Not Lies, But not the Truth

[G.T.]

Which leaves open the question I asked but you didn't answer: "And more importantly, DO we have to get involved? Are we the world's nanny/policeman?"

And also ignores William of Occam's dictum.

Well, let me know when you have the broader picture of why we're stationed around the world, where we're stationed, and the Classified and Declassified Military data supporting those theories, and then we can both have a rational discussion.

If you're not privy to all of that information, it's like talking about Michael Jordan's career in perspective, except you don't know any of his Stats but just that "he's got titles."

 

[Bfgrn]

I just find this amusing to no end. For years Kos and company cherry picked republican statements and whaled away at them.

The way the president said what he meant was kinda dumb, you dont want to leave openings like this.

Its real fun watching the koz kids play defense instead of the 8 years of offense we watched during bush's term.

Empty bluster...provide some examples...

Well, let's be real for a second. The left did this and it's undeniable, and this guy's right.

The Bush bashing for "Mission Accomplished," for instance. (oh the tangents you could hit me back with, but I digress).

The man was simply having a proud moment with his service men and women, and it was used as a tool for anti-Bush/War propoganda.

But that also doesn't change that Obama meant "whether we like it or not, our Superiority means we HAVE to get involved."

By "like it or not," he was referring to "the dynamic of having to Get involved," not referring to our superiority. He did word it tricky, but it's just stupid Propoganda to use it against him, as was the Mission Accomplished thing.

How many thousands of American sons & daughters and innocent Iraqis died after Bush proclaimed "Mission accomplished"?

The 'left' like myself and Al Gore opposed the war in Iraq BEFORE Bush launched his Hirohito sneak attack on Baghdad.

The 'issue' then, now and throughout our nation's history is the ideology of preemptive war, which was always the tool of the despot...Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito.

Bush, 1% Cheney, the neocons and right wing 'think tanks' like the Heritage Foundation push a doctrine that America has the right to be a despot that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings because we are exceptional. Hitler believed Germany was 'exceptional', it's called belief in the supremacy of an Aryan master race.


Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology.
President Ronald Reagan

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war.
President John F. Kennedy

Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.
Otto von Bismarck

In the eyes of empire builders men are not men but instruments.
Napoleon Bonaparte

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Which leaves open the question I asked but you didn't answer: "And more importantly, DO we have to get involved? Are we the world's nanny/policeman?"

And also ignores William of Occam's dictum.

Well, let me know when you have the broader picture of why we're stationed around the world, where we're stationed, and the Classified and Declassified Military data supporting those theories, and then we can both have a rational discussion.

If you're not privy to all of that information, it's like talking about Michael Jordan's career in perspective, except you don't know any of his Stats but just that "he's got titles."

I am asking you, your opinion.

 

[G.T.]

Empty bluster...provide some examples...

Well, let's be real for a second. The left did this and it's undeniable, and this guy's right.

The Bush bashing for "Mission Accomplished," for instance. (oh the tangents you could hit me back with, but I digress).

The man was simply having a proud moment with his service men and women, and it was used as a tool for anti-Bush/War propoganda.

But that also doesn't change that Obama meant "whether we like it or not, our Superiority means we HAVE to get involved."

By "like it or not," he was referring to "the dynamic of having to Get involved," not referring to our superiority. He did word it tricky, but it's just stupid Propoganda to use it against him, as was the Mission Accomplished thing.

How many thousands of American sons & daughters and innocent Iraqis died after Bush proclaimed "Mission accomplished"?

The 'left' like myself and Al Gore opposed the war in Iraq BEFORE Bush launched his Hirohito sneak attack on Baghdad.

The 'issue' then, now and throughout our nation's history is the ideology of preemptive war, which was always the tool of the despot...Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito.

Bush, 1% Cheney, the neocons and right wing 'think tanks' like the Heritage Foundation push a doctrine that America has the right to be a despot that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings because we are exceptional. Hitler believed Germany was 'exceptional', it's called belief in the supremacy of an Aryan master race.


Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology.
President Ronald Reagan

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war.
President John F. Kennedy

Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.
Otto von Bismarck

In the eyes of empire builders men are not men but instruments.
Napoleon Bonaparte

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi

This is the tangent I meant.

You have a right to feel that way about all of that, but trying to spin his feelings of Pride (after the initial invasion), to meaning that he's simply ignoring the fact that more went onto die, is just a pointless point of bashing.

 

[G.T.]

Which leaves open the question I asked but you didn't answer: "And more importantly, DO we have to get involved? Are we the world's nanny/policeman?"

And also ignores William of Occam's dictum.

Well, let me know when you have the broader picture of why we're stationed around the world, where we're stationed, and the Classified and Declassified Military data supporting those theories, and then we can both have a rational discussion.

If you're not privy to all of that information, it's like talking about Michael Jordan's career in perspective, except you don't know any of his Stats but just that "he's got titles."

I am asking you, your opinion.

In theory, it sounds nice that we shouldn't be the policemen. But I'd like to imagine a world where there are....really big brains, that have mapped out strategies for keeping things in an organized, as opposed to disorganized, chaos.

In other words, maybe due to public outrage we can't say that our vested interest in keeping the middle-east stable is for long-term Resource advantages......so our declassified higher ups have to use a different excuse, also based in reality, like "we're in danger if we don't take the fight to them!"

You and I don't know all of these things, and I don't really want to put my incomplete thoughts out there because it's irrational and frankly pointless to do so. Basically. That's the jist of it.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Well, let me know when you have the broader picture of why we're stationed around the world, where we're stationed, and the Classified and Declassified Military data supporting those theories, and then we can both have a rational discussion.

If you're not privy to all of that information, it's like talking about Michael Jordan's career in perspective, except you don't know any of his Stats but just that "he's got titles."

I am asking you, your opinion.

In theory, it sounds nice that we shouldn't be the policemen. But I'd like to imagine a world where there are....really big brains, that have mapped out strategies for keeping things in an organized, as opposed to disorganized, chaos.

In other words, maybe due to public outrage we can't say that our vested interest in keeping the middle-east stable is for long-term Resource advantages......so our declassified higher ups have to use a different excuse, also based in reality, like "we're in danger if we don't take the fight to them!"

You and I don't know all of these things, and I don't really want to put my incomplete thoughts out there because it's irrational and frankly pointless to do so. Basically. That's the jist of it.

Well, there's a few schools of thought on this. One extreme has us withdrawing from every country in the world, all personnel, and concentrating on only our borders. That's the Libertarians. They say that's all the Constitution covers.

Then there's the middle, where we get involved only if we are attacked.

Then there's the other extreme, who believes in "nation building" and the "neocon" ideal of spreading democracy to make a peaceful planet.

We don't need to know state secrets or secret intel to discuss our philosophies on this, or even speculate on Obama's philosophy on it.

 

[G.T.]

I am asking you, your opinion.

In theory, it sounds nice that we shouldn't be the policemen. But I'd like to imagine a world where there are....really big brains, that have mapped out strategies for keeping things in an organized, as opposed to disorganized, chaos.

In other words, maybe due to public outrage we can't say that our vested interest in keeping the middle-east stable is for long-term Resource advantages......so our declassified higher ups have to use a different excuse, also based in reality, like "we're in danger if we don't take the fight to them!"

You and I don't know all of these things, and I don't really want to put my incomplete thoughts out there because it's irrational and frankly pointless to do so. Basically. That's the jist of it.

Well, there's a few schools of thought on this. One extreme has us withdrawing from every country in the world, all personnel, and concentrating on only our borders. That's the Libertarians. They say that's all the Constitution covers.

Then there's the middle, where we get involved only if we are attacked.

Then there's the other extreme, who believes in "nation building" and the "neocon" ideal of spreading democracy to make a peaceful planet.

We don't need to know state secrets or secret intel to discuss our philosophies on this, or even speculate on Obama's philosophy on it.

We need to know state secrets and secret intel to determine if the goal is nation building or not, yes, yes we do.

We also need to know the intelligence data on how the world would shift if we did adopt the libertarian stance. Yes, yes we'd need to know that.

You shouldn't ponder a philosophical stance in Football only knowing 1/2 the rules. Well, not intelligently anyways.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

In theory, it sounds nice that we shouldn't be the policemen. But I'd like to imagine a world where there are....really big brains, that have mapped out strategies for keeping things in an organized, as opposed to disorganized, chaos.

In other words, maybe due to public outrage we can't say that our vested interest in keeping the middle-east stable is for long-term Resource advantages......so our declassified higher ups have to use a different excuse, also based in reality, like "we're in danger if we don't take the fight to them!"

You and I don't know all of these things, and I don't really want to put my incomplete thoughts out there because it's irrational and frankly pointless to do so. Basically. That's the jist of it.

Well, there's a few schools of thought on this. One extreme has us withdrawing from every country in the world, all personnel, and concentrating on only our borders. That's the Libertarians. They say that's all the Constitution covers.

Then there's the middle, where we get involved only if we are attacked.

Then there's the other extreme, who believes in "nation building" and the "neocon" ideal of spreading democracy to make a peaceful planet.

We don't need to know state secrets or secret intel to discuss our philosophies on this, or even speculate on Obama's philosophy on it.

We need to know state secrets and secret intel to determine if the goal is nation building or not, yes, yes we do.

We also need to know the intelligence data on how the world would shift if we did adopt the libertarian stance. Yes, yes we'd need to know that.

You shouldn't ponder a philosophical stance in Football only knowing 1/2 the rules. Well, not intelligently anyways.

That wasn't the question. I didn't ask you what you think the goal is.

I asked:

"And more importantly, DO we have to get involved? Are we the world's nanny/policeman?"

That is asking for your opinion. For your personal philosophy. If you don't want to answer, just say so. But don't go pretending I asked something I did not ask. That's called erecting a straw man.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well, let's be real for a second. The left did this and it's undeniable, and this guy's right.

The Bush bashing for "Mission Accomplished," for instance. (oh the tangents you could hit me back with, but I digress).

The man was simply having a proud moment with his service men and women, and it was used as a tool for anti-Bush/War propoganda.

But that also doesn't change that Obama meant "whether we like it or not, our Superiority means we HAVE to get involved."

By "like it or not," he was referring to "the dynamic of having to Get involved," not referring to our superiority. He did word it tricky, but it's just stupid Propoganda to use it against him, as was the Mission Accomplished thing.

How many thousands of American sons & daughters and innocent Iraqis died after Bush proclaimed "Mission accomplished"?

The 'left' like myself and Al Gore opposed the war in Iraq BEFORE Bush launched his Hirohito sneak attack on Baghdad.

The 'issue' then, now and throughout our nation's history is the ideology of preemptive war, which was always the tool of the despot...Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito.

Bush, 1% Cheney, the neocons and right wing 'think tanks' like the Heritage Foundation push a doctrine that America has the right to be a despot that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings because we are exceptional. Hitler believed Germany was 'exceptional', it's called belief in the supremacy of an Aryan master race.


Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology.
President Ronald Reagan

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war.
President John F. Kennedy

Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.
Otto von Bismarck

In the eyes of empire builders men are not men but instruments.
Napoleon Bonaparte

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi

This is the tangent I meant.

You have a right to feel that way about all of that, but trying to spin his feelings of Pride (after the initial invasion), to meaning that he's simply ignoring the fact that more went onto die, is just a pointless point of bashing.

'spin', 'pointless bashing'? When the lives of thousands of American sons & daughters and human beings whose only crime was being born in Iraq are extinguished? Over a STUNT?

WOW...

 

[G.T.]

Well, there's a few schools of thought on this. One extreme has us withdrawing from every country in the world, all personnel, and concentrating on only our borders. That's the Libertarians. They say that's all the Constitution covers.

Then there's the middle, where we get involved only if we are attacked.

Then there's the other extreme, who believes in "nation building" and the "neocon" ideal of spreading democracy to make a peaceful planet.

We don't need to know state secrets or secret intel to discuss our philosophies on this, or even speculate on Obama's philosophy on it.

We need to know state secrets and secret intel to determine if the goal is nation building or not, yes, yes we do.

We also need to know the intelligence data on how the world would shift if we did adopt the libertarian stance. Yes, yes we'd need to know that.

You shouldn't ponder a philosophical stance in Football only knowing 1/2 the rules. Well, not intelligently anyways.

That wasn't the question. I didn't ask you what you think the goal is.

I asked:

"And more importantly, DO we have to get involved? Are we the world's nanny/policeman?"

That is asking for your opinion. For your personal philosophy. If you don't want to answer, just say so. But don't go pretending I asked something I did not ask. That's called erecting a straw man.

How does one erect a strawman in something that isn't an argument?

Anyways, I told you why I don't choose to answer: because in order to have a philosophy/an opinion on which stance I'd personally take, I'd need to know where it leads. I.E. have some declassified intelligence as to where it leads (which one would HOPE exists, otherwise we're playing checkers, not Chess).

I told you WHY I don't answer. It's pretty clear.

 

[G.T.]

How many thousands of American sons & daughters and innocent Iraqis died after Bush proclaimed "Mission accomplished"?

The 'left' like myself and Al Gore opposed the war in Iraq BEFORE Bush launched his Hirohito sneak attack on Baghdad.

The 'issue' then, now and throughout our nation's history is the ideology of preemptive war, which was always the tool of the despot...Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito.

Bush, 1% Cheney, the neocons and right wing 'think tanks' like the Heritage Foundation push a doctrine that America has the right to be a despot that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings because we are exceptional. Hitler believed Germany was 'exceptional', it's called belief in the supremacy of an Aryan master race.


Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology.
President Ronald Reagan

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war.
President John F. Kennedy

Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.
Otto von Bismarck

In the eyes of empire builders men are not men but instruments.
Napoleon Bonaparte

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi

This is the tangent I meant.

You have a right to feel that way about all of that, but trying to spin his feelings of Pride (after the initial invasion), to meaning that he's simply ignoring the fact that more went onto die, is just a pointless point of bashing.

'spin', 'pointless bashing'? When the lives of thousands of American sons & daughters and human beings whose only crime was being born in Iraq are extinguished? Over a STUNT?

WOW...

Whatever's clever man. Bashing him over saying "mission accomplished" preemptively, because he was proud of our servicemen, is inane to me. Sorry that hurts your brain but hey, it's just me.

 

[Bfgrn]

This is the tangent I meant.

You have a right to feel that way about all of that, but trying to spin his feelings of Pride (after the initial invasion), to meaning that he's simply ignoring the fact that more went onto die, is just a pointless point of bashing.

'spin', 'pointless bashing'? When the lives of thousands of American sons & daughters and human beings whose only crime was being born in Iraq are extinguished? Over a STUNT?

WOW...

Whatever's clever man. Bashing him over saying "mission accomplished" preemptively, because he was proud of our servicemen, is inane to me. Sorry that hurts your brain but hey, it's just me.

Pride is the most destructive human emotion. A president must put America's sons & daughters ahead of his personal vanity. He is entrusted by We, the PEOPLE to be responsible, sober, conscientious and culpable when exercising his power to send America's sons & daughters off to war.

Bush deserves MUCH MORE than mere bashing...he deserves to stand trial for war crimes.

 

[Flopper]

The minute I read the comment "whether we like it or not", I went and found the whole quote to see whether he actually meant it the way it was represented. Guess what? Yea, he meant it the way it was represented.

When Obama said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”, he was addressing a group from the middle east that contains some that believe the US should be a military superpower and some who do not. If he said I instead of We then the statement would tend to support the premise.

 

[martybegan]

I just find this amusing to no end. For years Kos and company cherry picked republican statements and whaled away at them.

The way the president said what he meant was kinda dumb, you dont want to leave openings like this.

Its real fun watching the koz kids play defense instead of the 8 years of offense we watched during bush's term.

Empty bluster...provide some examples...

One of the more recent ones is the whole hannity/mcveigh thing.

 

[martybegan]

Empty bluster...provide some examples...

Well, let's be real for a second. The left did this and it's undeniable, and this guy's right.

The Bush bashing for "Mission Accomplished," for instance. (oh the tangents you could hit me back with, but I digress).

The man was simply having a proud moment with his service men and women, and it was used as a tool for anti-Bush/War propoganda.

But that also doesn't change that Obama meant "whether we like it or not, our Superiority means we HAVE to get involved."

By "like it or not," he was referring to "the dynamic of having to Get involved," not referring to our superiority. He did word it tricky, but it's just stupid Propoganda to use it against him, as was the Mission Accomplished thing.

How many thousands of American sons & daughters and innocent Iraqis died after Bush proclaimed "Mission accomplished"?

The 'left' like myself and Al Gore opposed the war in Iraq BEFORE Bush launched his Hirohito sneak attack on Baghdad.

The 'issue' then, now and throughout our nation's history is the ideology of preemptive war, which was always the tool of the despot...Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito.

Bush, 1% Cheney, the neocons and right wing 'think tanks' like the Heritage Foundation push a doctrine that America has the right to be a despot that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings because we are exceptional. Hitler believed Germany was 'exceptional', it's called belief in the supremacy of an Aryan master race.


Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology.
President Ronald Reagan

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war.
President John F. Kennedy

Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.
Otto von Bismarck

In the eyes of empire builders men are not men but instruments.
Napoleon Bonaparte

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi

Hirohito sneak attack? If anything pearl harbor was a yamamoto sneak attack. And if the japanese had done pearl like our attack on iraq they would have lined the carriers up 50 miles off of the harbor and announced over loudspeakers HERE WE COME!

 

[rdean]

In this example, Palin is implying that the president is opposed to a strong America and is using a phrase from his speech to support her premise. Had the president said “Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.” as a standalone sentence then it would support Palin's premise. But if you read the entire statement, you can't draw the conclusion that the president does not believe in a strong American. If you do, you've been watching too much Fox News.

Sorry, Sparky, but contrary to your talking points list, it doesn't take Fox News to draw that conclusion. It just takes the ability to read and understand English. The meaning of that phrase remains exactly the same, in context of the whole quote or out of it. If anything, I think the rest of that sentence STRENGTHENS that interpretation, rather than weakening it.

Although I am no fan of Sarah Palin, I'm not trying to bash her. All politician do this occasionally. News commentators do it over and over. Bush's speeches were loaded with these sticks of dynamite and the news commentators had a field day with them.

You might be interested in knowing that speech writer go over speeches very carefully trying to eliminate any phrases that can clipped out of context and used by the opposition. The result is often a crappy speech that says nothing.

You might be interested to know that, despite your obvious belief that you're Mr. Clever, you haven't said a damned thing I didn't already know.

So, are you saying that you look forward to losing young Americans and money?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Notice how the meaning and slant of the following statement reported by Sarah Palin is changed by pulling a quote out context. By the question she asks she implies that the president finds a strong America a problem. Then she pulls a phrase from the quote to support her statement. Commentators on MSNBC and Fox due this constantly in order to present only one side of the story.

**********
Mr. President, is a strong America a problem?

Asked this week about his faltering efforts to advance the Middle East peace process, President Obama did something remarkable. In front of some 47 foreign leaders and hundreds of reporters from all over the world, President Obama said that “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”

Whether we like it or not? Most Americans do like it.

**********

Here’s what the President actually said:

**********

But what we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts but it’s also in the interest of the United States. It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

**********

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

Typical right wing nonsense in taking things out of context and screaming "Obama hates America"

Anyone reading the actual quote and its context can see that he was refering to "whether we like it or not" we get pulled into global conflicts BECAUSE of our status as a superpower

But thats what makes this board so much fun

No, he's not, because if he had, he would have said, "Whether we like it or not, we get pulled into conflicts because we're a superpower." But it wasn't the conflicts part of the statement that he modified with "whether we like it or not", now was it? It was the superpower part, which he THEN followed up with the conflicts as an example of WHY we shouldn't like being a superpower.

That's what I meant about "being able to read and understand English", but as usual, that's just too damned difficult for the leftists around here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"whether we like it or not"


Means the reality is we are a super power.


What you people fail to accept is that there are some who dont think any country should be a super power.

The world is allowed to have opinions you dont argee with.

This is why republicans are usually really shitty at deplomacy

We ARE accepting that there are some who think that. We're accepting that Obama is one of them. Seems like you guys are the ones having trouble with that.

The world is allowed to have opinions we don't agree with, but we're also allowed to be offended by them and argue back.

This is why Democrats are usually really shitty at . . . well, freedom, leadership, having character . . .

 

[Cecilie1200]

I just find this amusing to no end. For years Kos and company cherry picked republican statements and whaled away at them.

The way the president said what he meant was kinda dumb, you dont want to leave openings like this.

Its real fun watching the koz kids play defense instead of the 8 years of offense we watched during bush's term.

Empty bluster...provide some examples...

Well, let's be real for a second. The left did this and it's undeniable, and this guy's right.

The Bush bashing for "Mission Accomplished," for instance. (oh the tangents you could hit me back with, but I digress).

The man was simply having a proud moment with his service men and women, and it was used as a tool for anti-Bush/War propoganda.

But that also doesn't change that Obama meant "whether we like it or not, our Superiority means we HAVE to get involved."

By "like it or not," he was referring to "the dynamic of having to Get involved," not referring to our superiority. He did word it tricky, but it's just stupid Propoganda to use it against him, as was the Mission Accomplished thing.

Then why didn't he say that, instead of what he did? You telling me Obama the Brilliant doesn't know how to choose his words effectively?

I see no reason not to interpret his words EXACTLY the way they came out of his flapping gob.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because it's not "fair" right?

Are you also saying that our President is one of those?

WTF would give you that impression?

Oh yeah you are a partisan hack.

this is why republicans can only start wars and piss the entire world off.

Again, I am not a Republican, stupid. And of course, you failed to answer the question.

Do you or do you not think the President is one of those whom you spoke?

Well, that's what he SAID, but apparently, this is another occasion when we're supposed to twist into pretzels trying to find the NICE meaning for leftist words, rather than simply taking them at face value.