By the way, if we're not talking about such a gray champion (late boomer or Xer) waging an actual civil war to break the reactionaries who rule congress and many red and purple states, then it will take someone who knows exactly what needs to be done and can rally the people to do it: to end gerrymandering by initiative campaigns, appoint new justices to the courts and directly wage a campaign against money in politics, and aggressively push to support the new green industries and slap strong prohibitions on carbon. The Republican power must be broken, and correct and aggressive strategy must target it directly and unflaggingly, as long as it takes.

And once the political system is fixed through citizen action led by this president, he must pass strong measures to raise the wages and lower the hours of working people and tax the hell out of the undeserving, expropriating 1%, end free trade and restore fair trade, and restore our social programs in ways that really work. And build up our infrastructure, free our education system from tests, support free college, keep our nation out of wars as much as possible given the international climate, and keep our government and the police from violating our rights.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Because I wanted to make the point too.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Eric

How can you say that, when Clinton did not do the same thing after the African bombings, and Bush didn't do the same thing after 9-11, and had 7+ years to do it?

After 9-11, things changed. It's a completely different environment.
Had Bill Clinton been president when OBL's location was detected,
he would have sent in the SEALs. And President Bush just couldn't
find him.

You guys can speculate all you want, but that's just all it is. Speculation.

Originally Posted by Eric

Who knows about Al Capone; he might not have even been behind the massacre. But it's just an illustration.

The point being ... Al Capone was, at best, a 'late-wave' Nomad.

Originally Posted by Eric

If you are interested in evidence, how could you make a statement that George W. Bush would have done the same thing, when he obviously did not? I find it incredible that you could make such a statement. At least it's a coherent one and on-point, and that's rather rare for you. But I know you can do better than that.

Like I just said, had President Bush located him, I believe it's un-reasonable to believe
he wouldn't have done the same thing, the same way. The fact that he didn't locate him,
is irrelevant. This whole conversation, actually.
(Well, other than the fact that you guys like to make un-substantiated claims ... like
you tend to do regarding Science, Economics, Asia, Etc. ... Etc. ... Etc. ... !)

Plus, we've already established your distate for 'specificity'.


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric

Our normal brilliant, well-educated, compassionate, fact-based, far-seeing selves, yes indeed.

<chuckle!> Yes, Eric. In-Deed!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Whatever.

After 9-11, things changed. It's a completely different environment.
Had Bill Clinton been president when OBL's location was detected,
he would have sent in the SEALs. And President Bush just couldn't
find him.

You guys can speculate all you want, but that's just all it is. Speculation.

There was no different environment. That's just propaganda.

Clinton knew what a threat he was. Why didn't he send in the SEALS?

And Bush, didn't even do a competent job at finding him. He let him go, then did nothing. He waged his stupid war in Iraq while terrorism went unanswered. What a dork. You just can't make any excuses or explanations for his actions. He didn't do the job; period.

Like I just said, had President Bush located him, I believe it's un-reasonable to believe
he wouldn't have done the same thing, the same way. The fact that he didn't locate him,
is irrelevant. This whole conversation, actually.

It might be irrelevant. Certainly a minor point. Obama is a bit more of an Xer than his predecessors, because he got the job done while the boomers dithered and pursued their ideologies. But, why not engage in a more-relevant conversation, then? Do you agree with JPT that Xer presidential candidates are more relevant because they're younger? THAT's the topic. Or whatever.

(Well, other than the fact that you guys like to make un-substantiated claims ... like
you tend to do regarding Science, Economics, Asia, Etc. ... Etc. ... Etc. ... !)

Plus, we've already established your distaste for 'specificity'.

baloney.

Bush didn't even look.

We make substantiated claims; libertarians and conservatives do not.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There was no different environment. That's just propaganda.

Clinton knew what a threat he was. Why didn't he send in the SEALS?

I don't know. You'd have to ask him.

Originally Posted by Eric

And Bush, didn't even do a competent job at finding him. He let him go, then did nothing. He waged his stupid war in Iraq while terrorism went unanswered. What a dork. You just can't make any excuses of explanations for his actions. He didn't do the job; period.

Eric, saying that President Bush is a dork, is no answer.

It is somewhat interesting though, because what I believe was(and still is) the unfair criticism
of President Bush is one of the reasons I left the Democrats. I voted for President Clinton both
times, missed the vote in 2000, but left the Democrats and voted for President Bush in 2004.
FWIW, I've never voted for a Democrat in a national election since(and probably never will again).
Good to know nothing's changed!

Face it, Eric. Iraq 2.0 was won under President Bush; President Obama lost the Peace.
(And FWIW, I'm not a President Bush supporter; But I'm not a detractor, either.)

Originally Posted by Eric

It might be irrelevant. Certainly a minor point. Obama is a bit more of an Xer than his predecessors, because he got the job done while the boomers dithered and pursued their ideologies. But, why not engage in a more-relevant conversation, then? Do you agree with JPT that Xer presidential candidates are more relevant because they're younger? THAT's the topic. Or whatever.

I'll agree that President Obama is a bit more Nomad than
his predecessors, but still fundamentally a Prophet, IMO.

Originally Posted by Eric

baloney.

Bush didn't even look.

I think your Anti-President Bush/GOP/Etc.-sentiment clouds your opinion.
Believing that he didn't even look for OBL is nothing short of ridiculous.


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric

We make substantiated claims; libertarians and conservatives do not.

No you don't, Eric.
(I can't speak for 'libertarians' and/or 'conservatives'.)

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Give credit where it is due. The Central Intelligence Agency, which President Obama had done nothing to offend, did the unglamorous work of surveillance upon couriers that Osama bin Laden used as the only means of communicating and getting communications. The Special Forces, honed to do pin-point strikes, did what they were told to do.

It worked. But so did the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, a masterful gangland hit. Love him or hate him (and I hate him), you must admit that Al Capone was a clever man.

Not to bad for a inner city hoodlum. One thumb up for Capone's cleverness. However, Capone was clever but he wasn't as clever as bin Laden. Bin Laden was way more clever. Capone was clever enough to dupe a group of competing hoodlums into believing they were being raided by cops, disarmed by cops and lined up against a wall by cops.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You do realize that there is a big difference between financial influence and general compliance with rules and regulations relating to state and federal funding that liberals tend to elude to and point out and the actual ownership of a public school by the community that it's located in which I've been telling you and pointing out.

If schools are operated by a religious body, then even if they are conventional in their content on the usual basics, they surely include some religious instruction and structured prayers that never would be permitted in a public school. Some schools operate under the guidance of the teachings of Maria Montessori -- nice methods but poorly suited to many teachers. Obviously the Vladimir Lenin School that you think I favor teaches the 'virtues' of scientific socialism, democratic socialism, and other such doctrines. Boarding schools that have more complete control of children might have no televisions.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Public schools aren't owned by the government. Public schools are owned by the citizens of the community in which they're located in.

Do you honestly see a difference between government and the people? Government grows from the people in this country ... especially at the local level.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You don't think Bush or Clinton would've whacked him the same way Obama did after 9/11? A Nomad would've nuked him and everyone around him and brought the war on terror to an end.

No one would push the button. No one!

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

My point, any American president regardless of their generation would have taken bin Laden out following 9/11. The fact that he was the one who got the opportunity and authorized the mission doesn't prove that he's a nomad.

GWB had a shot at bin Laden, and chose to invade Iraq instead. Bush wasn't acting as a Prophet. He was acting as an oil man.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

On the bright side within 10 years many of the Boomer Babies will be dead, taking their religious Statist shit show with them. This crazy devotion to their blood god "Government" will die with them, and all the fetid air from their narcissistic miasma will finally blow away and disappear, never to haunt the culture again. The media juggernaut they have surrounded themselves with for the last 40 years will evaporate, and the money they inherited will no longer poison the economic well with their piss poor decision making.

H-mmm. In 10 years, the oldest Boomers will be 82. Unless you plan on euthanizing us, most of us will still be around. I'll get to the blood-god of government in a minute.

Originally Posted by SB ...

Of all the horrendous "prophet" (more correctly "locust") traits, their fanatical belief in the piety of government bureaucrats as a priesthood devoted to that diety The State has to be the most dangerous. The propaganda they grew up with has ruined their minds beyond all repair, and they have done their best to visit the same on Gen Y. Millies grew up in a prison, and perhaps they will never recover. Certainly they lack the ability to think critically, substituting consensus for rational thought. Add to that the fact that there will be nothing to inherit after the next round of the financial crisis, and you begin to see the true fate of that generation.

Bureaucrats are similar to middle managers and office workers in general. Few have the power to do anything other than turn-the-crank and check-the-box. Decision makers reside in the political slots, both elected and appointed. I guess you missed that in PoliSci 101.

Originally Posted by SB ...

Things are beginning to accelerate, and people are increasingly coming to understand that there is no political solution. Many people are seeing the corrupt politics as the source of the problem, and some portion of the public sees that politics and government by its very nature is "corrupt". It is a feature, the aim, of domination and control, not an unfortunate side effect of a loving God caring for us cradle to grave. While a small number of people, perhaps 8%, still has some kind of white collar steady job, the vast majority of people do not live in that delusional bubble world where the flag waves overhead, protecting us all with its radiant glory while government drones serve our every need. What a bunch of bullshit.

So community is dead, long live individuality. OK. Never mind that the jobs you decry as missing were systematically destroyed by the politicians, and most were in the public sector (more below).

Originally Posted by SB ...

This understanding is at the core of the American tradition. It is this that is the source of the hated "exceptionalism", not the "American Dream" of paying a mortgage on a postage stamp property that we never really own, or any such nonsense. This disbelief in divine right and the essential equality of all people is the exceptionalism that the media hacks that spew propaganda deride so frequently now.

Congratulations. This is the best spewing of meaningless nonsense I've encountered here in a long time.

Originally Posted by SB ...

Americans have a unique and valuable culture that transcends the bounds of ethnicity, and it is this human progress that the owners of this country seek to destroy. But America has no aristocracy now, and it never will.

ANd you complain about religion? This has zeal stamped all over it!

Originally Posted by SB ...

There is nothing to inherit after the Boomers squandered what the GI's gave them. There is no government fix for government rapaciousness. There is nothing but destruction of the old system and uncertainty afterward.

And it's going to be awesome.

This shows just how little you know. It was the GIs who built the communal institutions and public infrastructure. They raised taxes and paid them grudgingly, as we all do. But they persisted in doing more for all until the Interstate system as built and we went to the moon. They were the believers in government and made it work by demanding that the politicians do the right things. Today, the government is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business^TM, privatized for the benefit of the few.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The method was characteristic of a high level military operation that involved US Special Forces. A boomer would've have done it the same way.

Since the take-out was in a nominally friendly country, and certainty of success was mandatory, I have to agree. Drones are only for less important targets.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

... PS: So, are you following what's going-on tonight in Baltimore?
If you're interested, Copperfield alerted me to broadcastify.com.
You can go there and listen to the police scanners, which is really
a different perspective than what you'll get on TV.

Don't assume that a police scanner is capturing the most important official traffic. Almost all of that is encrypted.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

... (BTW, Eric. Why don't you let PBro speak for himself? He's the one making the claim; Let him try and defend it.)

Unrelated to the discussion, but the cynic in me had to note that this is a comment from a core member of the 3-way Xer tag team.

Priceless!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

By the way, if we're not talking about such a gray champion (late boomer or Xer) waging an actual civil war to break the reactionaries who rule congress and many red and purple states, then it will take someone who knows exactly what needs to be done and can rally the people to do it: to end gerrymandering by initiative campaigns, appoint new justices to the courts and directly wage a campaign against money in politics, and aggressively push to support the new green industries and slap strong prohibitions on carbon. The Republican power must be broken, and correct and aggressive strategy must target it directly and unflaggingly, as long as it takes.

And once the political system is fixed through citizen action led by this president, he must pass strong measures to raise the wages and lower the hours of working people and tax the hell out of the undeserving, expropriating 1%, end free trade and restore fair trade, and restore our social programs in ways that really work. And build up our infrastructure, free our education system from tests, support free college, keep our nation out of wars as much as possible given the international climate, and keep our government and the police from violating our rights.

You are more that a tad optimistic here. For one thing, correcting issues through the initiative process requires such a process to exist, which it doesn't in most places. Second, grand sweeping change requires overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, which is not likely any time soon. Even eliminating gerrymandering is of little use when the rural/urban split creates intensely Blue districts in cities and reddish ones in the 'burbs.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

... After 9-11, things changed. It's a completely different environment. Had Bill Clinton been president when OBL's location was detected, he would have sent in the SEALs. And President Bush just couldn't find him.

Like I just said, had President Bush located him, I believe it's un-reasonable to believe he wouldn't have done the same thing, the same way. The fact that he didn't locate him, is irrelevant. This whole conversation, actually.

Al Qaeda was pinned-down at Tora-Bora just prior to the invasion of Iraq. Whether bin Laden was there or not is speculation, but we'll never know because Bush chose to play in the Big Sand Box instead.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Don't assume that a police scanner is capturing the most important official traffic. Almost all of that is encrypted.

No it's not. Police encryption went out the door as a viable means of keeping things out of the public eye the minute smartphones hit the scene. If you have one channel, you have them all and really the only how they have of hiding anything is switching to some channel that nobody really uses often and going that general chatter drowns them out in scan mode.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You are more that a tad optimistic here.

It's not a matter of optimism, but of realism. These things need to get done, and it will require a 4T mindset on the part of all of us to do it. That means we must realize that the changes can be done, and must be done; in our time by US, including us old-codger boomers, and not after we're dead by someone else. Stop thinking that we are flawed generations. We are as good as any people has ever been, and if we're not, then there's no hope for the future or for some other group of generations of Americans that supposedly will be better. There's no basis for thinking they will be any better than we are. They won't be. The Americans of a banana republic will not be better than the Americans born in the saeculum when America was the most powerful and prosperous nation on Earth.

For one thing, correcting issues through the initiative process requires such a process to exist, which it doesn't in most places.

But it does in many. They had it on the ballot in swing state Ohio, but they failed to pass it. It needs to be on the ballot in the places where it can be placed, and it needs to pass. Where the legislature needs to pass it, then they need to get that done, with pressure from the public, stirred up and led by the travelling president and his or her team. No-one really believes that politicians should draw their own districts for the purpose of ensuring their own re-election. The gray-champion president's job 1 will be to go out and talk to the powers that be and the people and get that done.

Second, grand sweeping change requires overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, which is not likely any time soon. Even eliminating gerrymandering is of little use when the rural/urban split creates intensely Blue districts in cities and reddish ones in the 'burbs.

Yes, such changes are not likely soon, but they must come in this 4T, and not hoped for in an Awakening which will not come unless we are diverted from the path we are on, which is rapid descent to a banana republic.

The burbs are not intensely red, necessarily. It depends on the place. In CA they are not, but in WI they are. Persuasion, information, and demographics need to shift people more into the blue. But we'd have a blue congress already without the gerrymandering and the money that ruins the system, and if young people learned to vote. If those things happen, then change will happen-- fast and drastically. By 2022, it will only take the second of those.

If these changes can't be done legally by congress, then they will have to be made by civil war and revolution, or at the least, secession into red states and blue states. That's the choice we face in a 4T.

Originally Posted by Kepi

No it's not. Police encryption went out the door as a viable means of keeping things out of the public eye the minute smartphones hit the scene. If you have one channel, you have them all and really the only how they have of hiding anything is switching to some channel that nobody really uses often and going that general chatter drowns them out in scan mode.

AES 256-bit encryption is still unbreakable by all but the most capable cryptanalysis programs in anything even close to real time.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I don't know. You'd have to ask him.

He knew bin Laden was responsible for 9-11 immediately. You don't need to ask him; he said so.

Eric, saying that President Bush is a dork, is no answer.

It is somewhat interesting though, because what I believe was(and still is) the unfair criticism
of President Bush is one of the reasons I left the Democrats. I voted for President Clinton both
times, missed the vote in 2000, but left the Democrats and voted for President Bush in 2004.
FWIW, I've never voted for a Democrat in a national election since(and probably never will again).
Good to know nothing's changed!

Face it, Eric. Iraq 2.0 was won under President Bush; President Obama lost the Peace.
(And FWIW, I'm not a President Bush supporter; But I'm not a detractor, either.)

You sell yourself short by saying you will never vote Democratic again. I have faith that you can be freed from the delusions you have been under since 2004.

The criticisms of Bush were more than fair. He belongs in jail; he should have been impeached. He started a war on no basis whatsoever, and Americans who went along with it are complicit. We Americans have no right to go around invading other countries and overthrowing their leaders just because, for no reason. Why do you, something of a libertarian, believe this nonsense, and why on Earth did it lead you to leave the Democrats? It makes no sense whatever. You really need to recover your senses.

Face it Prince. Bush destroyed the peace by invading a country that was no threat to us, and which we had no right to invade. Obama merely carried out the agreement to leave Iraq that had already been made by Bush. In fact, he delayed it. The result of our long occupation and colonization of the country was civil war and more terrorism.

We should have left the Iraqis to deal with their own governance. With the current division of their country and conquest of half of it by terrorists, continual bombings and deaths, an alliance with Iran, and an uncertain future at best, it will have taken at least as long for the Iraqis to be free had they been left alone, and risen up in the Arab Spring like everyone else in that region. And we can and should in legal ways help those who are rising up, and not by invading and occupying their countries and thereby overthrowing their regimes.

I'll agree that President Obama is a bit more Nomad than
his predecessors, but still fundamentally a Prophet, IMO.

You can have that opinion. According to the authors, he's a nomad, and it's clear that cusps exist and that those born on the border can be either, or a combination of both. Obama clearly is the latter. He wrote a book on hope = prophet. He is a get-it-done, no-nonsense guy = nomad. That's MY opinion, FWIW

I think your Anti-President Bush/GOP/Etc.-sentiment clouds your opinion.
Believing that he didn't even look for OBL is nothing short of ridiculous.

Believing that he DID is nothing short of ridiculous. He had 8 years to look for him; his priorities were to avenge Saddam's attack on his Daddy. He did nothing. He allowed OBL to escape, and then did nothing to track him down. Sentiments and prejudice have nothing to do with my opinions of the GOP or Bush. I am interested in good policy, not personalities and labels. The policies of the GOP are destructive, and I oppose them. I initially supported Bush's attack on Afghanistan. Two can play at this "I was this way and I changed" game. Bush blew it. He did not stick with it, and he did not send in ground troops. Obama finished the job. Give him credit. If you blame Obama for losing the peace in Iraq, when he did not, you should at least give him credit for sticking with it in the place where the real and demonstrated threat was located.

No you don't, Eric.
(I can't speak for 'libertarians' and/or 'conservatives'.)

Yes, I always do, as best I can; and that's pretty good.

I can't really speak about libertarians and conservatives or liberals either, strictly speaking. The labels are less important than the truth. I realize the truth, to the best of my ability, and I can see who is upholding it and who is not. That's all that counts.

I am glad you seem to be engaging in good debate now, even if you are quite wrong (as usual, it appears). But you were on the right side before; you can, if you choose to, look and find the truth; not by agreeing with ME, but by doing your own research. That is our duty as citizens, all of us all the time; not just you.

Believing nonsense is beneath you, Prince. Stop doing it.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Unrelated to the discussion, but the cynic in me had to note that this is a comment from a core member of the 3-way Xer tag team.

Priceless!

And to top it off, now Prince apparently agrees with Cynic Hero in respect to our supposed right and need to invade and colonize countries in the Middle East! Quite a flip for the libertarian Prince to embrace the fascism of the Cynic! And to think it had really been this way all along!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

AES 256-bit encryption is still unbreakable by all but the most capable cryptanalysis programs in anything even close to real time.

Yeah, that's great and all, but there's no reason to crack encryption if you can bypass it entirely. All these major cities are all on the same radio systems and they're all encrypted and they're all available on the internet. Why? Because somewhere in that system it is possible to bypass the encryption. How do I know that? Because everyone's radios are all online. They're not putting it out there on purpose, the entirety of the system, of any system, is that it can be easily bypassed given enough thought. Especially in a world flush with peripherals.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Don't assume that a police scanner is capturing the most important official traffic. Almost all of that is encrypted.

Could be, Dave. I wasn't assuming anything.
But anyway, what I was attempting to say is that there's a completely
different perspective to be gained by listening to what the police are
apparently going-through. That's all.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Unrelated to the discussion, but the cynic in me had to note that this is a comment from a core member of the 3-way Xer tag team.

Priceless!

<chuckle!> '3-way Xer tag team'. That's kinda funny.

Ok. Ok. I guess I can see your point here.

I think the difference, at least in my mind, is that if someone makes a claim, especially
something definitive(ie: not obviously an opinion), it's their responsibility to back it up.
I don't believe I make many definitive claims. I do make claims refuting some people's
'omniscience'. I guess it's kinda like Science, in a way. Eh? I don't know.


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And to top it off, now Prince apparently agrees with Cynic Hero in respect to our supposed right and need to invade and colonize countries in the Middle East! Quite a flip for the libertarian Prince to embrace the fascism of the Cynic! And to think it had really been this way all along!

Heh. Yeah, Eric. Apparently.

And, apparently you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.
( ... and critical thing skills! )

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Heh. Yeah, Eric. Apparently.

And, apparently you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.
( ... and critical thing skills! )

Oh, did I read you wrong? You said that you left the Democrats (or stopped voting for them) partly (even mainly) because of the criticism by Democrats against Bush for his war in Iraq in 2004.

I "comprehend" therefore that you support invading countries in the Middle East for no reason so we can impose our "freedom" upon them. That's fascism, my friend. As I mentioned before (or did you not comprehend) that fascism means opposition to pacifism. The "pacifist" position on the Iraq Wars was to oppose them. Cynic's position is to invade these countries and "pacify" them. Bush carried out Cynic's philosophy.

Bush waged the Iraq War based on PNAC (Project for a New American Century), drafted by Netanyahoo, Crystal, Rumsfeld, and other war hawks. The idea was that we should "spread democracy in the Middle East" by invading Iraq, and then Iran, and thereby ensure American dominance in the region. And, the PNAC document said, "another Pearl Harbor" might be necessary to get support for and justify these invasions. They got one.

Some people say (I don't say that I say) that this "new Pearl Harbor" was created by Bush and the PNAC crowd in order to justify the invasion. It was an "inside job," IOW. I don't think so myself, based on the evidence so far. But I think it's been shown that Bush was careless in reading the signs of the coming attack, and basically looked the other way until it happened; according to testimony at the 9-11 commission hearings.

I know I worked hard to help defeat Bush in 2004. It was a great disappointment that this fascist pig was re-elected. It showed that the American people are easily and severely deceived, and it permanently lowered my expectation of what we can expect from Americans. As Greg Palast said (and I used this as my signature line here for a while, long before the Prince of Pop's line below), "Instead of a referendum on sending young men off to kill each other, the election became a referendum on young men kissing each other." What a travesty that election was. What a dark blot on the American character it was!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

He knew bin Laden was responsible for 9-11 immediately. You don't need to ask him; he said so.

What are you even talking about, Eric?

No, Eric. You'll have to ask him why he didn't send in the SEALs in 1998.
He's already stated that he didn't call for an airstrike because he wanted
to avoid civilian casualties.

Originally Posted by Eric

You sell yourself short by saying you will never vote Democratic again. I have faith that you can be freed from the delusions you have been under since 2004.

The criticisms of Bush were more than fair. He belongs in jail; he should have been impeached. He started a war on no basis whatsoever, and Americans who went along with it are complicit. We Americans have no right to go around invading other countries and overthrowing their leaders just because, for no reason. Why do you, something of a libertarian, believe this nonsense, and why on Earth did it lead you to leave the Democrats? It makes no sense whatever. You really need to recover your senses.

Face it Prince. Bush destroyed the peace by invading a country that was no threat to us, and which we had no right to invade. Obama merely carried out the agreement to leave Iraq that had already been made by Bush. In fact, he delayed it. The result of our long occupation and colonization of the country was civil war and more terrorism.

Resolution 1441. Research it.

I've never said I agreed with it. I have said that I understood why
some people could believe Iraq 2.0 was necessary. That's all.

Originally Posted by Eric

We should have left the Iraqis to deal with their own governance. With the current division of their country and conquest of half of it by terrorists, continual bombings and deaths, an alliance with Iran, and an uncertain future at best, it will have taken at least as long for the Iraqis to be free had they been left alone, and risen up in the Arab Spring like everyone else in that region. And we can and should in legal ways help those who are rising up, and not by invading and occupying their countries and thereby overthrowing their regimes.

Whatever. Not interested enough to respond to what you believe 'should' happen.

Originally Posted by Eric

You can have that opinion. According to the authors, he's a nomad, and it's clear that cusps exist and that those born on the border can be either, or a combination of both. Obama clearly is the latter. He wrote a book on hope = prophet. He is a get-it-done, no-nonsense guy = nomad.

Thank you for allowing me to have an opinion, My Liege!

Anyway, the authors were Prophet-Boomers. You're a Prophet-Boomer. I'm a Nomad-Xer.
I'm what he's being described as, and I'm telling you he's not anything like me or very few
people that are from my generation, in my experience. I concede that he's in the middle.
But, he's more characteristic of the Prophet Archetype than the Nomad Archetype, IMO.

Originally Posted by Eric

That's MY opinion, FWIW <snipped regular-smiley>

Opinions, in and of themselves, are valuable.
The content of some opinions, not so much.

Originally Posted by Eric

Believing that he DID is nothing short of ridiculous. He had 8 years to look for him; his priorities were to avenge Saddam's attack on his Daddy. He did nothing. He allowed OBL to escape, and then did nothing to track him down. Sentiments and prejudice have nothing to do with my opinions of the GOP or Bush. I am interested in good policy, not personalities and labels. The policies of the GOP are destructive, and I oppose them. I initially supported Bush's attack on Afghanistan. Two can play at this "I was this way and I changed" game. <snipped regular-smiley> Bush blew it. He did not stick with it, and he did not send in ground troops. Obama finished the job. Give him credit. If you blame Obama for losing the peace in Iraq, when he did not, you should at least give him credit for sticking with it in the place where the real and demonstrated threat was located.

I'll say this much. I do believe President Obama lost the Peace in Iraq.
(It's only an opinion. I fully understand others may dis-agree.)
But, I'm not that critical because all this crap isn't what he wanted.
An economic crisis. Wars overseas. Not in his wheelhouse.

But that's the way being a leader works.
You've got to deal with the issues and environment that's dealt to you.

I actually kinda feel bad for the guy, in a way.

Originally Posted by Eric

Yes, I always do, as best I can; and that's pretty good.

I can't really speak about libertarians and conservatives or liberals either, strictly speaking. The labels are less important than the truth. I realize the truth, to the best of my ability, and I can see who is upholding it and who is not. That's all that counts.

You may want to consider recognizing levels of 'falseness'.


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric

I am glad you seem to be engaging in good debate now, even if you are quite wrong (as usual, it appears). But you were on the right side before; you can, if you choose to, look and find the truth; not by agreeing with ME, but by doing your own research. That is our duty as citizens, all of us all the time; not just you.

Believing nonsense is beneath you, Prince. Stop doing it.

Good debate. Um, .... yeah, Eric. Whatever.

Anyway, I'm starting to get verwy .... verwy, .... ver ... wy .... swee .... pyyyyyy ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Oh, did I read you wrong? You said that you left the Democrats (or stopped voting for them) partly (even mainly) because of the criticism by Democrats against Bush for his war in Iraq in 2004.

I "comprehend" therefore that you support invading countries in the Middle East for no reason so we can impose our "freedom" upon them.

Like I already said, you lack 'critical thinking' skills.
(... and have a problem with reading comprehension! )


Prince

PS: I'm not interested in attempting to re-litigate any of this.