"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The Soviet Union was far more dangerous to us than is Syria, and also did far more evil in the world. As I recall, we spoke to them from time to time and that worked out reasonably well.

Reagan almost agreed to complete nuclear disarmament when he met with Gorbachev in Reykjavik, but then he didn't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Worse than the #1 liberal voter in Washington, who would also sit down with the Syrians to discuss our "differences" while bombing Pakistan?

I find this absurd.

We bombed Pakistan last month. I'll wait here for your condemnation of the Bush Administration's efforts to kill Al Qaeda terrorists, and as I do I'll wonder why you hate America so much that you would attack Obama on this point.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Board pool: How long before Slave shows up to post about Michelle Obama's pride? I saw 11:54 am EST.

The comment spoke for itself.

Hopefully, she'll continue to say similar, moronic comments.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
We bombed Pakistan last month. I'll wait here for your condemnation of the Bush Administration's efforts to kill Al Qaeda terrorists, and as I do I'll wonder why you hate America so much that you would attack Obama on this point.

Why don't I just pretend to be a liberal:

"WAH!!!! Bushitler bombed innocents!! WAH! No blood for oil!!! WAH!!!"

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Worse than the #1 liberal voter in Washington, who would also sit down with the Syrians to discuss our "differences" while bombing Pakistan?

I find this absurd.

We're already bombing Pakistan, and rightfully so. From Unilateral Strike Called a Model For U.S. Operations in Pakistan:

• In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.
  
  The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.
  
  Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.
  
  Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan's national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand.

How is that different from this?

• “Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/

eta: Whoops. Scroll, then post.

2d eta:

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"WAH!!!! Bushitler bombed innocents!! WAH! No blood for oil!!! WAH!!!"

War is hell, Nancy! Toughen up.

S_A_M

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The comment spoke for itself.

Hopefully, she'll continue to say similar, moronic comments.

I've said this before but from day one it's been my belief that there's a lot of sentiment and feelings of both Obamas that are being carefully filtered...for now...but that it's inevitably going to come out, probably through Mrs. Obama, and it will alienate tons of (mostly white) voters. The Mrs. likes to say her "sarcastic sense of humor" doesn't "go over well sometimes." Because it's not humor, but the truth and it's anger about it or disgust. Besides growing up poor and black in a really shitty atmosphere for blacks, they've doubtless seen some pretty fucked up racism in their community organizing. I'm sure white policeman really embraced their organizing.

If either of their speeches slipped in a roaring "This Nation's Continued Suppression of the Black Man and Woman", a majority of their white supporters would look like they just ate a lemon and quietly change their vote to McCain. I think both are carefully keeping a lid on it. Especially Michelle - I can just see her biting her tongue as she wants to make a comment about a topic such as police brutality against blacks. It's there, its true, it's a major problem in all state forces, etc. but nobody is going to want to hear about it from the Obamas. It will make them feel like it's "Us Against Them". Maybe I'm just pessimistic about white ability to deal with racism as a fact, or to hear about it from a black man.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I've said this before but from day one it's been my belief that there's a lot of sentiment and feelings of both Obamas that are being carefully filtered...for now...but that it's inevitably going to come out, probably through Mrs. Obama, and it will alienate tons of (mostly white) voters.

I'm sure that's true. I hope it does not come out.

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
It's there, its true, it's a major problem in all state forces, etc. but nobody is going to want to hear about it from the Obamas. It will make them feel like it's "Us Against Them". Maybe I'm just pessimistic about white ability to deal with racism as a fact, or to hear about it from a black man.

Your pessimism is well grounded in reality.

The truth is ugly. In many ways life is still "Us Against Them" - although the us and them are shifting. Most people want to pretend it does not exist.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

I have to say, I am really enjoying each and every Hillary primary loss, and watching her campaign become more and more desperate with each passing day. It's just simply wonderful.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Most people want to pretend it does not exist.
S_A_M

Which is pretty scary since its existence is documented everywhere.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Ezra Klein:

• STRAIGHT TALK.
  
  So McCain is now promising "no new taxes." But the centerpiece of the health care plan he's pushing is apparently an end to the employer health care deduction, which would suddenly transform about $1 trillion in currently untaxed wages into...taxed wages. So there's all this money that employers currently don't pay taxes on, and under McCain's plan, they're going to pay taxes on it. Taxes they didn't have to pay before. Can someone explain to me how this isn't a new tax?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
On a side note, I will never understand why some people (usually on the right) take the position that the U.S. should not sit down with our enemies to discuss our differences. As a general rule, I think that is a good idea.

The Soviet Union was far more dangerous to us than is Syria, and also did far more evil in the world. As I recall, we spoke to them from time to time and that worked out reasonably well.

S_A_M

Not that I disagree with you. Dialogue is always important. But on the other hand, the Soviet Union could wipe us off the map. So there is a difference. I don't think Syria poses much of a threat to US Citiznes (except of course our soldiers in Iraq).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ezra Klein:

• STRAIGHT TALK.
  
  So McCain is now promising "no new taxes." But the centerpiece of the health care plan he's pushing is apparently an end to the employer health care deduction, which would suddenly transform about $1 trillion in currently untaxed wages into...taxed wages. So there's all this money that employers currently don't pay taxes on, and under McCain's plan, they're going to pay taxes on it. Taxes they didn't have to pay before. Can someone explain to me how this isn't a new tax?

Is failing to increase the AMT thresholds a new tax by this definition? Obviously it's a rhetorical point because economically taxing previously untaxable income and raising rates are basically teh same thing.

In the end, though, I suspect that this change will pale in comparison to the new effective taxes clinton's or obama's approaches would impose.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is failing to increase the AMT thresholds a new tax by this definition?

No, failing to increase thresholds is a step behind repealing a deduction.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Not that I disagree with you. Dialogue is always important. But on the other hand, the Soviet Union could wipe us off the map. So there is a difference. I don't think Syria poses much of a threat to US Citiznes (except of course our soldiers in Iraq).

So the strategy is to let your enemies get really strong and then talk to them? This seems a bit... backward.