Obamas to attack restaurants next

[CallMeJoe]

And you can say 1000 times it was the wrong call, it doesn't make it so.

But somehow mindlessly repeating that it was the right call will magically make it so?

 

[JSt0rm]

And you can say 1000 times it was the wrong call, it doesn't make it so.

durp dum dee blurp. I can produce lots of evidence that point to my conclusion. I wont do this of course because you are an idiot and I dont need to prove to you how wrong you are.

 

[IGBT]

the obama's bed buddy has to have something to do.

 

[chucky2]

P.S. From your wiki reference on neocon:

In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":[45]

• A tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
• Low tolerance for diplomacy
• Readiness to use military force
• Emphasis on US unilateral action
• Disdain for multilateral organizations
• Focus on the Middle East
• An us versus them mentality

So lets see:

A tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms: The world is an infinite numbers of shades of gray. Nope, not a NeoCon.

Low tolerance for diplomacy: I'd prefer diplomacy in almost every case. However, there's an appropriate amount of diplomacy in each case, as each case has it's own unique situation. I am not for infinite diplomacy and no action ala UN. At some point, the time for diplomacy is done, the carrot is retriieved, and the stick is brought out. I don't call that a low tolerance. Nope, not a NeoCon.

Readiness to use military force: When diplomacy has been deemed to have run its course - for whatever reason those that choose to end it choose - then it's time to either agree to disagree/lose/use the military. Pick one of those 3. One of the 3 will be more palpatable than the other 2. I'm not one for never using military force. I think too many of you liberals are absolutely in that camp. Short of an assault on San Fran - apperantly New Yawk wasn't enough, boy, I bet the liberal leanings on use of military force sure changed there after 9/11 - I don't think some of you would ever use the military. So sorry, not a NeoCon.

Emphasis on US unilateral action: I don't care if the US acts unilaterally or not. If we use our Allies, so be it. If they're used, they need to not add to the confusion. They need to handle their part. That means, if they have 100 Harriers and 50 helicopters, they don't bring 0 Harriers and 2 helicopters - for their bigshots - and expect us to do all the heavy lifting. Then b1tch about not having air power available because we're using our stuff where we need it. Again, not a NeoCon.

Disdain for multilateral organizations: If this is talking about the UN, then, I only have total disdain for the UN as it currently operates. Looking at just Iraq alone, with 13 unanswered UN declarations, it is a useless entity as far as enforcement of its policies. Some sh1thole in charge of Human Rights. If I'm labeled a NewCon for this, I'd ask: How could anyone not have disdain for the UN??? If you're talking about say a Human Rights Watch, I'm fine with an Org. like that. That doesn't mean I think they properly apply the context of their mission, but, I can at least respect what they're for. I could possibly extend this to the ACLU, but really, what's the point? They'd just sue a school district for making a girl cover her undertits while she's running and flashing down the hallway, because, hey, that's her "right", right? So why respect an Org. who does irrespectable things because they themselves want to be NeoCon's and view the world in black and white? Hmmm...I think in your eyes this makes me a NewCon. I call this me being Realistic...I take 1/2 point from myself.

Focus on the Middle East: Well, the 19 folks who flew themselves into the WTC were from the ME. The indoctrination of their society is what is done by the defacto religion of the ME: Islam. One would like to think when discussing 9/11 that you'd have a focus on the ME, but hey, liberals don't generally think clearly anyways, so, maybe you view this as a bad thing??? I don't have some preoccupation with the ME, personally, I'd rather focus on our SW border and lock that puppy down tight. But then, someone would have to change NeoCon to 'Focus on the southwest US/Mexico border'. I guess I'm not a NewCon...for now...

An us versus them mentality: Hmmm....US vs. Who? I guess since it says a NeoCon is focus'd on the ME, that'd mean US vs. the ME. I'll save time and say, I don't have that view, at all. Unless you're talking about the world having grown much smaller in respect to global travel and WMD. That then becomes an issue when you have a whole region that keeps telling itself lies (gee, just like liberals!) and agreeing with itself about the lies it tells itself. When the lies are that the US and Israel are the reason it's people are dirt F'ing poor, uneducated, and have no future, all while the countries political and religous Leadership themselves are awash in oil, money, and power, then one would prudently determine that one should really go about making sure to correct those lies. Which leads you to how to do that? When the ones in power are the ones supporting the Org.'s that are keeping those lies out there and fueled. Is that US vs Them? Or just realizing Reality and deciding not to wait for another Cole, Embassy, 9/11, to start doing something about it? I'd say not a NeoCon, but, I have this sneaky suspicion you'll disagree. Amirite?

Lets see, that's 6.5/7 on the Not a NeoCon scale.

But, clearly, I'm a NeoCon....

Chuck

 

[UberNeuman]

The lady doth protest too much...

\what a enjoyable train wreck of a thread...

 

[chucky2]

But somehow mindlessly repeating that it was the right call will magically make it so?

But somehow mindlessly repeating that it wasn't the right call will magically make it so?

See how that works? Everyone wants to fit in with the group. When the group is the Media and all the BDS 'Bush&Co' haters, and they keep saying it for years (even working during the war to mind F their own populous as much as possible ala Vietnam so as to kill morale of the public and the soldiers, i.e. Harry Reid), they're trying to magically make it so.

In other news, Iraq finally got their democratically elected Leadership seated after 9 months and no rioting. God d@mn that unstable sh1thole, they've only been doing the Democracy experiment for a massive 6 years now, with long time distrustful groups that just civil warred with each other, and they don't have it perfected yet?!?! Wow, Bush was such a failure, look what a mess he left.....

Chuck

 

[xj0hnx]

In other news, Iraq finally got their democratically elected Leadership seated after 9 months and no rioting. God d@mn that unstable sh1thole, they've only been doing the Democracy experiment for a massive 6 years now, with long time distrustful groups that just civil warred with each other, and they don't have it perfected yet?!?! Wow, Bush was such a failure, look what a mess he left.....

Chuck

Iraq? Fuck Iraq. Who give's a fuck about Iraq? OUR country is fucked.

It doesn't matter what good for Iraq came of it, Bush's escapades have fucked THIS country up for decades to come. It's sickening listening to people pretend they give a shit about that fuckhole of a country just because of political ideology tells them they should.

 

[chucky2]

I don't give a sh1t about Iraq per se, I give a sh1t about getting present day Islam in the ME progressed from an average 700 year ago mentality to something more close to present day mentality. And that is never going to happen without changing who's leading those countries there. Counting on the brainwashed people there is like counting on the fundi's here to realize that a woman raped who doesn't want to have her 1 month old baby is not a POS because she choses to abort, and should have the right to do so...even though our fundi's want to shoot her and the Dr. who does the abortion for doing so.

Bush didn't F this country up for decades to come. Seriously, where do you get this??? Congress is the one that approves the budgets, and, last I checked, every Congress Bush had was approving budgets left and right: Including the Dem controlled one he had his last two years.

Then go back before Bush and look at the lovely GATT and NAFTA that was passed....somehow, I don't think Bush signed those into law. I could be wrong though.

Whoopps...then there's The Masses that buy cheap Chinese sh1t because....well, because they need that new cheap plastic toy for their kid that already has 345456567 cheap plastic toys at home. And, Wow!!!, that cheap fish finder that won't help them catch anymore fish??, they need that too!!! Oh, and those 10 new shirts to go with the 5 new pants, well, they need those too!!!...even though, well, they already have a months supply of clothes that have nothing wrong with them.

American's are to blame for America's problem.....Bush F'd this country up....I LOL'd...

Chuck

 

[JSt0rm]

I LOL'd...

Chuck

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoozyerdaddy

This whole argument is so silly I can't believe it has even worked its way into a political discussion. If you're serious about eating healthy then you're not eating in restaurants. You're cooking at home and the occasional night out is just that... an occasional treat. And if it's just an occasional treat then the food can be as crappy for you as you want because an occasional indulgence isn't going to have any long term impact on your overall health.

I think the point of that is because restaurants tend to not offer healthy alternatives. The whole reason this thread got political is because the Right-wing crazies are in a tissy over Michelle doing ANYTHING.

At the risk of staying on topic... yikes...

Why should they have to? It's really starting to sound like fat slobs can't control themselves so the government should control their access to the crap they eat by dictating to private business what can and can't be on the menu.

 

[HomerJS]

I must admit to stick to ones story despite overwelming evidence to the contrary is a real talent.

Chucky would have made an excellent Press Secretary during Bush's term.

 

[IBMer]

At the risk of staying on topic... yikes...

Why should they have to? It's really starting to sound like fat slobs can't control themselves so the government should control their access to the crap they eat by dictating to private business what can and can't be on the menu.

Who is saying they have to?

 

[modestninja]

Well, if I didn't end up paying more in health care and other costs because of these fat slobs, I wouldn't care that they ate crappy food and died younger. However, they do affect me so I do think the government should get involved and put something in place to offset the externalities caused by this behavior.

Personally, I think a Pigovian tax on junk/fast/processed food would be the right solution as this would alter people's behavior and pay for the extra costs associated with an unhealthy diet.

 

[Red Dawn]

I must admit to stick to ones story despite overwelming evidence to the contrary is a real talent.

Chucky would have made an excellent Press Secretary during Bush's term.

Or Minister of Propaganda for Sadam Hussien.

 

[chucky2]

Or just someone who doesn't need to be part of the group agreeing with themselves, foaming at the mouth because someone has an southern accent and doesn't BS them well on TV. I'm fine with being that person...delude on though if it makes you feel better. You all deluded on about O'Bummer, look where that got you.

 

[werepossum]

Attacking Iraq because of the September 11th attacks makes as much sense as if Franklin Roosevelt had responded to Pearl Harbor by attacking Siam.

Perhaps you've forgotten that FDR did in fact first attack German and Italian troops after Pearl Harbor? We went on the offensive against German and Italian installations and shipping while we were still on the defensive in the Pacific - although granted, we took Guadalcanal three months before Operation Torch in Africa, the Pacific war was still an economy of force mission with the main effort directed against Germany.

Still, that's a bit far from the First Lady program attacking restaurants - with which by the way I'm fine, unless and until she starts imposing (or threatening to impose) some sort of government control. As to how likely that is, I'll leave you with my signature quote from the Messiah himself:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3% of the population, and we'll -- we'll be fine, don't worry about us. That's not leadership."

Note especially the bolded section, which is one of the reasons people take this shit so seriously and why it amazes and dismays myself and others that our country would elect a President who sees regulating how much people eat as a valid government function.

 

[IBMer]

Note especially the bolded section, which is one of the reasons people take this shit so seriously and why it amazes and dismays myself and others that our country would elect a President who sees regulating how much people eat as a valid government function.

I think the issue is that you see everything he states as a government mandate he wants to initiate. I see it was a message that people themselves need to change and that very statement is extremely true.

 

[werepossum]

I think the issue is that you see everything he states as a government mandate he wants to initiate. I see it was a message that people themselves need to change and that very statement is extremely true.

I do tend to take people at their word, except where their actions dictate otherwise. If he wants to tell people they should not eat as much as they do, that's fine. Problem is, he's a lib, and libs generally prefer controlling people to persuading people. And not to put too fine a point on things, but his statement was that we cannot continue eating as much as we want, not that we should want to eat less. That implies control rather than persuasion.

 

[modestninja]

I do tend to take people at their word, except where their actions dictate otherwise. If he wants to tell people they should not eat as much as they do, that's fine. Problem is, he's a lib, and libs generally prefer controlling people to persuading people. And not to put too fine a point on things, but his statement was that we cannot continue eating as much as we want, not that we should want to eat less. That implies control rather than persuasion.

The problem with the leave everyone alone argument is that someone overeating does affect me since I end up paying higher costs around healthcare because of it. The free market price doesn't address that negative externality so I'm left paying for someone else's bad decision. The same thing goes for people that drive their gas guzzling SUVs. The price they pay for gasoline doesn't reflect the damage that they do to the air I breathe and the climate I live in.

That's where I see the role of government in "invading" people's lives. If the government added a Pigovian tax that paid the actual damage caused by those externalities and then actually used the money to mitigate them (fat chance there) it would influence behavior and remove the costs that I have to pay for someone else's bad decisions.

 

[Baasha]

Sweet Tomatoes

mmm.. I love me some Sweet Tomatoes. :thumbsup:

 

[llee]

why are you shocked? michelle is advocating for food reforms when it comes to children's menus. are you saying that children need to have the same high-calorie treatment that adults get? should we use your argument as a precedent for removing child-protection laws in favor of a more 'equal society'?

flamers like you that try to find any plausible fault to complain about make me sick.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Perhaps you've forgotten that FDR did in fact first attack German and Italian troops after Pearl Harbor?

Perhaps you have forgetten that Germany and Italy declared war on the United States? President Roosevelt did not order an attack on some random nation that had no role in Pearl Harbor, unlike President Bush with September 11th.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Perhaps you have forgetten that Germany and Italy declared war on the United States? President Roosevelt did not order an attack on some random nation that had no role in Pearl Harbor, unlike President Bush with September 11th.

So when are we impeaching Obama for continuing this war and him covering up Bush and CO's lies? Not to mention he clearly has to be telling the justice dept not to pursue it. Is Obama too stupid to realize it or is he a criminal like Bush? Either way we should probably get him out of office before he does any more damage. At least Bush is no longer the President and can't harm us anymore, unless he is orchestrating another 9/11 from TX?

 

[CallMeJoe]

So when are we impeaching Obama for continuing this war and him covering up Bush and CO's lies? Not to mention he clearly has to be telling the justice dept not to pursue it. Is Obama too stupid to realize it or is he a criminal like Bush? Either way we should probably get him out of office before he does any more damage. At least Bush is no longer the President and can't harm us anymore, unless he is orchestrating another 9/11 from TX?

Do you have a Troll-o-Matic keyboard, or do you actually have to waste time typing out these posts?