5 Illegals for 1 Marine

Obama pulls a lot of these stunts not because he's stupid, but because he thinks everyone else is too stupid to see what he really does.
 
re the five terrorists released: is there some reason to believe they are more toxic than the people who have their jobs now?

THey've been out of the loop for what, twelve years?

As for the game theory aspects, I think the destruction we have rained down on various areas of the middle east which did not have anything to do with 9/11 should convince anybody watching that we are the most careless, destructive, badazz critters on the planet and not to be messed with unless you want to meet allah early.

I fail to see how turning this trash back over to their successors is a downside to us.

I don't have any use for the Pied Piper president of ours but please keep things in perspective: our last president attacked Iraq as a result of the 9/11 atrocity and Iraq had nothing to do with it. Steve Sailer compared that to us retaliating for Pearl Harbor by attacking China instead of Japan. They are both Asians, aren't they?
 
Huisache,

I have seen the argument advanced that it will only inspire the Taliban to kidnap more Americans. Oh, really? Do they need any additional inspiration? Wouldn't they basically kidnap any American in Afghanistan that they encounter, if they don't kill him first?

In short, it's a nonsense argument, just as is the notion that we don't negotiate with terrorists, or that we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.
 
Watching 'Morning Joe' playback... Joe leading the "This is the dumbest thing ever on earth" and all talking about the how could they not know... every angle and detail of this, from father's history in it, to the son, to every aspect... BO, Susan Rice, all of them. How could they not know all the details, all the ramifications, every possible angle if you do this from the Rose Garden and having carried it all out, given every detail imaginable...?

My answer continues to be, they do know. They always know. And this is one of the ways a tyranical mindset works. It's probably more along a Mao or Stalinist form of suppression of an entire people, whereas the far-right method is more what we've come to view as Nazi (Nationalistic ferver) process. The left way is just put down the hammer cold and hard, and stonewalling right in your face; the far right way is with zeal, rousing emotions, mob mentality. The left can do it very insidiously. Very.

But basically, this is just a more intense category of what really is just "mind-*******" that has been the benchmark of this presidency. I mean, ask yourself, from Benghazi, how that was handled, the DOJ angle on Fast and Furious, the attacks on James Rosen as a journalist, the entire IRS matter, the rollout of Obamacare... all those and more keep raising the same question of "how can you now know what is going on here?"

What if the answer is, oh, but we very well do know. And the goal is to dismantle the minds and focus and attention of the population. Why do anything in a moderate way if, by doing it in an insane way, you can drive all the chickens in the barnyard into a frenzy, or rattle all the mice in the cage to the point they not only can't manage the maze, they no longer even care about the maze: just to exist is all they can now manage.

We're being mind-****** every step of the way. And I think it's a problem if the conservative side works really hard in a political way to offset things by usual politics. Both sides of the aisle need to stand up to the total insanity of it, else we're encouraging this kind of political behavior that belongs in a science-fiction political study like the film Brazil, or V for Vendetta.

When you have to ask this many questions of these kinds of concerns, it begs to step back and examie the motives behind all of it, including the common denominator of presidential, executive office, powers. That has been a visible constant, and should sound a lot of alarms.

Obama does give a realtime history lesson in political science and behavioral studies. Insidiousness is the term most often that comes to mind.
 
Apologies if my post was delivered with zeal best reserved over beers in face-time... the managing editor of Time just said something interesting (guest on Morning Joe, explaining why TIME elected to run with that story on the cover and not next week's rollout of Hilary's book)...

the message from the administration was "just suck it up and salute." We're gonna do it anyway.

So that maybe sums up my suggestion of underlying motives that I called 'mind-F*#*" games.... it could also be phrased as "Look this is going to be put into law, so just suck it up and deal with it."

A form of dictatorial rule, then. Here's the way it is -- so suck it up and live with it.

The bar has been therefore moved in that direction of progressive rule. Need to move the ball down the field, need to make a social or economic change... can't spend time hashing it out with elected representatives and take into consideration differences of opinion, it's "settled science, settled sociology" so time to just do it an move on, so suck it up.

That's been BO's MO. Suck it up. Deal with it. It's the law.

Yes. Kings are good at that. Dictators. And so forth. Who says a democratic republic with a constitution can't also have an executive branch of just one person with unlimited power?

To get there, as a democracy, and feel you are still a free society, you get there in incremental steps. Step by step. And Obama's presidency is a form of how you begin to make those steps. Every step must rattle the emotions and psyche, that way you build into the culture more acceptance and less questioning of things.

The idea is to get to the point you learn to "suck it up" and never question anything. Your move forward with the idea you just do not question the moves, you do not topple the apple cart and scramble things up.

You just do it. You just suck it up and deal with it. BO roles up his sleeves at those guest appearances with a crowd in front and behind him and delivers any variety of "this is how it is... it's 'good sense' to do it just like I'm telling you.. so suck it up."

Like... the executive officer knows what we all should know..

Somehow I thought the entire fabric of America was never about that. You don't just shove things down everybody's throat. With that kind of attitude. Whether a social issue, a climate issue, a "just war" issue, or whatever issue. You deal with it with three equal branches of government, and you respect time and space and differences. You respect moderation and liberty and good sense in the pacing of life.

We are not mice to be experimented with. Or or we?
 
Sorry one last point.

BO should have remained a Senator. That's where you participate and express your ideas and ideals. You work them through the vetting process of embraced intelligent debate, and let things stand the test of time.

The executive branch is about governance and the constitution and leadership of a different kind.

Maybe all of this is just about a man who was not suited to being the executive officer. More suited to participating in a different kind of way.

Let his two-term presidency serve as an example. He has shown what kind of presidency -- in my opinion -- is completely not what that office is about. Because if it is, if the majority really doesn't recoil against this kind of executive rule, by now, by the time 2016 roles around, we're in a lot of trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top