Here we go again…

First, here’s Palin’s “analysis” of the new nuke treaty:
“It’s unbelievable. Unbelievable. No administration in America’s history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today. It’s kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, ‘Go ahead, punch me in the face and I’m not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.”

Brilliant!! Not only factually wrong, but embarrasingly simplistic.

And then there’s Fox news, (Palin’s employer) who is either willfilly spreading disinformation to scare people or is just purely incompetent as a news organization. It’s pathetic when a comedian has to act as factchecker to the nation’s most watched news outlet. Check out Gingrich and Hannity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/stewart-rips-fox-news-for_n_531455.html

How can you not be upset at these things? Blatent inaccuracies. And now there’s the Supreme Court nominee coming up and Beck is already letting loose the disgusting rhetoric. I am deeply uninspired by conservatism these days. I wish you would open your eyes. AAAAgghhhhh!!!!!!

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Here we go again…”

  1. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    True.

    Are you finished?

    Now let’s get down to the business at hand.

    I think all of these policies are meaningless. The goal is to get other countries to join the NPT.

    Obama’s utlimate goal is to rid the world of nuclear weapons. I think that’s a pot smoking, purely academic and naive goal if you ask me. Did Obama conjure up this policy idea in his dorm room?

    http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2010/04/09/nuclear_posturing,_obama-style?page=1

  2. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    Great….ridding the world of nuclear weapons is meaningless. Did you even think for one second that if we could reduce this arms race to, say, the ability to destroy the word 100 times over instead of 1000 that we could focus our time, resources, and money elsewhere? Do you think obama thinks that we will ever have NO nuclear weapons? You are the naive thinker. It’s as if you have no understanding of rhetoric, or political maneuvering or long term thinking.

    But leave it to Conservatives to distort the facts and try to scare the “folks” over this “Socialist” regime backing down from the mighty “Soviets”. Jesus…I am fucking pissed off at conservatives. Fucking military militias in Michigan, flying small airplanes into IRS buildings, boycotting the Census, threatening congressional leaders, vandalizing leaders’ offices, distorting legislation, fucking fillibusters, slavery not significant enough for Confederate history month. Really?….Nice group. Nice leadership over there.

  3. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    Well I submit to you I think that removing any threat under any circumstances is bad policy. It removes a deterrent. Other countries will act in their own self interest and can only bring harm to us. I do think that even the rhetorical idea of a nuclear free world is simply impossible. The U.S. is better off negotiating from a point of strength, not weakness. The reality is that we have enemies in this world and strength is all they will respect. There is no going back.

    So please expand what you mean by the use of rhetoric, political maneuvering and long term thinking. I’m interested in what you mean by that because I don’t understand.

  4. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    What I mean is…he’s a very smart, politically savvy politician. What he (and any good politician) says publicly is akin to a chess move in which he is already anticipating his next two moves and the next two moves of his opponent. What may look like a mundane strategy or policy is not necessarily the end product. As in pool, you try to leave the cue in position for your next shot. But knee-jerk conservative reaction is that he is giving away the farm. Same with health care. He believes that in the long run, 10, 20 , 30 years down the road that it will bring costs down. Or the stimulus. Not working in 6 months? Must be a failure! No. You guys think he is so radical, but he is very cautious and deliberate and forward thinking.

    Reducing the number of weapons decreases the chance of them getting into the hands of terrorists. Do you think people who strap bombs on to their bodies or fly airplanes into buildings care about us retaliating with a nuclear weapon?

  5. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    But he’s two moves ahead of his opponent? He’s more forward thinking? What kind of answer is that? You might as well just stop thinking for yourself if that is the kind of defense you put up for Obama. Because apparently he is more brilliant than the rest of the country so therefore his views cannot be disputed. He is way ahead of us so don’t even try. Is that what you are saying. Sounds like blind allegiance to me.

  6. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    Oh my poor cynical friend. I’m not saying his views can’t be disputed. (Though you seem to dispute ALL of them) What I’m saying is you are so quick to condem him–because you just don’t like him–that you jump at things he does which is just part of a larger picture yet to come. Reducing nuclear weapons is a good thing. If Krauthammer had said that, you’d be agreeing. To say that reducing n. weapons is not good policy is simply stupid. Look man, Obama is bound to make some mistakes, as all presidents do. When he does, feel free to jab at him. But you can’t say that everything the man does is wrong, when you are over there in your right wing chamber, selling your soul to a group of yahoos who think the ONLY important thing is to lower taxes and shrink the Federal government which wants nothing more than to control your life, take your guns, and lead a new world order. Why do you NEVER condemn ANY of the loons on your side? It’s sad that you think you have more in common with those folks than more moderate, sane people.

    And why not answer this question that I posed before:
    Reducing the number of weapons decreases the chance of them getting into the hands of terrorists. Do you think people who strap bombs on to their bodies or fly airplanes into buildings care about us retaliating with a nuclear weapon?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: