• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cloudy

Banned
How is it possible that the same people bashing Obama for pulling troops out of Iraq are bashing him for sending "boots on the ground" now?
 
Cohen and That Nation continue their spiral into self-parody on Ukraine

http://www.thenation.com/article/180942/new-cold-war-and-necessity-patriotic-heresy#

some gems

We meet today during the worst and potentially most dangerous American-Russian confrontation in many decades, probably since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The Ukrainian civil war, precipitated by the unlawful change of government in Kiev in February, is already growing into a proxy US-Russian war. The seemingly unthinkable is becoming imaginable: an actual war between NATO, led by the United States, and post-Soviet Russia.
Nice opening, bombastic and hyperbolic from the start


—The epicenter of the new cold war is not in Berlin but on Russia’s borders, in Ukraine, a region absolutely essential in Moscow’s view to its national security and even to its civilization. This means that the kinds of miscalculations, mishaps and provocations the world witnessed decades ago will be even more fraught with danger. (The mysterious shoot down of a Malaysian jetliner over eastern Ukraine in July was an ominous example.)
Apply the bolded to Israel, Tibet, Kashmir, East Timor and see how the Nation would respond to that type of statement

and oh yes, the 'mysterious shoot down' still can't quite say who fired. just like 9/11, we'll never know the 'true story'

—An even graver risk is that the new cold war may tempt the use of nuclear weapons in a way the US-Soviet one did not. I have in mind the argument made by some Moscow military strategists that if directly threatened by NATO’s superior conventional forces, Russia may resort to its much larger arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. (The ongoing US-NATO encirclement of Russia with bases, as well as land and sea-based missile defense, only increases this possibility.)
Cohen's contempt for the independence of former soviet states is astounding, they have no place in this debate, they're existence and desires matter not. there is more later.

Indeed, highly charged suspicions, resentments, misconceptions and misinformation both in Washington and Moscow may make such mutual restraints even more difficult. The same is true of the surreal demonization of Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin—a kind of personal vilification without any real precedent in the past, at least after Stalin’s death. (Henry Kissinger has pointed out that the “demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.” I think it is worse: an abdication of real analysis and rational policy-making.)
cohen is flabbergasted at the fact that Putin word isn't trust. Wonder why that is?

—Finally, the new cold war may be more perilous because, also unlike during its forty-year predecessor, there is no effective American opposition—not in the administration, Congress, establishment media, universities, think tanks, or in society.
There's is absolutely no debate over policy in the US! None! Steve Cohen stand's along against the brainwashed masses!

Without David Johnson’s indispensable daily Russia List, non-Russian readers would have little access to alternative perspectives.

photo.jpg


Second, having argued since the 1990s that Washington’s bipartisan Russia policies could lead to a new cold war and to just such a crisis—see my articles in The Nation and my books Failed Crusade and Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives—I wanted to bring my longstanding analysis to bear on today’s crisis.
I assure you this is not just me trying to finagle current events into my prestablished narrative, on sale now at your local Borders


—None of these character assassins present any factual refutations of anything I have written or said. They indulge only in ad hominem slurs based on distortions and on the general premise that any American who seeks to understand Moscow’s perspectives is a “Putin apologist” and thus unpatriotic. Such a premise only abets the possibility of war.
Nobody can challenge Stephen's facts and no one as even tried!

Let us be clear. This means that we, not the people on the left and right who defame us, are the true American democrats and the real patriots of US national security.
Real American Hero

Personally, as an American, I have come to feel this more strongly, even moral indignation, as I watch the US-backed regime in Kiev inflict needless devastation, a humanitarian disaster and possibly war crimes on its own citizens in eastern Ukraine
Putin on the other hand has been a model of restraint...

The very best has to be this. This remember is posted on the pages of the Nation, the nation's preeminent lefty magazine

—Fallacy No. 2: There exists a nation called “Ukraine” and a “Ukrainian people” who yearn to escape centuries of Russian influence and to join the West.

Fact: As every informed person knows, Ukraine is a country long divided by ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural, economic and political differences—particularly its western and eastern regions, but not only. When the current crisis began in 2013, Ukraine had one state, but it was not a single people or a united nation. Some of these divisions were made worse after 1991 by corrupt elite, but most of them had developed over centuries.
"Ukraine doesn't exist"- the Nation

—Fallacy No. 4: Today’s unfolding civil war in Ukraine was caused by Putin’s aggressive response to Maidan’s peaceful protests against Yanukovych’s decision.

Fact: In February 2014, radicalized Maidan protests, strongly influenced by extreme nationalist and even semi-fascist street forces, turned violent. Hoping for a peaceful resolution, European foreign ministers brokered a compromise between Maidan’s parliamentary representatives and Yanukovych. It would have left him as president of a coalition, reconciliation government until new elections in December 2014. Within hours, violent street fighters aborted the agreement. Europe and Washington did not defend their own diplomatic accord. Yanukovych fled to Russia. Minority parliamentary parties representing Maidan and predominantly western Ukraine, among them Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist movement previously anathematized by the European Parliament as incompatible with European values, formed a new government. They also nullified the existing constitution. Washington and Brussels endorsed the coup, and have supported the outcome ever since. Everything that followed, from Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the spread of rebellion in southeastern Ukraine to the civil war and Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation,” was triggered by the February coup. Putin’s actions have been mostly reactive.

Invading and annexing another country?

Just 'reacting'

—Fallacy No. 5: The only way out of the crisis is for Putin to end his “aggression” and call off his agents in southeastern Ukraine.

Fact: The underlying causes of the crisis are Ukraine’s own internal divisions, not primarily Putin’s actions. The primary factor escalating the crisis since May has been Kiev’s “anti-terrorist” military campaign against its own citizens, now mainly in the Donbass cities of Luhansk and Donetsk. Putin influences and no doubt aids the Donbass “self-defenders.” Considering the pressure on him in Moscow, he is likely to continue to do so, perhaps even more, but he does not control them. If Kiev’s assault ends, Putin probably can compel the rebels to negotiate. But only the Obama administration can compel Kiev to stop, and it has not done so.
I absolutely love how Cohen completely accepts Putin's interference in another countries affairs but rejects the US's role.
 

Crisco

Banned
How is it possible that the same people bashing Obama for pulling troops out of Iraq are bashing him for sending "boots on the ground" now?

I dunno. The same liberals who were criticizing him for too many drone strikes are now saying he hasn't been tough enough on Russia, Assad, and ISIS. At this point it's a rolling tide, everyone is trying to build their political career atop Obama's ashes.
 
Ted Bundy throws an illegal fit, and republicans stand proud with him, against the government oppressors.

Americans peacefully protest a murder by a government official are met with snipers and tanks, and Democrats retreat to their cocoons.

Disgraceful.

odjtkei.png
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
The national review continues hiring racists



This is all in the first paragraph!

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/383587/where-sidewalk-ends

The national review is a racist institution, it has a long and storied history of this crap.

Williamson is always paraded around as such a good 'narrative journalist' with 'probing stories', in reality he's a racist in love with his verbosity and ability to insert meaningless references and unnecessary adjectives (well, necessary to reveal his dislike of black people).

Williamson is one of the smuggest douchebags out there (and that's saying something). It's funny (not "ha-ha" funny of course) cause he wrote an article a while back talking about how Democrats were the REAL racists cause Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

He also argued that Obama and the Democrats were the ones who truly hated poor people.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
How exactly was the banking industry deregulated by the Reagan Administration? What regulations specifically were removed? And how did they lead to major consolidation of banks? I ask because people say things like "California deregulated electricity" when it actually shuffled and increased regulation in a disastrous manner. Including setting the equivalent of price and production controls. (And with the curiously offered help of Enron who just happened to specialize in selling non-existent products.)

How many banks failed during the 1980s recession before Reagan signed any legislation related to banks? So the recessions of the 50s (especially 1958) and 60s along with the stagflation and default of 1973-1982 didn't happen? At which point in this time were banks "properly regulated" and when were they deregulated and reregulated in order to stabilize or destabilize the economy?

This is just since 1997 and stop before Dodd-Frank so you can easily see why these industries have been consolidating over the last 15 years:
QKd733K.png



http://qz.com/138036/how-the-rise-of-modern-regulation/
alerts.jpg


How are local banks supposed to meet regulations written by and designed for major wall street, national and international banks? Especially when it's only the latter banks that don't have to take the lumps when they fuck up.

The rise of the credit union didn't happen in a vacuum. (Now there was something the Reagan admin did try to change the regulations on, and the banks sued over it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCUA_v._First_National_Bank_&_Trust)

At the moment I can't find any pieces of legislation that Reagan signed that de-regulated the industry (not saying he didn't, but I have to check), but I do know he cut the budgets of many regulatory agencies and stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust act.
 
No, I mean who would be an "experienced" candidate in your eyes. This can include Republicans too.

Schweitzer is a tool.

On the republican side, Chris Christie is the only person who comes to mind. I suppose Jeb Bush too. Christie has some national security experience as the governor of NJ/connection to NY, Bush less so. I think Christie's bigger problem is that he hasn't really accomplished anything, outside of dodge federal indictments. Jeb Bush can point to some accomplishments but I expect him to flush his candidacy down the toilet by disowning the immigration issue.

On the democrat side (outside of Hillary) Schweitzer comes to mind. But as you said, he's a tool.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I think Jay Nixon's calm in the face of crisis has made him a serious contender against Hillary. She won't be able to brag about doing the same during #Benghazi against his credentials.
 
‏@jbouie 3m
Ferguson is an illustration of fact that for black people, federalism and local control often means means neglect and repression.

this says a lot
 
Communism has come to Kentucky . . .

ky-gas_wide-53b80ea2a56bc7808b545dbd0eac75eaedbaf21f-s40-c85.jpg


After years of complaints about high gas prices in Somerset, Ky., the city council and mayor did something about it. Last month, Somerset began selling gasoline to the public.

"It should have been this way years ago — fair," says Bob Thomas as he fills up his green pickup truck at the municipal Somerset Fuel Center.

The price is $3.36 a gallon, lower than the statewide average.

Somerset Mayor Eddie Girdler oversaw the project. He says gas in his town has long been higher because of lack of competition while median family income in Somerset is lower than the state average.

"We're like $14,000 to $15,000 less. Why should we be paying high gas prices because they can't afford to start with," Girdler says. "We help our economy, we help our nation and we help our commonwealth by doing things that drives down prices so that the consumer, or again, the people, is protected."

But not everyone's is happy with the way the mayor went about trying to lower gas prices.

"It is nothing but a socialist movement towards government trying to solve everyone's problems. And government is not the answer; government's the problem," says state Sen. Chris Girdler, a distant cousin of the mayor's.
http://www.npr.org/2014/08/13/340085122/city-run-gas-station-makes-waves-in-southeastern-kentucky

ItsHappening.gif

communist-party-672x372.gif
 

Sibylus

Banned
That's an awkward photoshop, right?

If not, file under "what are you doing, Eddy?" along with the whole trying to catch Putin in a lie on his pruned tv appearance.
 

kehs

Banned
Should stop watching fox news, they told me months ago that racism was dead.


How would one go about getting rid of this militarization of police forces? This has been boiling for a bit, and I really want to see what can be done.
 

alstein

Member
Should stop watching fox news, they told me months ago that racism was dead.


How would one go about getting rid of this militarization of police forces? This has been boiling for a bit, and I really want to see what can be done.

Disarm the police. Turn them into bobbies.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Kind of cringeworthy, but I don't think Snowden deserves most of the hate he's getting.

I'd say Snowden the person deserves to be called out for being a hypocrite and general ass. But that doesn't mean the leaks weren't the "right" thing to do or we shouldn't address the issue when presented with it. I'm not of the mind that the messenger determines the validity of the message.
 

Diablos

Member
You say this now, and I've felt that same sentiment now and then, but her opponent will be enough to get you out the door. Our options generally suck but the alternatives ain't pretty.
Right. It's just a shame that Obama is basically getting all the more shut out by the GOP and now some hawkish Dems during his last couple years. And then, best case scenario, we're going to go right back to Hillary who seems to be playing a legit game of moving to the center-right on some positions.

We elected this man twice for a reason, and yet a bunch of prudes give zero fucks and want to arbitrarily hold back progress in this country that the people demanded.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
I'd say Snowden the person deserves to be called out for being a hypocrite and general ass. But that doesn't mean the leaks weren't the "right" thing to do or we shouldn't address the issue when presented with it. I'm not of the mind that the messenger determines the validity of the message.

Basically where I'm at. I'm glad the some of the stuff leaked into the public sphere but I'm not happy with what I've perceived as some of the sensationalism and Snowden himself just grates on my nerves whenever I see him in an interview or something
 
I'll vote for the best candidate who isn't Hilary Clinton in the primaries.

If Hilary makes it through, I'll vote for her in the national election, but I hope to have a better option.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom