Obama's Dynamic National Security Duo: Shocked About Al Qaeda

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Too much Mark Levine for you my friend.

Obama = Bush = Clinton = Reagan = Carter = Nixon = etc, for all intents and purposes. I sincerely doubt that either of them 'hate' america, it's just that our entire national political system is HOPELESSLY corrupt.

Oh yeah, before you say anything about Reagan being the reincarnation of Jesus (I like Ronnie, but lets be real here) .. he pulled us out of Beirut after the huge terrorist attack on our Marine barracks there, with nary a response. If that had happened under a Democrat, the talking heads like Levine and Rush would STILL be ranting about how weak Dems are. But no, not a whisper about that FACT, eh?

:thumbsup:
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
ding, ding, ding - we have a winner. not sure about johnson but we do know about kennedy so maybe he was a true leader and, well, we know what happend to him - don't know personally, maybe some of you unbiased older people on here that lived during the kennedy and johnson times can weigh in as i can read about history, but there is nothing like the history from somebody who has lived it.

fwiw, i have read some history and seen some documentaries and it has been claimed that kennedy was our last legit president - i can't remember the sources just remember the statements. so after the kennedy example others fell in line and just do what they are told. our president is just a puppet position after all, at least now, it use to mean something.

If you have a questionabout Kennedy or Johnson, I can try to help. I'm a longtime reseracher on Kennedy.

One thing to note is that all these guys are 'their own guys' to varying degrees, and all have people who have help them to varying degrees and sometimes people they've helped if not become obligated to.

When Nixon was out of power, he became a corporate lawyer, for Pepsi. When left-wing democracy won in Chile - a very good thing - the US corporations who wanted back corrupt control talked and had Pepsi represent them and call Nixon to say 'do somethig about Allende'. Nixon told Kissinger to do something and the rest is history. That wasn't Nixon being owned, controlled, ordered, he was his own man, but that was his orientation and loyalty.

Kennedy had some unique qualities - he was the best in a way of the 'rich kid' situation in that he had to do less begging for money and was freed to do what he wanted without the obligations. He also had a remarkable history of gong asround the world from embassy to emabassy, courtesy of his father's having been Ambassador. learning a lot.

He understood beter than most 'how things worked', how to challenge the corrupt power structures.

He wasn't perfect, but he was a presodent for the public interest in many ways against many interests more than few people understand and taking on battles other presidents did not.

Some of that is more clear, like his change the nation's course from blind backing of Europe's colonization of third world colonies, and others are long forgotten like his battles with Wall Street.

He'd planned to completely overhaul the US intelligence apparatus - just over a decade old when he got it - but didn't get to; a decade later it was trashed in the Church committee hearings exposing all kinds of wrongdoing, and after that it's repeatedly been faulted and there have been calls for reorganization that haven't gone well.

I've said he was our last 'great' president; I'm not sure the word real president quite gets it.

As far as being a puppet, unfortunately, there are real filters tha make it far harder for someone to become president. A Dennis Kucinish lacks the military or industry backing and has little chance.

We could use another John Kennedy, but outside of the Kennedy brothers, any of them, we seem not to have many.

One of the things giving me higher hopes about Obama was that he was recognized early by Kennedy's top aide who knew him best, Ted Sorensen, as the presidential candidate most like Kennedy since.

I haven't heard how Sorensen feels now, it wouldn't be too plitically correct if he has criticism, but I wonder if he's disappointed in the alliances Obama has made.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
ding, ding, ding - we have a winner. not sure about johnson but we do know about kennedy so maybe he was a true leader and, well, we know what happend to him - don't know personally, maybe some of you unbiased older people on here that lived during the kennedy and johnson times can weigh in as i can read about history, but there is nothing like the history from somebody who has lived it.

fwiw, i have read some history and seen some documentaries and it has been claimed that kennedy was our last legit president - i can't remember the sources just remember the statements. so after the kennedy example others fell in line and just do what they are told. our president is just a puppet position after all, at least now, it use to mean something.

I believe JFK was good intentioned he was a dangerious leader . But he I believe was a good man who had our interest at heart. Johnson was were we started down this road . JFK screwed up in Nam and seen this mistake and was going to pull us out . The banks and the military industrial block did not want this hence Kennedy was killed . LBJ was just the opposite. and drove us in even deeper . Who gained the Most from these actions . The international bank and Bell helicopter. But my generation did something no other generation has done since or befor . We stood up and said Hell NO WE WON"T GO. Remember that when you look at your parents or grandparents . That generation did stand up . Remeber this also . We will stand with you now . Its your choice.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Let me guess, you never eat your spinach, brushed your teeth, finished your home work or completed the workout.

Grow a set and respond to my words. Any boob can call me names.

Hes good at trolling and throwing around personal attacks. Best to just ignore the fool Robor.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
I, too, was pretty shocked that the guy burned his balls off.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Liberals will continue to deny the threat to civilization posed by Islam, radical or otherwise, until the moment their heads come away from their bodies.

Reminds me of those Darwin Award winning CIA agents recently killed in Afghanistan. Complete fools (victims of PC MC) thinking they could reform a Al-Qeada terrorist and make him a friend and asset of the the CIA. Note to spooks: Al-Qeada is not the KGB, you can't bribe true believers with Vodka, cash and porn.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Liberals will continue to deny the threat to civilization posed by Islam, radical or otherwise, until the moment their heads come away from their bodies.

Reminds me of those Darwin Award winning CIA agents recently killed in Afghanistan. Complete fools (victims of PC MC) thinking they could reform a Al-Qeada terrorist and make him a friend and asset of the the CIA. Note to spooks: Al-Qeada is not the KGB, you can't bribe true believers with Vodka, cash and porn.

What? Radical Islam is not a legitimate threat, at least not on the true sense that the USSR, the Imperial Japanese, and the Nazis were. Those evils had the potential to end civilization as we know it, Radical Islam =! Mainstream Islam. Yeah the general principles of Islam sound pretty xenophobic and so on, but so do the teachings of a lot of Christians and Jews. The *vast* majority just want to live their lives in peace and prosperity. Hell, the population of Iran voluntarily demonstrated in support of the USA after 9/11, and that's the population of an Islamic Theocracy.

Lung cancer, Heart Disease, Car accidents, Obesity all pose a quantum amount of greater threat to life, hell you're more likely to die from the error of a surgeon or anesthesiologist during a routine procedure than to actually MEET someone bent on Islamic Jihad.

If you go over and mix in the pot, or perform actions which engender the ranks of dumbfucks like AQ, then yeah, you might find yourself in some real danger. But otherwise, Radical Islam is spectacularly impotent to cause any real measurable damage to civilization, unless we voluntarily do stupid things.

This is NOT to make light or lessen the respect for the actual victims of those 14th century assholes, but c'mon, last week more people died from smoking than have died in the past 100 years of Islamic-inspired terrorism.
 

mav451

Senior member
Jan 31, 2006
626
0
76
Radical Christianity leads to abortion clinic bombers and domestic terrorism. Do you see us stereotyping against all Christians? No. "Radical or otherwise" - yes, let's paint all people with a broad, fucking brush. Real smart.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Radical Christianity leads to abortion clinic bombers and domestic terrorism. Do you see us stereotyping against all Christians? No. "Radical or otherwise" - yes, let's paint all people with a broad, fucking brush. Real smart.

Lets take the last 50 years and then count the number of terroristic attacks made by Christians compared to Muslims.

We both know which would come out far ahead of the other.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
What? Radical Islam is not a legitimate threat, at least not on the true sense that the USSR, the Imperial Japanese, and the Nazis were. Those evils had the potential to end civilization as we know it, Radical Islam =! Mainstream Islam. Yeah the general principles of Islam sound pretty xenophobic and so on, but so do the teachings of a lot of Christians and Jews. The *vast* majority just want to live their lives in peace and prosperity. Hell, the population of Iran voluntarily demonstrated in support of the USA after 9/11, and that's the population of an Islamic Theocracy.

Lung cancer, Heart Disease, Car accidents, Obesity all pose a quantum amount of greater threat to life, hell you're more likely to die from the error of a surgeon or anesthesiologist during a routine procedure than to actually MEET someone bent on Islamic Jihad.

If you go over and mix in the pot, or perform actions which engender the ranks of dumbfucks like AQ, then yeah, you might find yourself in some real danger. But otherwise, Radical Islam is spectacularly impotent to cause any real measurable damage to civilization, unless we voluntarily do stupid things.

This is NOT to make light or lessen the respect for the actual victims of those 14th century assholes, but c'mon, last week more people died from smoking than have died in the past 100 years of Islamic-inspired terrorism.

I'm not talking about here, you could always give up your citizenship to find out, or just look how many are killed each year that arnt Muslim or even not quite Muslim enough in places like Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, etc - it's only when they have full control with no chruches, synagogues, temples, free thinkers, gays, etc when the Religion Of Peace moniker is true. Until such time, Islams Borders and innards are bloody. I care about all the worlds people and individual freedoms not just USA. If you read my posts you'd know I think Iraq was a huge mistake - even Afghanistan was by making a huge production of it instead of going after them with hit squads on down low and working with tribes who hate fundis and Arab Supremacism just as much.
 
Last edited:

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Hes good at trolling and throwing around personal attacks. Best to just ignore the fool Robor.

You don't know the definition of personal attack dumbass.

Hint: That was a personal attack. Oh, and you are a racist so you can remove your sig.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Radical Christianity leads to abortion clinic bombers and domestic terrorism. Do you see us stereotyping against all Christians? No. "Radical or otherwise" - yes, let's paint all people with a broad, fucking brush. Real smart.

It's just a scale issue so it merits attention, isnt this obvious? First of all Christianity is largely morphed into a secular Sunday only religion taking away most of it's virulence, rather impotent really, unlike Islam which is absolute law in many countries. Second there are not large numbers of christian jihadists running around killing in the name of God right now.
 
Last edited:

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
It's just a scale issue so it merits attention, isnt this obvious? First of all Christianity is largely morphed into a secular Sunday only religion taking away most of it's virulence, rather impotent really, unlike Islam which is absolute law in many countries. Second there are not large numbers of christian jihadists running around killing in the name of God anymore.

Fixed. :sneaky:
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I edited before you:) And right now is more appropo - shit could change quick.

Anytime you think you're doing God's work in battles against 'anti' things get way ugly.
 
Last edited:

Avvocato Effetti

Senior member
Nov 27, 2009
408
0
0
How about the Secretary Napalitano!

How is it that we put a women in charge of the security of our homeland. Would you send a women out to quarterback the Colts in the Superbowl? This PC is going to get people killed.

Here are some facts about this women:

Served as an attorney for Anita Hill.

She refers to terrorism as “man caused disasters”.

Recently stated that “the system worked” with regard to the recent terrorist attempt.

She has not publicly acknowledged her sexual orientation.

Can anyone deny that this women is an incompetent leader, buffoon and is dangerous in this position. “Man caused disaster”? Where are women’s groups objecting to thie term “man”. Why not “Women caused disasters”? The hypocrisy is palpable.

The incompetence of this President is represented by this inept appointment.

Let’s impeach this President.
 
Last edited:

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
You don't know the definition of personal attack dumbass.

Hint: That was a personal attack. Oh, and you are a racist so you can remove your sig.

Personal attacks, baseless accusations, drive by postings.

You're such a contributor to these forums!
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Lets take the last 50 years and then count the number of terroristic attacks made by Christians compared to Muslims.

We both know which would come out far ahead of the other.

Let's extend that to 2000 years. Now who's ahead?
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
Lets take the last 50 years and then count the number of terroristic attacks made by Christians compared to Muslims.

We both know which would come out far ahead of the other.

jos must be napping, so i'll just pipe in the irish situation you kind of missed here... i tend to be a right wing prick, but you have to have a little bit of integrity...

maybe you need to always add a "them" vs. "us" qualifier... it doesn't count if "they" kill "them", but when "they" are after "us" it's problematic... this works well for many situations...
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
How about the Secretary Napalitano!

How is it that we put a women in charge of the security of our homeland. Would you send a women out to quarterback the Colts in the Superbowl? This PC is going to get people killed.

Here are some facts about this women:

Served as an attorney for Anita Hill.

She refers to terrorism as “man caused disasters”.

Recently stated that “the system worked” with regard to the recent terrorist attempt.

She has not publicly acknowledged her sexual orientation.

Can anyone deny that this women is an incompetent leader, buffoon and is dangerous in this position. “Man caused disaster”? Where are women’s groups objecting to thie term “man”. Why not “Women caused disasters”? The hypocrisy is palpable.

The incompetence of this President is represented by this inept appointment.

Let’s impeach this President.

This is retard.