Dennis Kucinich=RACIST!!

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:09 am

Yer just repeating the same lame non-joke.

C'mon, Avi, you started this bullshit thread. Tell us who besides lil' Dennis would have opposed Barry's action. Who?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:12 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Tell us who besides lil' Dennis would have opposed Barry's action. Who?

A clear majority of the House would have opposed this action. Why do you think he ducked them while they were not in session and started his "kinetic military action" from Brazilian getaway?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:14 am

WHAT!! That is categorical bullshit. All of the GOP leaders were calling for more military action sooner. What kool-aid are you drinking?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:15 am

Mace wrote:Like I said earlier, if he orders an invasion of Libya without authorization from Congress....I'll reconsider my opinion.

We already have invaded Libya, you mindless fuckpuddle. Do you think all those laser guided bombs just aim themselves?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:16 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:WHAT!! That is categorical bullshit. All of the GOP leaders were calling for more military action sooner. What kool-aid are you drinking?

All of them? Sure about that? Fudgey O'Bamalini sure wasn't. That's why he didn't bother to raise the subject.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:17 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:All of the GOP leaders were calling for more military action sooner.

Shut your cum-funnel, you moron.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:21 am

Who' s"Fudgey O'Hitler"?

I'm referring to the standard collection of nervous and weaselling GOP leaders like Boehner

and these assholes..
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php ... d-on-libya

Course there's the usual slimy nature of the GOP..

Since the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, the regressive right has engaged in a two and a half year temper tantrum marked by shoulder-to-shoulder opposition to anything and everything the president supports, even those things that were originally Republican ideas (e.g. the individual mandate to purchase health insurance being a necessary prerequisite to achieving universal coverage, the market-based cap-and-trade proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions, to name but two examples).

No single issue or event during the Obama Presidency, however, has shined so bright a light on the GOP's rampant hypocrisy than the recent events in Libya. For decades, the Republican party has branded itself as the party of "hawks" - unafraid to exercise our military might wherever and whenever U.S. interests were even remotely involved. For example, on April 15, 1986, President Ronald Reagan ordered airstrikes against the tyrant in Tripoli following the Gaddafi-sanctioned bombing of a Berlin discoteque ten days earlier, in which two American military personnel were killed and more than fifty American soldiers and marines were injured.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:27 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Who' s"Fudgey O'Hitler"?

Given his Libyan ambitions, Fudgey is better suited to play Hitler's sidekick.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:04 am

Martyred wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:All of the GOP leaders were calling for more military action sooner.
Shut your cum-funnel, you moron.

Well of course that's after the fact, you dolt.

The GOP has no other plan or policy than to absolutely opposes and stall anything that Barry says or does. Okay? I mean are you really stupid? Or do you just pretend?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:15 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The GOP has no other plan or policy than to absolutely opposes and stall anything that Barry says or does.

That would be a pretty smart plan. If only it were true.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:03 pm

Mace wrote:Okay, dumbfuck, just how will they impeach him if there's no support for impeachment? Don't you think we'd be hearing complaints from a number of our congressional leaders if they were opposed to his Libyan attacks? Wouldn't they be all over the TV voicing their concerns and displeasure with Obama's actions? Aside from Kucinich, all I've heard from them are complaints that Obama waited too long to start the attacks. If you were a real Christian, you'd be praying for him.

I never said there was going to be an impeachment, guy.

If I was in Congress, I would be calling for impeachment.
Barry has BLATANTLY used the military for his own interest ---> in clear violation of the Constitution he is sworn to uphold.
There is NO excuse for it.

But most of Congress is just as fucked up as he is, so I expect nothing.
Doesn't mean a whole lot of Congress doesn't disaprove of his actions, though.
Just not enough to call for impeachment.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:36 pm

poptart wrote:Nice to know that bombing the hell out of a country that was NO threat to us at all is good by you - so long as we don't send in ground troops to really get it on.

Iraq, much?

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:07 pm

poptart wrote:
Mace wrote:Okay, dumbfuck, just how will they impeach him if there's no support for impeachment? Don't you think we'd be hearing complaints from a number of our congressional leaders if they were opposed to his Libyan attacks? Wouldn't they be all over the TV voicing their concerns and displeasure with Obama's actions? Aside from Kucinich, all I've heard from them are complaints that Obama waited too long to start the attacks. If you were a real Christian, you'd be praying for him.
I never said there was going to be an impeachment, guy.

If I was in Congress, I would be calling for impeachment.
Barry has BLATANTLY used the military for his own interest ---> in clear violation of the Constitution he is sworn to uphold.
There is NO excuse for it.

But most of Congress is just as fucked up as he is, so I expect nothing.
Doesn't mean a whole lot of Congress doesn't disaprove of his actions, though.
Just not enough to call for impeachment.

Fine, then we agree he's not going to be impeached.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:11 pm

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:The GOP has no other plan or policy than to absolutely opposes and stall anything that Barry says or does.
That would be a pretty smart plan. If only it were true.

No, it's an utterly stupid plan--and it's entirely true. Especially for weird little creeps like you.

After all, Kquadaffi has clearly been the Il Duce of the Middle East for many years--and Barry is looking to take him out. And yet in your auto-inversion demented GOP reflex, you've got Barry dressed up like Mussolini? Really? just reverse everything--and call people nasty names. Okay... :wink:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:44 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:--and Barry is looking to take him out.

No, he isn't.
40 cruise missiles impacting into nothing but sand out front should have told you.

If the Americans/French/British wanted Gaddafi gone, he'd be worm food already.
This is a fake stalling tactic, hoping that the resistance will eventually run out of ammo and will.
Then, next week Gaddafi will announce "reforms" and the oil will keep flowing freely.

Don't be a moron.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:54 pm

Sure, "Avi," you've made this absurd prediction earlier. But..it's not just forty missiles fired into the sand--it's hundreds destroying the entire military capability of Il Duce. And it's not stopping anytime soon. Or what? Oh that's right, you never offer anything to back up anything.

Of course you'd be right if you asserted that the corporate fuckwads want a compliant (Jew) who's cool with the fake state and provides oil to stay put. But the fact is that oil can and will continue to flow--just like in Iraq--with or without a demented dictator or a ghastly fascist apartheid state nearby. You'd be right, but of course you can't actually say anything. :wink:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:15 pm

Libya is a tiny country population wise.
All major urban centers are on the coast and connected by a single highway system, essentially.

France alone could stomp on Libya and then use Corsica or Malta to scrap whatever shit is left on their shoe off.

Take a deep breath...think about this rationally...and then shut your fucking trap.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:23 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote: And yet in your auto-inversion demented GOP reflex, you've got Barry dressed up like Mussolini? Really?

Obamalini the Fucked up Pretend Pres__ent loves Benny. It probably isn't a coincidence that the first thing both of them did when they seized power was prop up failed banks and failed automanufacturers. Mussolini controled state radio broadcasts. Ochimpy is attempting to control the internet with the FCC. Now he is waging an aggressive war against Lybia.

He is il Douche.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:27 pm

mvscal wrote:Now he is waging an aggressive war against Lybia.

Except, he isn't.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:28 pm

He started bombing them, didn't he? That is an act of aggression.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:32 pm

mvscal wrote:He started bombing them, didn't he?

He started bombing sand dunes.

We both saw the Serbian air war on TV. Did American air power forget how to target infrastructure in the last 12 years?

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:01 am

The Great River Project is all SNC Lavalin work, they and PetroCan grease his palm with 4 billion dollars personal graft. How is trashing whatever infrastructure that exists in the western interest? Yugoslavia was a different kettle of fish - that was ideological, this is just $.

They're after military targets and there's just nothing to hit. African mercenaries, infantry and vehicles.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:04 am

Dr_Phibes wrote:They're after military targets and there's just nothing to hit.

After years of research, scientists have theorised that military targets can possibly be found on...

...wait for it...

...military bases!

Carson · Post by **Carson** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:02 pm

mvscal wrote:He is il Douche.

Classic.

Obomba is trying to intimidate the "new" Egypt now that he fukked up control of the Suez Canal.

I know that sounds ridiculous but so do all the other reasons.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:41 pm

Martyred wrote:Libya is a tiny country population wise.
All major urban centers are on the coast and connected by a single highway system, essentially.

France alone could stomp on Libya and then use Corsica or Malta to scrap whatever shit is left on their shoe off.

Take a deep breath...think about this rationally...and then shut your fucking trap.

Are you a total joke?

Are you even trying to make any sense? Let's forget the seething paranoid neo-Nazi Tea Baggers here and try to focus on the idiotic things you're pretending to say...

You think the NATO jets are not pounding the fuck out of Quaddafi's military components? Really? You...think they're ..faking it...so..?..they can say at least they tried?

Okay, you are a joke, period.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:31 pm

Martyred wrote:
mvscal wrote:He started bombing them, didn't he?
He started bombing sand dunes.

everything looks just about like everything else over there, and besides, Kansas was still in the Big Dance... well, until yesterday. Obama's targeting skeelz will surely improve soon, won't they?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:53 am

Why are all you clowns looking at this like a U.S. campaign--as with Iraq, etc.? It's not. This time the Europeans--and yes, they've actually been buying lots of expensive weaponry, and training assholes to use it--are actually attacking. Believe it or not these people are actually aggressive and given to attacking foreign nations by nature. Yeah, look it up--France and Britain actually have a solid history of moving on and attacking other nations--often distant ones.

Compare this to China, which has never invaded anyone. Or Iran. which has never attacked anyone since--let's get this right...Darius II.

Maybe we should all go home...?...

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:46 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Why are all you clowns looking at this like a U.S. campaign

Because it is a US campaign, you stupid asshole.

This time the Europeans--and yes, they've actually been buying lots of expensive weaponry, and training assholes to use it--are actually attacking.

Euros were also in Iraq and substantially more of them, you stupid asshole.

Well Felchie, you finally got yourself a geuinely illegal war for (European) oil. How's that working out for you? Hope and Change, right?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:00 pm

No, Iraq was a completely illegal war. This is not a war, but an internationally sponsored and approved coup.

Let's consider the differences. In Iraq we lied and created a false crisis. Not in Libya. Sure, Saddam qualified as a brute, but he wasn't actually marching on a major city and seeking to murder thousands. The Kurds, you'll recall, we're perversely encouraged to revolt by Poppy Bush and his hapless minions, only to be deserted.

The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt would be imperiled if we allowed the lunatic drag queen to simply maraud about. It's not really that tough a choice--except for ruthless types like Kissinger and so forth who tolerate both dictators and their slaughter if it seems in "our interests."

As to how this coup will turn out, it's still confused, but it will certainly be better.

We've really got to get beyond this basic barometer of how things affect the fake apartheid state. Because they're next on the spit. It's been time.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:59 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:No, Iraq was a completely illegal war.

Try again. The Iraq War Resolution passed by joint session of Congress provided the specific statutory authority to use military force in Iraq as required by the War Powers Resolution. On the international front, Iraq was in violation of 17 UN resolutions with chapter seven enforcement protocols. More importantly, Iraq was in violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement.

While the war in Iraq was based on faulty intelligence, it was scrupulously legal in every respect.

This is not a war, but an internationally sponsored and approved coup.

Needless to say, such activities are explicitly illegal under international law not to mention the UN Charter which prohibits member states from using or even threatening to use force against the territorial integrity of other nations.

Article 2, section 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2, section 7

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

The Kurds, you'll recall, we're perversely encouraged to revolt by Poppy Bush and his hapless minions, only to be deserted.

It was the Shiites in the south who caught the brunt of it. I was there. Yeah, it was fucked up but see Article 2, sec. 7 for enlightenment.

The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt would be imperiled if we allowed the lunatic drag queen to simply maraud about.

A. He wasn't "marauding about." He was suppressing an internal revolt.

B. The assertions regarding Tunisia and Egypt are not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

C. Even if they were, it is not our problem.

D. It is not Il Douche's call to make it our problem.

As to how this coup will turn out, it's still confused, but it will certainly be better.

Certainly? Better for whom? The United States or international Islamists? You don't even know who the fuck you are supporting in Lybia.

We've really got to get beyond this basic barometer of how things affect the fake apartheid state. Because they're next on the spit. It's been time.

So, it's World War III that you're after? The last 10 years haven't been enough for you? Well, good luck with that.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:22 pm

You're all wet.

First, even though the U.N. was gerrymandered into agreeing with the neocon rush to war against Iraq, it wasn't merely based on "faulty intelligence"--as though this somehow excuses it--but rather a concerted plan to distort, omit, and conceal the real intelligence, while manufacturing and inflating lies--and to viciously smear anyone who objected.

As for "our interests," it's not "either/or," as though the Islamic fundamentalists are somehow the alternative to rapacious Western corporate colonialism.

Preventing a wanton slaughter is always in our national interests, even if world-class criminals like Kissinger and Rumsfeld have made it standard American policy to ignore such barbarism if it seems to be in our corporate interests. Well, that era of bellicose American Exceptionalism is long gone. Or what?

The popular uprisings in the Middle East are definitely in our interest, even though the initial American response was to attempt to prop up both the Tunisian despot and Mubarak. So..? What's wrong with learning and doing the right thing?

The GOP response is just the standard hysterical howling in a completely robotic reflex action--oppose everything Barry does, no matter what. Case in point, you've of course completely run from the fact that the GOP honchos were all demanding more military action sooner--until Barry acted, then they all reversed immediately. It's a joke. You're a joke.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:36 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Preventing a wanton slaughter is always in our national interests,

Complete nonsense.

The popular uprisings in the Middle East are definitely in our interest, even though the initial American response was to attempt to prop up both the Tunisian despot and Mubarak. So..? What's wrong with learning and doing the right thing?

Curious how this administration is only encouraging revolts in friendly regimes. Mums the word on Iran and Syria. Oh, by curious, I meant treasonous.

I couldn't help but notice that you have completely failed to respond to the blatant illegality of the action in Lybia and the profoundly disturbing usurpation of power by the teleprompter reader in chief, il Douche.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:01 pm

mvscal wrote:
Curious how this administration is only encouraging revolts in friendly regimes. Mums the word on Iran and Syria.

Oh, please.

America has been agitating for "regime change" in Iran for over 3 decades now.

It just galls you to believe that the ayatollahs may actually have popular support...regardless of what ex-patriot Persian snakes in SoCal cook up for the American Enterprise Institute.

Get over yourself.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:36 pm

Martyred wrote:It just galls you to believe that the ayatollahs may actually have popular support...regardless of what ex-patriot Persian snakes in SoCal cook up for the American Enterprise Institute.

Yeah, you're a dumbfuck.

Oh, look. She's just oozing support for the ayatollahs.

Now where was our fucked up niggger Pres__ent when all this was going down? No stern demands for Ahmaniodot to pack his bags? No threats of military retaliation or the establishment of "no fly zones." What did he say again? Oh, yes. He was 'moved' and 'troubled', then he went out for some ice cream.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:43 pm

mvscal wrote: Yeah, you're a dumbfuck.

Looks like Iran has more freedom than America.

Regardless of what American simpletons think (because they have no concept of government outside the "Big Man Theory")
Ahmedinejad isn't a "supreme ruler".

If you think he is, then I would hope for your erudition he indeed try flex some sort of dictatorial muscle over the Iranian parliament. You'll see his guts splattered all over Tehran's streets by the ayatollahs faster than you can say "Alice the camel's got two humps".

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:20 am

Martyred wrote: Looks like Iran has more freedom than America.

yeah, that's exactly what it looks like.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:46 pm

Martyred wrote:

Damn! Just imagine what that must smell like!

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:36 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:it wasn't merely based on "faulty intelligence"--as though this somehow excuses it--but rather a concerted plan to distort, omit, and conceal the real intelligence, while manufacturing and inflating lies--and to viciously smear anyone who objected.

Glad to see you finally get why East Anglia is a punchline.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:56 pm

Mace wrote:
poptart wrote:
Mace wrote:Okay, dumbfuck, just how will they impeach him if there's no support for impeachment? Don't you think we'd be hearing complaints from a number of our congressional leaders if they were opposed to his Libyan attacks? Wouldn't they be all over the TV voicing their concerns and displeasure with Obama's actions? Aside from Kucinich, all I've heard from them are complaints that Obama waited too long to start the attacks. If you were a real Christian, you'd be praying for him.
I never said there was going to be an impeachment, guy.

If I was in Congress, I would be calling for impeachment.
Barry has BLATANTLY used the military for his own interest ---> in clear violation of the Constitution he is sworn to uphold.
There is NO excuse for it.

But most of Congress is just as fucked up as he is, so I expect nothing.
Doesn't mean a whole lot of Congress doesn't disaprove of his actions, though.
Just not enough to call for impeachment.
Fine, then we agree he's not going to be impeached.

I agree that he's not going to be impeached right now.

I'm not going to be surprised if he's impeached (or he resigns) before his term is over, though.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:28 pm

Really tart? And are you going to be surprised when May 21st sails by without the reappearance of Jesus?

Are you going to be surprised when the GOP doesn't even offer more than a token presidential nominee against Barry's reelection? Because...they actually love the guy? And why not? He's dutifully continued the Chimp's agenda, and he's easy to blame.