'. Again, this whiny petulance only serves to demonstrate that you have no response to Republican charges that our naif in chief is letting Putin run circles around him other than a particularly weak and insipid ad hominem.

No, it's the sheer giddiness with which Republicans/conservatives use what Putin is doing (which rarely is a big of a deal as Republicans/conservatives pretend it is) to criticize Obama for what he's doing. Ignoring for a moment the legions of advisers both men have, the premise that Putin is 427346 moves ahead of Obama AND Europe is just asinine and anyone not blinded by partisan politics knows it.

The most amusing thing about this is the leaders of the Western countries have far more knowledge and insight on this situation than you (you being Republicans/conservatives in general). They are advised by people with far more experience in this area than you. And yet, you think because you watch the news and read the newspaper, you have the insight to determine who's "winning"? It's absurd.

No - the idea that conservatives must be cheering on Putin because we think that our administration is failing to handle him was your idiotic idea. I can quote you on it, if you like.

Yeah, that's not at all how this topic progressed. But good attempts at a spin.

The Republicans/conservatives are cheering for Putin. To deny this is just a joke. Now, I know why they are cheering Putin. I don't believe it's because they love him or want him as their leader, they just think any chance they can get to ruin the Democrat's reputation in foreign policy will be of benefit in the next Presidential election. I get why they are doing it, but it doesn't change the fact they are doing it and it's rather repulsive.

Pat Buchanan left the Republican Party, and is a crank whom even other conservatives consider to have neo-progressive / fascist tendecies. He's the guy that the main stream media calls on whenever they want to have a big-name "conservative" criticize the GOP, or say something way outside the norm so that they can all nod their heads and say "yup, that's how they are". I could just as easily bring on Michael Moore's description of Al Qaeda in Iraq as "Minute Men" to "prove" that liberals praised and respected and loved Islamist terrorists who targeted children.

Can you show me where they praised Osama bin Laden when he was the leader of our enemy?

No they don't - else 1. we never would have had Bush's idiotic "I looked into his eyes" approach of 2002 or 2. Obama's idiotic "reset" button of 2009. The Obama administration thought it could trust Putin to be a good-faith actor. That's why they pulled the rug out from under the Poles - because they assumed if they went first, that Putin could be trusted to follow through and help us out with the Iranians. They honestly thought that the mere fact that they were now in power was somehow going to change US - Russian relations into something more amenable.

Everyone knows who Putin is. Claiming otherwise is simply false. They may have thought he'd act in a different manner, but they know who he is. The idea only conservatives know what he's about is little more than partisan rhetoric.

Not at all - plenty of folks who aren't Republicans recognize the truth of Putin's Realpolitik. Even Hillary is (now that she is out of the administration) coming out and giving some pretty up-front descriptions of what is going on. But the guy in the White House who thinks that giving a speech is the same thing as doing something isn't one of those people.

Obama is doing more than giving speeches, but it's good to know that YOU, without the army of advisers or intelligence, have a better idea what to do than the leaders of the so-called Western nations.

You're doing little more than engaging in political rhetoric at this point. You've ignored common sense to push a narrative which doesn't even make sense.

So..... that caused Russia's centuries-long desire to exert unopposed hegemony over it's near abroad, or desire to limit U.S. power on the global stage? :roll:

Aww...look at you! Trying to spin the conversation to something more palatable, how cute!

:doh That was the purpose of the reset button.

No one said "as though other nations did not have intentions, policies, and interests that were inimical to ours and existed independent of who sat in the Oval Office."

Seriously, your empty rhetoric is a waste of both of our times. When you're ready to discuss this in a mature fashion, get back to me.

that Obama is an an evil mastermind who has spent the last several years willfully ruining the country from within for his Muslim buddies?

Uhh, yes. Have you been living under a rock for the past several years?

Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
E.W. Jackson: Obama Is An Atheist/Muslim & We're 'Dealing With An Evil Presence' - YouTube

I tell you what - let's look at the polls and compare the percentage of Republicans who think that Obama is an evil mastermind willfully ruining the country from within for his Muslim buddies to the percentage of Democrats who think that President Bush was complicit in the attacks on 9/11.

People who think Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attacks are stupid too. Is that really the standard you're wanting to set, by stupidity?

But I think I see your problem here. You think because you're engaging in team politics, I'm doing the same. Why else would you bring up Bush? The man hasn't even been in office for 6 years, and yet you keep bringing him up. I'm not worried about what party someone is, I'm simply interested in the truth. And the truth is Republicans/conservatives leap on every chance they get to make it look like Putin is a genius when compared to Obama, because it helps them politically, when the simple fact is it's absurd to hold such a position when you figure the scope and legion of people involved in the decisions, not just of the USA, but other Western countries.

And like I said earlier, I understand why they are doing it, but it doesn't make it any less repulsive.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Thats a lot of assumption and guessing on your part. I doubt that Obama thinks of himself as impotent or that Romney was right....probably because it isn't true.

The media is saying obama dissed Putin, I am saying he is doubling down on his failed campaign rhetoric. You seem to disagree with both sides so what is your theory as to why obama called Russia a regional power?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

No, it's the sheer giddiness with which Republicans/conservatives use what Putin is doing (which rarely is a big of a deal as Republicans/conservatives pretend it is) to criticize Obama for what he's doing. Ignoring for a moment the legions of advisers both men have, the premise that Putin is 427346 moves ahead of Obama AND Europe is just asinine and anyone not blinded by partisan politics knows it.

The most amusing thing about this is the leaders of the Western countries have far more knowledge and insight on this situation than you (you being Republicans/conservatives in general). They are advised by people with far more experience in this area than you. And yet, you think because you watch the news and read the newspaper, you have the insight to determine who's "winning"? It's absurd.

Yeah, that's not at all how this topic progressed. But good attempts at a spin.

The Republicans/conservatives are cheering for Putin. To deny this is just a joke. Now, I know why they are cheering Putin. I don't believe it's because they love him or want him as their leader, they just think any chance they can get to ruin the Democrat's reputation in foreign policy will be of benefit in the next Presidential election. I get why they are doing it, but it doesn't change the fact they are doing it and it's rather repulsive.

Can you show me where they praised Osama bin Laden when he was the leader of our enemy?

Everyone knows who Putin is. Claiming otherwise is simply false. They may have thought he'd act in a different manner, but they know who he is. The idea only conservatives know what he's about is little more than partisan rhetoric.

Obama is doing more than giving speeches, but it's good to know that YOU, without the army of advisers or intelligence, have a better idea what to do than the leaders of the so-called Western nations.

You're doing little more than engaging in political rhetoric at this point. You've ignored common sense to push a narrative which doesn't even make sense.

Aww...look at you! Trying to spin the conversation to something more palatable, how cute!

No one said "as though other nations did not have intentions, policies, and interests that were inimical to ours and existed independent of who sat in the Oval Office."

Seriously, your empty rhetoric is a waste of both of our times. When you're ready to discuss this in a mature fashion, get back to me.

Uhh, yes. Have you been living under a rock for the past several years?

Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
E.W. Jackson: Obama Is An Atheist/Muslim & We're 'Dealing With An Evil Presence' - YouTube


People who think Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attacks are stupid too. Is that really the standard you're wanting to set, by stupidity?

But I think I see your problem here. You think because you're engaging in team politics, I'm doing the same. Why else would you bring up Bush? The man hasn't even been in office for 6 years, and yet you keep bringing him up. I'm not worried about what party someone is, I'm simply interested in the truth. And the truth is Republicans/conservatives leap on every chance they get to make it look like Putin is a genius when compared to Obama, because it helps them politically, when the simple fact is it's absurd to hold such a position when you figure the scope and legion of people involved in the decisions, not just of the USA, but other Western countries.

And like I said earlier, I understand why they are doing it, but it doesn't make it any less repulsive.

This "giddiness" and love you claim Reps have for Putin is all in your head, you are somewhat deranged on this issue.

 

[Thoreau72]

It is the Obama hate disorder. I think many RWers were sorta depressed he got BinLaden.

I know several RWers who ACTUALLY BELIEVE that he "got" OBL. Truth is stranger than fiction. :lamo

 

[Slyfox696]

This "giddiness" and love you claim Reps have for Putin is all in your head, you are somewhat deranged on this issue.

Nothing deranged about it, unless you consider how far they're willing to go to win the Presidency (to the point where they celebrate Putin) deranged. And I do.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Nothing deranged about it, unless you consider how far they're willing to go to win the Presidency (to the point where they celebrate Putin) deranged. And I do.

You keep throwing out these wild charges but can't seem to back them up with examples so it is all in your head. That is classic derangement syndrome.

 

[tech30528]

So, you are now carrying Putin's water now? :lamo

Well, if you are going to have a totalitarian leader, you might as well have an effective one.

 

[Moot]

The media is saying obama dissed Putin, I am saying he is doubling down on his failed campaign rhetoric. You seem to disagree with both sides so what is your theory as to why obama called Russia a regional power?

Obama said that because Russia isn't a geopolitical threat to the US.