Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
General Paul Vallely On Terrorism  
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

Everyone is wondering what happened in Boston ? Everyone has an opinion, a "theory"; I've heard all kinds of opinions and theories so far; my question is........exactly what is your opinion (or your theory) based on ? Where do get your information ? what is your "track record" of being right ?

General Paul Vallely is a former commanding General of the Pacific Command; General Vallely is retired now, so he's free to go where he pleases, talk to whomever he pleases, and say what he pleases; I was just reading what General Vallely had to say in a recent interview with News Max; he returned recently from a trip to Syria, and he has some thoughts about what's happening in that country.

He also has some comments on the Boston Bombings; I didn't refer to it as the "Boston Marathon" bombings because the individuals responsible didn't bomb the marathon, they bombed Boston, Massachusetts. As you already know, there was a big marathon underway at the time.

I've been listening to General Vallely for quite a while now; mainly because I think he's a very smart man, he has MUCH better sources of information than I could ever hope to have, and also because I think the General's credibility is about as good as I'm likely to get. ( And his "track record" of being right is VERY good !)

I'm sorry I'm not able to post his interview, as I'm sure you know, it may be copy-righted and as you know, we're not permitted to post copy-righted material.

Now if only the link will work......

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/va...3/04/24/id/501209?promo_code=F492

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

Oh brother, I'll be honest, I don't think Mitt Romney, John McCain, GWB, a reincarnated Ronald Reagan, etc could have stopped all attacks.

Hundreds times many American civilians died under GWB's watch, yet I don't see many (short of truthers) blaming Bush, why are some freaking out at a few low scale attacks? Yes, RIP to the victims, but let's keep focus here. Find out how/why they happened and work on fixing them.

Tired of this blame Obama for everything bull****. Disagree with his policies, I have my gripes, but not everything that goes wrong is some conspiracy or incompetence or to keep a narcissist's legacy in tact.

This constant crap is why I think the GOP is going downhill and lost and will continue to lose if they don't get their act together.

/rant off

Oh and...

Quoting Geezer (Thread starter):
've been listening to General Vallely for quite a while now; mainly because I think he's a very smart man, he has MUCH better sources of information than I could ever hope to have, and also because I think the General's credibility is about as good as I'm likely to get. ( And his "track record" of being right is VERY good !)

...track record isn't everything, smart/important people have been dead wrong before



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1376 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2077 times:

Consider this Charley- it is very easy to be wise after the event. If this guy had said what he did a few weeks ago then I might have some respect for him.

The problem is that there is no way to guarantee safety; to guarantee nobody will slip through the net. Finding the one terrorist in a thousand potential threats is always going to be difficult.

The rest of his article seems to be warmongering and political bluster; not that surprising really from him. Regime change in Iran, regime change in Saudi Arabia, regime change in Syria etc. All very nice, but we need to start saving if we want another war. I think he needs to start living in the real world.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2072 times:

From the linked article:

Quote:
According to public reports, Russia warned the FBI numerous times about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, one of two brothers accused in the bombing attack. He was killed in a firefight with police on Friday; his younger brother Dzhokhar, 19, remains hospitalized after he was captured.

It's unfortunate that the general is publishing as fact something which hasn't been proven. All that we know is that Russia made the same request of more than one U.S. agency, and the FBI discarded them as duplicates as each request was forwarded to them.

With basic fact-checking in his story this lame, I can only assume that the rest of it is based upon the same level of "accuracy", and not worth much.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4389 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2044 times:

Wow, what an idiot. My favorite part was the Glenn Beck citation, I guess they are tied at the hip.

"Total denial about radical Islam" My oh my. What has all this aggressive drone strike action (and subsequent feigned outrage) been about?

Just another blowhard who would rather hear the sound of his own voice than reality.

The intelligence community has changed very little from the Bush to Obama administrations. In general they've done an excellent job in the post 9/11 era, with some luck thrown in.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6658 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2044 times:

I don't know that man, but what he says reeks of conspiracy theory crap.

And what he says about Syria is the opposite of the rest of his discourse. Because radical islamists are fighting in Syria and they're not in Assad camp, so what should Obama do exactly ? It's a civil war with more than two sides. In the Boston thread someone said that an American had just been arrested because he was flying to Syria to fight with Al Qaeda there !

Besides, with more drone strikes than ever I don't see how he can say Obama is soft on terrorism. Not treating the perpetrators as "enemy combatants" or whatever is the smart thing to do, it doesn't glorify them.

As for the Saudis, well, I seem to remember Bush 1 & 2 and Reagan were good friends of them so this policy is nothing new, France is doing the same with Qatar, we court them on one side and they push islamism on the other, pretty dumb.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2012 times:

So far, I haven't seen any replies that have surprised me; if you're a college kid, and a retired General says something that YOU don't agree with, just call the General an idiot, and everyone will "assume" that YOU'RE smarter than the General is.........

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
Tired of this blame Obama for everything bul

You seem to be forgetting something here............you keep reminding everyone that he's the "POTUS"..........that's where the buck stops ! It goes with the territory ! Of course. you don't have PROVE any of that to me; I'm not the one who said all of that; I'm just a retired senior citizen who happens to attach more significance to things I hear from retired Generals than I do to things I hear on internet forums from hyper-opionated people who have no credibility that I'm aware of, and who offer no proof to back up their opinions.

You don't even have to read what General Vallely says; if listening to people you disagree with gets you that upset, you'd probably be better off if you just read a Lee Child novel; ( I just finished one this morning; "Tripwire".......out of 5 or 6, it's probably the best one yet.)

That's always the problem with highly opinionated people; they always seem to forget that others have opinions also, and have just as much right tom express them. If you disagree with General Vallely, I suggest you send him an email.......let him know why he's wrong; explain to him why your opinion on things is better than his is.


While you're at it, instead of merely calling everyone who disagrees with you an insulting name, let them know why your opinions are superior to theirs.

Another thing you seem to be forgetting........or else you have absolutely no respect for............not everyone on this forum agrees with your opinions; I'm sure there are people on A.net who are more inclined to attach credibility to what General Vallely says than to what you say. Maybe you should reflect on that a bit. Maybe you should give some thought to the fact that anyone who becomes a member of A.net has just as much right to be heard as you do. While I'm at it, let me ask all 5 of you fellow A.net members the same question...........did it ever occur to you that maybe, just possibly, that General Vallely might be absolutely correct, and that you might just possibly be "misinformed" ? I can tell all 5 of you one thing you haven't learned yet; just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them wrong, and it doesn't always make YOU right either.

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2005 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
did it ever occur to you that maybe, just possibly, that General Vallely might be absolutely correct, and that you might just possibly be "misinformed" ? I can tell all 5 of you one thing you haven't learned yet; just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them wrong, and it doesn't always make YOU right either.

That's choice coming from someone who still owes me an apology for wrongly assuming about me in another thread! 

And yes, I do believe that my answer was right on the money. If you re-read it, you'll probably realize that a general who retired in 1993, 20 years ago, wouldn't know any more about the topic I posted about than I would. We both can only go by what is reported, unless you're telling us that he's breaching Top Secret clearances by publishing inside info on the net.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5647 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1981 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
So far, I haven't seen any replies that have surprised me;

That should be a big clue.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
if you're a college kid, and a retired General says something that YOU don't agree with, just call the General an idiot, and everyone will "assume" that YOU'RE smarter than the General is.........

Facts are facts. It doesn't matter if a 12-year old or a 75-year old says it.

One can be entitled to their opinion, but one is not entitled to their own facts.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1966 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
So far, I haven't seen any replies that have surprised me; if you're a college kid, and a retired General says something that YOU don't agree with, just call the General an idiot, and everyone will "assume" that YOU'RE smarter than the General is.........

You might want to read up on Paul von Hindenburg if you don't know how wrong even the most decorated people in the military can be.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1928 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 9):
You might want to read up on Paul von Hindenburg if you don't know how wrong even the most decorated people in the military can be.

Nice!

Or Tommy Franks for that matter.


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7389 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

I think these quotes sum it all up for me.

Quote:
The Boston bombs led to an over-reaction that contrasts with lethargy over real issues, says Michael Cohen

The thriving metropolis of Boston was turned into a ghost town on Friday. Nearly a million Bostonians were asked to stay in their homes - and willingly complied. Schools were closed; businesses shuttered; trains, subways and roads were empty; usually busy streets eerily resembled a post-apocalyptic movie set; even baseball games and cultural events were cancelled - all in response to a 19-year-old fugitive, who was on foot and clearly identified by the news media.[/quote]

which flows nicely into this one

[quote]But Londoners, who endured IRA (the Irish Republican Army - the paramilitary group who fought for Northern Irish independence from the UK) terror threats for years, might be forgiven for thinking that America over-reacted just a tad to the goings-on in Boston. They're right - and then some. What we saw was a collective freak-out like few we've ever seen in the United States. It was yet another depressing reminder that more than 11 years after 9/11 Americans still allow themselves to be easily and willingly cowed by the "threat" of terrorism.

and to add a little perspective

Quote:
At the same time that investigators were in the midst of a high-profile manhunt for the marathon bombers, 38 more Americans - with far less fanfare - died from gun violence. One was a 22-year old resident of Boston. They are a tiny percentage of the 3531 Americans killed by guns in the past four months - a total that surpasses the number of Americans who died on 9/11 and is one fewer than the number of US soldiers who lost their lives in combat operations in Iraq. Yet, none of this daily violence was considered urgent enough to motivate Congress to impose a mild, commonsense restriction on gun purchasers.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/boston-bom...cfm?c_id=1503333&objectid=10878901


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12561 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1872 times:

Quoting Geezer (Thread starter):
Everyone has an opinion, a "theory";

And then there are actual facts.

Quoting Geezer (Thread starter):
General Paul Vallely is a former commanding General of the Pacific Command; General Vallely is retired now, so he's free to go where he pleases, talk to whomever he pleases, and say what he pleases;

No one is free to go wherever they please, including Obama or the late St. Ronald.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
Hundreds times many American civilians died under GWB's watch

And innocent Iraqi and Afghani citizens, not to mention amputees.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
smart/important people have been dead wrong before

Like Gen. Patreaus, head of CIA caught doing things a teenager would think twice about.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
if you're a college kid, and a retired General says something that YOU don't agree with, just call the General an idiot

Charley, this college kid will tell you that favoring the opinion of someone because they are a General is just as bad as dismissing it because they are a General.

Clearly you can see a military training imparts a certain bias on how one looks at the world, as opposed to someone who perhaps is a trained in the liberal arts, etc?

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
I'm just a retired senior citizen who happens to attach more significance to things I hear from retired Generals than I do to things I hear on internet forums from hyper-opionated people who have no credibility that I'm aware of, and who offer no proof to back up their opinions.

Why? What is it about a military background that makes you attach more significance to their opinions?

Because they've used a mixture of propoganda, indoctrination and vain glory to get others to kill at their command?

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 10):
Quoting aloges (Reply 9):
You might want to read up on Paul von Hindenburg if you don't know how wrong even the most decorated people in the military can be.

Nice!

Or Tommy Franks for that matter.

Or Patraeus.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 11):
But Londoners, who endured IRA (the Irish Republican Army - the paramilitary group who fought for Northern Irish independence from the UK) terror threats for years, might be forgiven for thinking that America over-reacted just a tad to the goings-on in Boston. They're right - and then some.

Hmm, British people smug? Naaaaaah!

I'm all in favor of nipping this thing in the bud before it becomes 'normal' like it did in London.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1871 times:

(Rearranging the sequence here.)

Quoting Geezer (Thread starter):
what is your "track record" of being right ?

Quite decent actually, if you go through my older posts and compare my proposals and predictions with subsequent actual events.

Notably:

• Afghanistan response to 9/11: It was indeed a huge mistake to cuddle up to the drug/war lords from the get go to avoid a some pain initially, leading to the long-term failure of the entire campaign.

• Iraq invasion: I was exactly on the point both regarding the Bush administration's lies used to ram the invasion through, about the UN resistance (including the inspections) and regarding the outcome, notably including the creation of a massive backlash in the muslim world to this very day. I had not anticipated the actual extent of the damage, however. Excesses like Abu Ghraib were sadly beyond what I had thought to be plausible.

There is more, but that is beside the point that the credibility of the point of view presented in that article is already thoroughly discredited by actual events and experiences with attempting to ditch the rule of law out of fear of terrorism.

Quoting Geezer (Thread starter):
Everyone is wondering what happened in Boston ? Everyone has an opinion, a "theory"; I've heard all kinds of opinions and theories so far; my question is........exactly what is your opinion (or your theory) based on ? Where do get your information ?

Let's see. Crucial claim:

Quote:
Vallely also noted the Obama administration's decision to try Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a criminal rather than an enemy combatant is an example of a return to 1990s policies that treated terrorism as a simple legal matter.

"Simple" legal matter?

It was deliberate murder and mutilation of multiple human beings by at least one citizen of the United States of America (the older brother was not a citizen as far as I'm aware). That Dzokhar Zarnaev is to be tried in accordance to the law is exactly the correct way to proceed. There is no viable alternative to that, nor even a desirable alternative.

In some circles the rule of law is confused with "weakness", but the more one looks at all the alternatives that have been proposed and in fact tried, the more apparent it becomes that in fact those alternatives have a horrendous record of creating more aggression from the outside and actually failing miserably and embarrassingly at achieving what they set out to chieve directly.

My impression is that at the heart of such proposals is a confusion of reality with the ficticious action movie universe where the script writers create vigilante "justice" which is carefully set up in a combination of painting the villains as absolutely outside of any humanity and law enforcement as completely incompetent, corrupt and ineffective so the hero is in the script "forced" to "fix the system" by serving "justice" to the villain as a replacement.

In reality suspects are sometimes real villains and in fact far removed from their own humanity, but in most cases things are more complex than that and the state of information is often less obvious.

Real law enforcement is in fact a lot more effective than presented in movie scripts whose main purpose is to exculpate the "hero" going around and killing people at will.

And real-life vigilantism has a very bad history of almost always descending into lynch mobs and the like eventually.

The abandonment of the rule of law by governments that appears so satisfying for some people's revenge fantasies fares even worse – what happened during the Bush administration is only the last but not even the worst example. It is just one of the most disturbing examples of how vast the chasm can become between claimed moral superiority on the one hand and the actual willingness to ditch all morality on the other. The irregular military-based prosecution of suspects in connection with Guantanamo bay is not just inexcusable by itself, but also a spectacular failure on its own lacking merits.

In actual, real life with no assistance from script writers for a ficticious universe, Dzokhar Zarnaev as a US citizen must be properly tried as a criminal, with all rights afforded as required. There are indications that he may have been influenced and manipulated by his older brothers to some extent; Properly investigating this context is one of the things which need to be done.

I am aware of the panicked desire to blindly throw "everything" at the effects of widespread hatred caused by decades of neglect and horribly misguided policies, but recent years have made abundantly clear that this desire leads to catastrophy far beyond the wildest dreams of terrorists. It is actually what terrorists hope for, because it "proves" to them, to their supporters and crucially to their potential recruits that their adversaries are in fact as heinous, immoral and illegitimate as they've said all along.

It requires a lot more moral conviction, clarity of purpose and a lot more courage to hold stadfast to the rule of law and to keep differentiating between terrorists and the people those purport to speak for.

And if history holds any lessons, it clearly says that that is the way to go in dealing with terrorists.

Terrorists have one primary weakness: Their acts are inherently illegitimate. Their only hope is to coax a free and democratic state and society into deliberately abandoning their initially far superior legitimacy and descend into the same quagmire of violence, abuse and illegitimacy where the terrorists have already started from.

And even though it goes against many people's basic reflexes, refusing to abandon a democracy's superior legitimacy is the only viable way to counter actual terrorism.

Potential recruits are not so much swayed by threats of counter-violence but a lot more by a lack of perceived legitimacy in proposed terrorism.


The 1970s german terrorism wave is a good example: Chancellor Helmut Schmidt crucially rejected to abandon the rule of law under the most dire terrorist threats and extortion attempts. Which is understood to be the turning point that ultimately led to the terrorism wave to fail and fizzle out eventually, since the state reinforced its authority and above all its legitimacy that way.

International islamist terrorism is a harder nut to crack, however, because it feeds on actual issues which remain unresolved, not least the atrocious situation of the palestinians (even though most palestinians themselves are not actually religious fanatics). Inconveniently, there wíll be no violent resolution to this problem. Starving terrorists out of supporters and fresh recruits is only possible on a long path along reforms regarding a whole bunch of problems, education, and again a convincing adherence to the rule of law.

A real resolution is not about short-term satisfaction, but about long-term treatment of wounds which are still festering and causing toxic outbursts.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1838 times:

Klaus for General.   


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1376 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1806 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
That's always the problem with highly opinionated people; they always seem to forget that others have opinions also, and have just as much right tom express them. If you disagree with General Vallely, I suggest you send him an email.......let him know why he's wrong; explain to him why your opinion on things is better than his is.

You solicited opinions on this man's comments. As far as I can see all the replies have gone at least some way to explaining why his point of view is wrong. You can't then turn around and suggest that they're somehow breaching your human rights by disagreeing with you and that they should submit their criticisms by email.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
did it ever occur to you that maybe, just possibly, that General Vallely might be absolutely correct, and that you might just possibly be "misinformed" ?

I don't think it's a question of being "wrong" or "right" in this instance, because the general's rant is so unfocused it doesn't really make a coherent point. He appears to be supporting the Syrian opposition whilst in the rest of the post complaining about Islamists. Therefore one can only assume that he doesn't understand which side is which in the Syrian conflict. He then goes on to suggest Obama should be doing more to combat Islamism, but doesn't say how or exactly what he should be doing differently.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12561 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1804 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
My impression is that at the heart of such proposals is a confusion of reality with the ficticious action movie universe where the script writers create vigilante "justice" which is carefully set up in a combination of painting the villains as absolutely outside of any humanity and law enforcement as completely incompetent, corrupt and ineffective so the hero is in the script "forced" to "fix the system" by serving "justice" to the villain as a replacement.

Indeed. Another trick from the playbook is the conservative "starve the beast" approach to governance. They do whatever they can to gum up the works and deprive many parts of government of resources so they can later point out how messed up the government is.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
The abandonment of the rule of law by governments that appears so satisfying for some people's revenge fantasies fares even worse – what happened during the Bush administration is only the last but not even the worst example. It is just one of the most disturbing examples of how vast the chasm can become between claimed moral superiority on the one hand and the actual willingness to ditch all morality on the other.

GWB clearly didn't learn a thing from his dad, and single handedly squandered almost all of the good will the US had remaining on the world scene.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
And even though it goes against many people's basic reflexes, refusing to abandon a democracy's superior legitimacy is the only viable way to counter actual terrorism.

That's going to be a concern when others finally start flying drones over the US: how can the US claim they shouldn't kill people on US soil when the US is so willing to do so on other nation's soil?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1778 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):

Excellent post, Klaus!   

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
Maybe you should give some thought to the fact that anyone who becomes a member of A.net has just as much right to be heard as you do.

...says the guy who consistently proclaims that only American A-net members should be allowed to voice their opinions on threads pertaining to American topics...



Flying refined.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1746 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
You seem to be forgetting something here............you keep reminding everyone that he's the "POTUS"..........that's where the buck stops !

Of course! President Obama is the leader of my country and no matter what his intentions and actions are, he will always shoulder some responsibility. "The buck stop here" doesn't mean that everything goes wrong is massive incompetence for the President and not knowing 100% of everything or having the unreliable media say something kinda shady doesn't always means there is some conspiracy

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
That's always the problem with highly opinionated people;

Hahaha you mustn't read my posts at all. I give almost everyone the benefit of the doubt. Even the Benghazi "conspiracy" theories I thought were BS I listened to and tried to understand what people were saying, never quite dismissing people.

What makes me mad is no matter what the President does right (or wrong) there are cries about how wrong he is and there are a ton of people trying to pass off opinions or incomplete stories as anti-Obama spin

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
While you're at it, instead of merely calling everyone who disagrees with you an insulting name, let them know why your opinions are superior to theirs.

Who did I call names? I thought I explained myself pretty well, how it's tiring to hear these mostly baseless and biased comments no matter what the President does

Quoting Geezer (Reply 6):
just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them wrong, and it doesn't always make YOU right either.

Pot meet kettle, geez


The funny thing is I consider myself more right leaning than left leaning. But most of the rhetoric I've been hearing from the right lately is just so ridiculous, biased, and hateful. If there was a legitimate complaint it would be one thing, but again, why is it no matter what the President does it's some giant conspiracy or something.

Go read some of my posts, I doubt you'll see that I'm some Obama fanboy that turns a blind eye when he does something wrong



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1731 times:

Just to illustrate what I said, go to the Boston bombing thread... you actually had people saying that the writing was on the wall and it was so obvious that the President was committing a conspiracy and letting the Saudi bomber get out of America.

That's what we have these days... no one ever stops and thinks things though, they just instantly pin crap on the President with no basis...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1720 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 19):
That's what we have these days... no one ever stops and thinks things though, they just instantly pin crap on the President with no basis...

I don't think you need to be so harsh on people, or your countrymen. It's true that 24-hour news-based entertainment channels are more concerned with CRASH BANG WALLOP-style shows than with facts or their analysis (a.k.a. "the boring stuff"), but I don't agree that they've stopped sensible people from thinking. They, or dare I say we, do that of our own volition. But it's a slow and quiet process, so it doesn't make for nearly as good entertainment as someone on TV screaming at someone else.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1691 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 20):

Maybe I'm being a little harsh but ever since Benghazi it seems that no matter what happens in this country, it's always the President's fault. Hey, maybe it is, 100%, I have no problem with that. It's when people instantly jump to the worst case scenario every time and argue for there, get proven wrong, and jump on the new anti-President bandwagon.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1682 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 14):
Klaus for General.

I'm not entirely sure if that's a compliment...!   

Quoting Revelation (Reply 16):
Another trick from the playbook is the conservative "starve the beast" approach to governance. They do whatever they can to gum up the works and deprive many parts of government of resources so they can later point out how messed up the government is.

I'm generally open to any discussion about avoiding waste. The trouble is that some politicians consider absolutely everything to be "waste" which benefits the general population and not just some of their donors.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1376 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1668 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 22):
I'm generally open to any discussion about avoiding waste. The trouble is that some politicians consider absolutely everything to be "waste" which benefits the general population and not just some of their donors.

The other thing is that there's never nearly as much waste as people think there is. Every opposition party in the whole world always campaigns on a platform of reducing waste, and taking the supposed enormous savings and spending them on tax cuts. Then when they get into power they discover that what waste there is is usually more costly to eliminate than it is just to leave it alone.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

Yeah, actual reality is a bitch, particularly when ideologues are confronted with it.   

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Report From General Barry McCaffrey On Iraq posted Thu Mar 29 2007 15:13:25 by DL021
War On Terrorism: Some Good News posted Wed Oct 25 2006 05:01:32 by Falcon84
Paul Schaffer On Late Night posted Fri Mar 31 2006 09:58:16 by ATCRick
Attorney General To Piss On Constitution Yet Again posted Sun Sep 25 2005 00:51:14 by Killjoy
Bush Government Flip-Flops On Terrorism posted Tue Aug 17 2004 13:53:08 by Schoenorama
War On Terrorism: Who's Winning? posted Fri Jun 11 2004 18:05:35 by TWISTEDWHISPER
What Does The War On Terrorism Cost? posted Mon Mar 31 2003 23:55:33 by Bromma1968
Martin Amis On Terrorism And War posted Tue Mar 4 2003 13:30:08 by GDB
Why The US Is Losing The War On Terrorism posted Mon Dec 16 2002 08:00:21 by Twaneedsnohelp
American View On Terrorism posted Tue Feb 26 2002 22:05:30 by Delta-flyer