Excellent analysis of Putin's moves in Georgia

[GG]

Great, because Bush couldn't get major powers to help out in occupying Iraq, he turned to countries like Georgia so he could pad the number of countries supporting his cause by bribing them with support to join NATO, and now feels obligated to return the favor. This is how World War I started.

 

And why the hell are we having to pay to clean up the mess the Russians made? Make them pay the bill or kick them out of the G-8.

 

I'm glad that you don't consider UK, Japan, and Australia as major powers. Keep eating the spoonfed crap.

[blzrul]

Namely: you don't get to pick and choose where and when suddenly good is good and evil is evil, and the rest of the time they don't exist. This phony-ass, liberal "moral superiority"(read: political expediency) only on certain issues and only when convenient is really getting annoying. And what's makes me laugh is that they accuse the religious nuts of the very same thing!

Yet that's exactly what you're doing. When WE do it, it's good. When someone ELSE does it, it's bad.

 

With Iraq, it was arguably in our interests to invade (according to wingnuts). With Georgia, it's not in the US's interests to have Russia invade...Russia as the invader believes otherwise.

 

"Circular thinking" is not a bad thing if it means the ability to turn things around and look at it from different perspectives. You don't have to AGREE that Russia did the right thing. But you can certainly understand their rationale. Given that the US "had its reasons" and Russia "had its reasons" ... invasion is invasion. None of it's good no matter WHO does it.

 

And if you can't then you do your fellow wingnuts a great disservice, reinforcing the stereotype (hmm is it a stereotype if it's true) that wingnuts are narrow-minded, warmongering, knee-jerk reacting Neanderthals who don't give a rat's ass about humanity until something bad happens to THEM.

[PastaJoe]

Yeah, either that or he doesn't like the fact that Russia has invaded a democratic nation and one of our allies.

 

It's amazing that your hatred of Bush is the overwhelming force behind every idea you have.

 

I don't hate Bush, that would be like hating a dog that craps on your lawn. He doesn't know any better, but the people who let him get away with it do.

[GG]

Yet that's exactly what you're doing. When WE do it, it's good. When someone ELSE does it, it's bad.

 

With Iraq, it was arguably in our interests to invade (according to wingnuts). With Georgia, it's not in the US's interests to have Russia invade...Russia as the invader believes otherwise.

 

"Circular thinking" is not a bad thing if it means the ability to turn things around and look at it from different perspectives. You don't have to AGREE that Russia did the right thing. But you can certainly understand their rationale. Given that the US "had its reasons" and Russia "had its reasons" ... invasion is invasion. None of it's good no matter WHO does it.

 

And if you can't then you do your fellow wingnuts a great disservice, reinforcing the stereotype (hmm is it a stereotype if it's true) that wingnuts are narrow-minded, warmongering, knee-jerk reacting Neanderthals who don't give a rat's ass about humanity until something bad happens to THEM.

 

It is not circular thinking, because good & evil are not relative. One party has been a champion of individual freedoms, the other has not. Thus, any comparison between the two cannot even possibly be commenced at the same starting point. But logic never stopped your hateful screeds, so why should this be different.

[/dev/null]

I don't hate Bush, that would be like hating a dog that craps on your lawn. He doesn't know any better, but the people who let him get away with it do.

 

You mean Congress?

[PastaJoe]

You mean Congress?

 

I was thinking more of Cheney and company, as well as the people who voted for him, but if you want to include the Republican majority who went along with it at the time that would also fit.

[/dev/null]

I was thinking more of Cheney and company, as well as the people who voted for him, but if you want to include the Republican majority who went along with it at the time that would also fit.

 

Don't forget the 81 House Democrats and 29 Senate Democrats that voted with the Republican Majority

 

At least we have The Most Ethical Congress ever now and they swiftly corrected the mistake by voting to end the, uh never mind

[finknottle]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._churchill.html

 

Red meat for those who think the Georgia situation is a big deal.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Don't forget the 81 House Democrats and 29 Senate Democrats that voted with the Republican Majority

 

At least we have The Most Ethical Congress ever now and they swiftly corrected the mistake by voting to end the, uh never mind

yes, but...

 

you have to admit, there was some really bad pre-war intelligence and justification that created that vote. It's ridiculous to play hindsight 20-20, but if congress was briefed a wee bit more accurately, the vote would have been totally different.

 

however, we can't change history, what's done is done.

[SilverNRed]

I don't hate Bush, that would be like hating a dog that craps on your lawn. He doesn't know any better, but the people who let him get away with it do.

Sure you don't. You just wasted 8 years of your life blaming him for all the problems in the world because he's just like a little doggy to you.

[SD Jarhead]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._churchill.html

 

Red meat for those who think the Georgia situation is a big deal.

 

Excellent article...thanks for posting.

[OCinBuffalo]

Yet that's exactly what you're doing. When WE do it, it's good. When someone ELSE does it, it's bad.

We didn't invade a Democratically Elected, stable, non-terrorist supporting, non-WMD seeking, fascist dictatorship whose leader was responsible for the the deaths of over 500,000 of his own people. We did invade a country who fits the exact opposite of that description. You're not helping yourself look any less hypocritical here. In fact, you're making yourself look pretty darn silly. If you can't see the difference between Iraq and Georgia, well, you need the kind of help that I'm not qualified to give. Go ahead and keep trying to make this ridiculous point.... while you are at it, try telling me that McCain=Bush. Now that's good for a real laugh. Are you working for Putin's propaganda team now? Still pissed off that the most powerful communist country imploded, thereby exposing the ultimate failure that is socialism? Cause Putin obviously is.

With Iraq, it was arguably in our interests to invade (according to wingnuts). With Georgia, it's not in the US's interests to have Russia invade...Russia as the invader believes otherwise.

You know, I wrote a whole lot of stuff in response to this but then I thought: Hmmmm. Sounds like I'm dealing with an administrative assistant's view here, so why bother? Everything I have ever seen you write points to the fact that you aren't "the guy/girl", you merely work for them...prove me wrong, I dare you. Show me something that proves you are a thinker, rather than somebody who does/thinks what they are told. I honestly have no interest in responding to you in a serious fashion until you do.

"Circular thinking" is not a bad thing if it means the ability to turn things around and look at it from different perspectives. You don't have to AGREE that Russia did the right thing. But you can certainly understand their rationale. Given that the US "had its reasons" and Russia "had its reasons" ... invasion is invasion. None of it's good no matter WHO does it.

Ha! There are so many ways to counter this I wrote 5 different responses, then I thought: "Why in God's name does she deserve my best work when she obviously isn't dong hers?" As I said above, I honestly don't think you are worth any of it. So, let's see if you can respond logically, not emotionally,(I know it's going to be hard) to what I write in response to the last bit of "rezun" you've attempted to lay out.

And if you can't then you do your fellow wingnuts a great disservice, reinforcing the stereotype (hmm is it a stereotype if it's true) that wingnuts are narrow-minded, warmongering, knee-jerk reacting Neanderthals who don't give a rat's ass about humanity until something bad happens to THEM.

My fellow wingnuts? Really? I doubt you have ever been to a real "wingnut" bar. The only stereotype you are enforcing is your own = D-bag, limousine liberal, "I know better because I went to grad school, and I would have graduated...but there was this guy..." BS.

 

In fact, I doubt that you would have the guts(there's a nice egalitarian way of saying it) to even require it from your lame-ass, pansy-boy date, to even dare to "slum" with the rest of us "scumbags". Or, that he could hang 5 minutes in any "wingnut" bar without getting laughed out. Then again, why should we bother with candy-ass boy? Nobody wants AIDS. (That's wingnut-speak for the uninitiated-->not sure if that's AlGore approved)

 

Most importantly(edit: and what I wrote above is poignant, but blatantly stupid all the same), we know you are a girl, so, let's make it plain: the wingnut bars I spent a lot of time in(and yeah back then I was working a UNION job or I was on the other side) don't care about whatever you have to say. They do care about your be-hind though....and the real question for them is: do you take that as a complement(because you have a great one) or do you take that as an insult(because you don't)?

 

Hey, you brought up the wingnut population, and accused me of being one. All I can say that I have been around them...and I will defend them to a point...for a good while it was my job(deregulation of utilities), and they have their own thing going on. If Hillary was a MILF, Obama wouldn't have had a chance in hell with the "wingnuts". Of course I find it hysterical that this election is going to come down these "pathetic" wingnuts.

 

But....you don't see that yet, do you? How funny is it that you don't? Blue collar wingnuts are the only way Obama gets elected....but you see fit to make fun of them? You honestly believe that they don't see things as Right vs. Wrong, every day, all the time?

 

And, sooner or later their simplistic logic gets all of us in the end. Trust me, my guys and I work with them every day, on purpose, because we don't consider ourselves "above" the wingnuts. It's inspiring to us when they nail our asses to the floorboards on something we said that turns out wrong.(The good news is that our stuff allows everybody to make mistakes, even the wingnuts, and most importantly....us!)

 

I predicated what I do on that simple fact. This is why you always make me laugh when you say wingnut. I honestly thought my buddy, who's now a partner in the biggest law firm in Buffalo(staggers the imagination to this day), invented that term...well, characterizing human beings on the level of some funny-looking hardware... It certainly applied to the guys we worked with a long time ago. Hell, we worked there, so it applied to us as well. They tried their best to make us junior wingnuts....there was this problem that we kinda went to college though...

 

And yeah, some days it's funny as hell...dopey to be sure...but still funny as hell.

 

So, before we go any further, if you haven't been to (edit: why should I tell her where they are, insert your own "wingnut" bar here), or someplace similar, how in the hell do you propose to even be able to identify a real-deal wingnut? My sister can, but, then again, she also went to IU, where wingnuts abound....

 

Like I said, your entire existence reeks of "hiding in the office" when your boss actually get on the plane and sees what's what "down with the wingnuts", so please, remind me why any of the regular folks, or the "wingnuts", should take you seriously....

 

Clearly I don't, and I am far and away removed from the wingnuts, in terms of how I approach thinking at the very least, now....

[pBills]

Don't forget the 81 House Democrats and 29 Senate Democrats that voted with the Republican Majority

 

At least we have The Most Ethical Congress ever now and they swiftly corrected the mistake by voting to end the, uh never mind

 

 

 

Don't you mean they were swiftly threatened with a veto?

[/dev/null]

Don't you mean they were swiftly threatened with a veto?

Waaaaah, the bill would be veto'd. That's the most panzy excuse i've heard

 

How about cutting off funding? Even a veto from your Big Bad Wolf couldn't stop that

 

And you do realize Congress can override a Presidential veto?

[OCinBuffalo]

Don't forget the 81 House Democrats and 29 Senate Democrats that voted with the Republican Majority

 

At least we have The Most Ethical Congress ever now and they swiftly corrected the mistake by voting to end the, uh never mind

"There's no reply at all, there's no reply at all...

 

Is anybody thinking(never mind listening)?

 

No-oh-oh-oh, No-oh-oh-oh

 

No reply at all."

 

Where the hell is this congress? Remember, the ones in 2006 that said we "absolutely had to have them or else", and their silly pitch? Here it is almost 2 years now and they have yet to accomplish one promise they made? Exactly dick. Oh, of course, CUE: MSNBC....There's this new-fangled Bush problem called a veto, and it's not the Democrats fault because hell, they just didn't realize that the veto was there BEFORE they made all of their grandiose promises...of course Scott McClellan has told us that Dick Cheney invented the veto simply to disenfranchise old Jewish voters in Florida and African-Americans everywhere. Suffice it to say that the veto power of the President is just one more invention of the Republicans and that there was no way any Democrat knew it existed before they made their as yet unfulfilled promises"

 

Am I the only one calling BS on this?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Interested parties should check out this CSPAN broadcast of the American Enterprise Institute panel on the Georgia invasion. It's clearly biased against the Russians, but panelists like Fred Kagan provide some really detailed analysis of what actually happened, prior to and during, as well as what they expect is the Russian strategy through all this.

 

EDIT: fixed link

[erynthered]

What do you fella's think of Krauthammer's analysis? GG? Bueller?

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8081303365.html

[GG]

Interested parties should check out this CSPAN broadcast of the American Enterprise Institute panel on the Georgia invasion. It's clearly biased against the Russians, but panelists like Fred Kagan provide some really detailed analysis of what actually happened, prior to and during, as well as what they expect is the Russian strategy through all this.

 

Linky no worky. Try this instead and click on video

[GG]

What do you fella's think of Krauthammer's analysis? GG? Bueller?

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8081303365.html

 

Watch the AEI panel, linked above.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Linky no worky. Try this instead and click on video

thanx, I fixed it also