Liberals, do you side with Barack Obama or Noam Chomsky?

[Two Thumbs]

Then why was congress (well the republican side) trying to get him to stop "doing nothing". American airstrikes made Gaddaffi's Libyan force wholly ineffective and allowed the Rebels to rout them.

In any case..Republicans gave ol' Gaddaffi a pass when Bush accepted blood money for Lockerbie.

Obama basically said, "Fuck that shit, the guy is a terrorist. He deserves a dirtnap".

Is this stance based on principle or partisanship?

In other words were you demanding Bush scatter bombs all over Libya and also kill Gaddaffi, or were you only speaking in favor of it once Obama decided to do it?

Once it was established that Gaddaffi was the author of Lockerbie..I was all for taking that asshole off the planet.

I've been pretty clear about terrorism against this country..in this forum..and others. And been pretty clear about terrorism in general. It should not be tolerated or supported.

That's actually very true Drock.

Sallow has a ruthless streak a mile deep. If it was up to him, there would be a let fewer people on this planet, and we'd have had a lot more wars.

it's admirable.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Then why was congress (well the republican side) trying to get him to stop "doing nothing". American airstrikes made Gaddaffi's Libyan force wholly ineffective and allowed the Rebels to rout them.

In any case..Republicans gave ol' Gaddaffi a pass when Bush accepted blood money for Lockerbie.

Obama basically said, "Fuck that shit, the guy is a terrorist. He deserves a dirtnap".

Is this stance based on principle or partisanship?

In other words were you demanding Bush scatter bombs all over Libya and also kill Gaddaffi, or were you only speaking in favor of it once Obama decided to do it?

Once it was established that Gaddaffi was the author of Lockerbie..I was all for taking that asshole off the planet.

I've been pretty clear about terrorism against this country..in this forum..and others. And been pretty clear about terrorism in general. It should not be tolerated or supported.

I didn't ask if you were all for it, I asked if you were demanding it of Bush.

From 2001-2007 when it was all republicans running things and the Iraq War was at it's peak for most of the years in that time period, were you demanding Bush spread the wars to Libya and take out Gaddaffi?

If you were doing that, you're the lone democrat, hell the lone person I've ever heard of who held such a position.

 

[Sallow]

Obama executed an American citizen w/o a trial of any kind.

I would have thought at least one liberal would be outraged. but as it is, I can't find a mildly upset liberal.

It's clear they will think and say Chomp is wrong, b/c they would have to admit that killing your own citizens is a crime and that obama should be in jail awaiting trial.

Well I live in NYC. And the last time some asshole with legs in the terrorist community started mouthing off about how he was going to take the fight to American shores..we got 9/11.

So I ain't crying any tears over al-Awlaki.

Although I find it interesting that no conservative was all that concerned with Dogan's death.

Funny that.

yeeaahhh

He got on board a ship that was planning on running the blockade, Israel said not to to that, but they did it any way and they responded, in person, and he got himself killed.

OBAMA sent a bomb, OBAMA made no attempt to capture OUR citizen.

Your comparison is jack shit.

Have a big cup of manthefuckup and admit obama should be in jail for murder.

Yeah it's generally acceptable that countries mount a special ops against a civilian ship in international waters in the middle of the night..and kill an American Citizen.

Or is it your contention that Dogan manually inserted several bullets into his chest and one into his noggin?

Feel free to defend an "American citizen" who met with several terrorists that were foiled before they could do any harm. And a guy who was hiding out in Yemen while spewing Al Qaeda propaganda.

No really..it looks great.

 

[Sallow]

Is this stance based on principle or partisanship?

In other words were you demanding Bush scatter bombs all over Libya and also kill Gaddaffi, or were you only speaking in favor of it once Obama decided to do it?

Once it was established that Gaddaffi was the author of Lockerbie..I was all for taking that asshole off the planet.

I've been pretty clear about terrorism against this country..in this forum..and others. And been pretty clear about terrorism in general. It should not be tolerated or supported.

I didn't ask if you were all for it, I asked if you were demanding it of Bush.

From 2001-2007 when it was all republicans running things and the Iraq War was at it's peak for most of the years in that time period, were you demanding Bush spread the wars to Libya and take out Gaddaffi?

If you were doing that, you're the lone democrat, hell the lone person I've ever heard of who held such a position.

I was for Bush going into Afghanistan..sweeping out the camps and killing Bin Laden..then leaving. Gaddaffi would have been a feather in the cap. He could have done it the same way that his father did Panama..which would have been pretty sweet.

Iraq was a clusterfuck.

 

[Sallow]

Is this stance based on principle or partisanship?

In other words were you demanding Bush scatter bombs all over Libya and also kill Gaddaffi, or were you only speaking in favor of it once Obama decided to do it?

Once it was established that Gaddaffi was the author of Lockerbie..I was all for taking that asshole off the planet.

I've been pretty clear about terrorism against this country..in this forum..and others. And been pretty clear about terrorism in general. It should not be tolerated or supported.

That's actually very true Drock.

Sallow has a ruthless streak a mile deep. If it was up to him, there would be a let fewer people on this planet, and we'd have had a lot more wars.

it's admirable.

More wars? No.

More spooks ops that wipe out these assholes.

Definitely.

 

[Steelplate]

What a fucking joke. I love how the Former war hawks turn pacifists when it comes to Obama.

But what's most ironic is that no matter what Obama does, it's wrong. If Al Awlaki would have blown something up, Obama would have gotten the blame. If Ghaddafi would have massacred a shitload MORE of his citizens... Obama would have been at fault for not doing anything about it.

This isn't about the policy of executing Al Awlaki(which BOOOOSH authorized by executive order...another aspect they forget). This is about hating Obama.... no matter what he does or says.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Once it was established that Gaddaffi was the author of Lockerbie..I was all for taking that asshole off the planet.

I've been pretty clear about terrorism against this country..in this forum..and others. And been pretty clear about terrorism in general. It should not be tolerated or supported.

I didn't ask if you were all for it, I asked if you were demanding it of Bush.

From 2001-2007 when it was all republicans running things and the Iraq War was at it's peak for most of the years in that time period, were you demanding Bush spread the wars to Libya and take out Gaddaffi?

If you were doing that, you're the lone democrat, hell the lone person I've ever heard of who held such a position.

I was for Bush going into Afghanistan..sweeping out the camps and killing Bin Laden..then leaving. Gaddaffi would have been a feather in the cap. He could have done it the same way that his father did Panama..which would have been pretty sweet.

Iraq was a clusterfuck.

All I'm saying is I never heard one democrat, or one person in general push for Bush to bomb Libya and kill Gaddaffi.

And if today's reasoning for blowing up Libya and killing Gaddaffi was Lockerbie, than people should've been demanding that for awhile rather than simply loudly voicing support for it years and years later.

So there's 2 possible conclusions.

1.) Democrats are lying that getting Gaddaffi and bombing Libya was important because of Lockerbie and they only support these actions because Obama pulled the trigger.

2.) Democrats have been pushing for strikes against Libya and pushing for the assasination of Gaddafi for decades.

If someone came into this discussion with an open mind, which of those 2 choices sounds the most rational?

 

[Dr.Drock]

What a fucking joke. I love how the Former war hawks turn pacifists when it comes to Obama.

But what's most ironic is that no matter what Obama does, it's wrong. If Al Awlaki would have blown something up, Obama would have gotten the blame. If Ghaddafi would have massacred a shitload MORE of his citizens... Obama would have been at fault for not doing anything about it.

This isn't about the policy of executing Al Awlaki(which BOOOOSH authorized by executive order...another aspect they forget). This is about hating Obama.... no matter what he does or says.

Please provide the name of the poster you're identifying as a former war-hawk and provide proof of that person ever pushing for or approving of a war.

Thanks.

 

[Steelplate]

What a fucking joke. I love how the Former war hawks turn pacifists when it comes to Obama.

But what's most ironic is that no matter what Obama does, it's wrong. If Al Awlaki would have blown something up, Obama would have gotten the blame. If Ghaddafi would have massacred a shitload MORE of his citizens... Obama would have been at fault for not doing anything about it.

This isn't about the policy of executing Al Awlaki(which BOOOOSH authorized by executive order...another aspect they forget). This is about hating Obama.... no matter what he does or says.

Please provide the name of the poster you're identifying as a former war-hawk and provide proof of that person ever pushing for or approving of a war.

Thanks.

Really? You want proof? Let's see, unless you're a Paul-bot... I'd be willing to bet I hit the nail on the head. What was your stance on the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars when Bush was in office? Tell the truth now....

 

[Sallow]

I didn't ask if you were all for it, I asked if you were demanding it of Bush.

From 2001-2007 when it was all republicans running things and the Iraq War was at it's peak for most of the years in that time period, were you demanding Bush spread the wars to Libya and take out Gaddaffi?

If you were doing that, you're the lone democrat, hell the lone person I've ever heard of who held such a position.

I was for Bush going into Afghanistan..sweeping out the camps and killing Bin Laden..then leaving. Gaddaffi would have been a feather in the cap. He could have done it the same way that his father did Panama..which would have been pretty sweet.

Iraq was a clusterfuck.

All I'm saying is I never heard one democrat, or one person in general push for Bush to bomb Libya and kill Gaddaffi.

And if today's reasoning for blowing up Libya and killing Gaddaffi was Lockerbie, than people should've been demanding that for awhile rather than simply loudly voicing support for it years and years later.

So there's 2 possible conclusions.

1.) Democrats are lying that getting Gaddaffi and bombing Libya was important because of Lockerbie and they only support these actions because Obama pulled the trigger.

2.) Democrats have been pushing for strikes against Libya and pushing for the assasination of Gaddafi for decades.

If someone came into this discussion with an open mind, which of those 2 choices sounds the most rational?

How about option number three. It wasn't politically feasible to extricate Gaddafi given Panama..and it was useful to have a "big bad monster" out there to justify defense spending.

That all changed once 9/11 happened. It was a very real threat..terrorism from abroad. Bush had a clear mandate to eradicate terrorists and their supporters.

And he used it to pursue PNAC causes.

What a waste.

 

[WatertheTree]

I'm afraid I have a hard time getting upset about dead terrorists who hide beyond our ability to bring them to justice in conventional ways. I agree that killing that traitorous shithead was not strictly legal or the way anyone would have preferred but having a guy like that in the cross hairs and just letting them go is not something most people could have done. Chomsky is alright I guess but philosophers bore me to tears, I have my own very pragmatic philosophy, what use do I have for someone else's?

Chomsky is -not- a philosopher you fucking nitwit. He is a linguist and a historian, which is far from philosophy.

You poor uneducated fool. Want a good read?
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Power-Indispensable-Chomsky-Noam/dp/1565847032/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326240981&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (9781565847033): Noam Chomsky, John Schoeffel, Peter Mitchell: Books[/ame]

Best 15$ you will ever spend in your life. Keep you from looking like a dummy on political forums.

Oddly, Chomsky's employer (MIT Department of Linguistics: People: Faculty: Noam Chomsky), the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers (Noam Chomsky, by Zoltn Gendler Szab, Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, 1860-1960), and the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy all seem to be under the impression that Chomsky is a philosopher. It would seem that the philosophical establishment as a whole falls under your definition of a "fucking nitwit".

Returning to the subject of the thread, I am of the opinion that assassination is sometimes justified. I find it more acceptable than torture because it is not clear to me that torture accomplishes anything other forms of interrogation cannot, whereas assassination can remove an otherwise inaccessible individual from the global battlefield.

Noam Chomsky will be the first to tell you that society often puts labels on people and things that are largley inaccurate. What matters is not what someones label or title is, what matters is there actions.

Get back to me when you have read some chomski and can make independent decisions.

 

[WatertheTree]

I bet you don't blame bush for authorizing the practice though, do you?

I hate Bush as much as I hate the socialist dictator. I never voted for Bush. I voted for the socialist dictator.

Shove your partisan politics up your ass.

 

[editec]

The name calling really does not help whatever case you are trying to make, I've read Chomsky, you may not call him a philosopher but his writings damn sure read like philosophical ramblings rather than any kind of real life guide to leading stupid ass humans.

Clearly if you think Chomsky's writing is like a philosophers, you haven't read much philosophy. Try wading though some Edmond Husserl some time to see what I mean.

And to caracterize his pen as "rambling" leads me to think you really haven't read anything he's written.

I say this not in defence of what he writes, but merely to point out that his authorship can hardly be described as rambling.

His sentence structure can be complex, perhaps, but that is often the case when complex issues -- issues requiring more than simply declarative statements -- are demanded of the subject at hand.

Yeah basically I'm telling you that you can fool your ignorant friends with dismissive statements like that, but you cannot fool those of us who actually READ.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What a fucking joke. I love how the Former war hawks turn pacifists when it comes to Obama.

But what's most ironic is that no matter what Obama does, it's wrong. If Al Awlaki would have blown something up, Obama would have gotten the blame. If Ghaddafi would have massacred a shitload MORE of his citizens... Obama would have been at fault for not doing anything about it.

This isn't about the policy of executing Al Awlaki(which BOOOOSH authorized by executive order...another aspect they forget). This is about hating Obama.... no matter what he does or says.

Please provide the name of the poster you're identifying as a former war-hawk and provide proof of that person ever pushing for or approving of a war.

Thanks.

Really? You want proof? Let's see, unless you're a Paul-bot... I'd be willing to bet I hit the nail on the head. What was your stance on the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars when Bush was in office? Tell the truth now....

Always been against Iraq, been against the War in Afghanistan after I realized it wouldn't just be a good take out and leave. I admit i was for it initially.

Been against the warmongering in terms of drone strikes in 6 countries since Obama's been in office and against the warmongering in Libya and against a potential war with Iran.

I'll be happy to accept your apology.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I was for Bush going into Afghanistan..sweeping out the camps and killing Bin Laden..then leaving. Gaddaffi would have been a feather in the cap. He could have done it the same way that his father did Panama..which would have been pretty sweet.

Iraq was a clusterfuck.

All I'm saying is I never heard one democrat, or one person in general push for Bush to bomb Libya and kill Gaddaffi.

And if today's reasoning for blowing up Libya and killing Gaddaffi was Lockerbie, than people should've been demanding that for awhile rather than simply loudly voicing support for it years and years later.

So there's 2 possible conclusions.

1.) Democrats are lying that getting Gaddaffi and bombing Libya was important because of Lockerbie and they only support these actions because Obama pulled the trigger.

2.) Democrats have been pushing for strikes against Libya and pushing for the assasination of Gaddafi for decades.

If someone came into this discussion with an open mind, which of those 2 choices sounds the most rational?

How about option number three. It wasn't politically feasible to extricate Gaddafi given Panama..and it was useful to have a "big bad monster" out there to justify defense spending.

That all changed once 9/11 happened. It was a very real threat..terrorism from abroad. Bush had a clear mandate to eradicate terrorists and their supporters.

And he used it to pursue PNAC causes.

What a waste.

So Gaddaffi was a threat for decades, but since it wasn't "politically feasible" it was best to keep that threat around?

Sadly that rationalization makes more sense than most I've heard.

 

[Steelplate]

Please provide the name of the poster you're identifying as a former war-hawk and provide proof of that person ever pushing for or approving of a war.

Thanks.

Really? You want proof? Let's see, unless you're a Paul-bot... I'd be willing to bet I hit the nail on the head. What was your stance on the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars when Bush was in office? Tell the truth now....

Always been against Iraq, been against the War in Afghanistan after I realized it wouldn't just be a good take out and leave. I admit i was for it initially.

Been against the warmongering in terms of drone strikes in 6 countries since Obama's been in office and against the warmongering in Libya and against a potential war with Iran.

I'll be happy to accept your apology.

Apology for what? You admitted you were for it before you were against it and against drone strikes SINCE OBAMA'S BEEN IN OFFICE. Your words betray you.

 

[Sallow]

All I'm saying is I never heard one democrat, or one person in general push for Bush to bomb Libya and kill Gaddaffi.

And if today's reasoning for blowing up Libya and killing Gaddaffi was Lockerbie, than people should've been demanding that for awhile rather than simply loudly voicing support for it years and years later.

So there's 2 possible conclusions.

1.) Democrats are lying that getting Gaddaffi and bombing Libya was important because of Lockerbie and they only support these actions because Obama pulled the trigger.

2.) Democrats have been pushing for strikes against Libya and pushing for the assasination of Gaddafi for decades.

If someone came into this discussion with an open mind, which of those 2 choices sounds the most rational?

How about option number three. It wasn't politically feasible to extricate Gaddafi given Panama..and it was useful to have a "big bad monster" out there to justify defense spending.

That all changed once 9/11 happened. It was a very real threat..terrorism from abroad. Bush had a clear mandate to eradicate terrorists and their supporters.

And he used it to pursue PNAC causes.

What a waste.

So Gaddaffi was a threat for decades, but since it wasn't "politically feasible" it was best to keep that threat around?

Sadly that rationalization makes more sense than most I've heard.

It's not "my" rationalization..it's what I observed.

After Lockerbie..there was more then enough justification to kill that asshole. I didn't favor bombing Libya over the German disco attack..because it wasn't clear Libya or Gaddafi was involved. But it was clear he was involved in Lockerbie. That's what should have done him in.

 

[WatertheTree]

The name calling really does not help whatever case you are trying to make, I've read Chomsky, you may not call him a philosopher but his writings damn sure read like philosophical ramblings rather than any kind of real life guide to leading stupid ass humans.

Clearly if you think Chomsky's writing is like a philosophers, you haven't read much philosophy. Try wading though some Edmond Husserl some time to see what I mean.

And to caracterize his pen as "rambling" leads me to think you really haven't read anything he's written.

I say this not in defence of what he writes, but merely to point out that his authorship can hardly be described as rambling.

His sentence structure can be complex, perhaps, but that is often the case when complex issues -- issues requiring more than simply declarative statements -- are demanded of the subject at hand.

Yeah basically I'm telling you that you can fool your ignorant friends with dismissive statements like that, but you cannot fool those of us who actually READ.

Thank you very much. Calling someone a philosopher is the same thing as saying that what they have to say is opinion, or theory. It brings ambiguity into the argument when there is none.

Chomsky's study of politics and global conflict is what led him into linguistics, for this very exact reason.

 

[Sallow]

The name calling really does not help whatever case you are trying to make, I've read Chomsky, you may not call him a philosopher but his writings damn sure read like philosophical ramblings rather than any kind of real life guide to leading stupid ass humans.

Clearly if you think Chomsky's writing is like a philosophers, you haven't read much philosophy. Try wading though some Edmond Husserl some time to see what I mean.

And to caracterize his pen as "rambling" leads me to think you really haven't read anything he's written.

I say this not in defence of what he writes, but merely to point out that his authorship can hardly be described as rambling.

His sentence structure can be complex, perhaps, but that is often the case when complex issues -- issues requiring more than simply declarative statements -- are demanded of the subject at hand.

Yeah basically I'm telling you that you can fool your ignorant friends with dismissive statements like that, but you cannot fool those of us who actually READ.

Thank you very much. Calling someone a philosopher is the same thing as saying that what they have to say is opinion, or theory. It brings ambiguity into the argument when there is none.

Chomsky's study of politics and global conflict is what led him into linguistics, for this very exact reason.

Chomsky has his moments. I loved his debates with Buckley. They were pretty amazing...and both men shined.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt-GUAxmxdk]Chomsky vs Buckley - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dr.Drock]

Really? You want proof? Let's see, unless you're a Paul-bot... I'd be willing to bet I hit the nail on the head. What was your stance on the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars when Bush was in office? Tell the truth now....

Always been against Iraq, been against the War in Afghanistan after I realized it wouldn't just be a good take out and leave. I admit i was for it initially.

Been against the warmongering in terms of drone strikes in 6 countries since Obama's been in office and against the warmongering in Libya and against a potential war with Iran.

I'll be happy to accept your apology.

Apology for what? You admitted you were for it before you were against it and against drone strikes SINCE OBAMA'S BEEN IN OFFICE. Your words betray you.

I admitted I was for the War in Afghanistan until I realized all the nation-building that would be taking place. I figured it'd be about a 6 month mission where we went in and killed those who harbored and supported Bin Laden. That wasn't the case and I won't be fooled again.

I was simply stating that Obama's warmongering has spread to striking 6 countries via drones. I'm against that as well as when Bush did the exact same thing.

I'm agaisnt the Bush doctrine whether it's Bush abiding by it or Obama abiding by it.

Your paristanship betrays you.