Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

President Romney sure is under-bussing the Ukrainians

Comments Filter:
  • Yeah, the president has so many clearly all-winning, no-risk options available in this situation. We should have already won this situation using only the olympic delegates by now, obviously with any other president we would have already done that, right?
    • I'm not sure. You're the morally superior, elite being in this equation. You tell me.
      • Are you not already saying that President Lawnchair has epically failed in this situation? Are you not trying to initiate momentum for another great conspiracy theory in hopes of ending his administration an hour earlier than scheduled in 2017?

        Come on, if you want to run him out of the country over this, at least do enough armchair POTUS'ing to tell us what some other conservative would do about this from in the office.
        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          Shrug. I know what I'd do. Say it's none of our business, unless Ukraine wants to enter into a treaty with the United States (and as best I can tell, the Senate
          never ratified one).

          I might add that as a private person I think Russia needs to back the hell off, but as President, I've got my actual job to do.

          • I guess the anti-Reagan has to un-win the Cold War, then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE [youtube.com]
            • HAHA.. You are hilarious... Reagan's real name is Chance, Chance the gardener...

              • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                It's funny to everyone who actually has knowledge and intelligence when the pretenders try to claim that Reagan was merely being there.

                • Yes, it is funny that you imply any knowledge on your part, but it's okay, I understand. You and Smitty idolize the man, so the truth be damned. On the other hand, don't take it so personally, the same has been true of every president since Ford, at least. But there can be no doubt, Reagan did have the best writers, and he was groomed like an heir to the throne for a very long time. You guys cling like the Brits to the Queen. Some day, if your ego allows it (it will be very difficult to admit you've been ha

                  • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                    Yes, it is funny that you imply any knowledge on your part

                    You're lying. Nothing I said implies a lack of knowledge.

                    You and Smitty idolize the man

                    You're lying.

                    so the truth be damned

                    That's your line, not mine. You ignore all of the things he said and did and manufacture a myth in your mind, without any serious evidence supporting it, that he was just a puppet.

                    But there can be no doubt, Reagan did have the best writers, and he was groomed like an heir to the throne for a very long time.

                    He did have excellent writers. But he also wrote most of his own stuff. We know this for a fact. His speeches before he took elected office, he wrote himself (that was his actual paid job for General Electric, to write and deliver speeches), and those are w

                    • :-) Watching you defend your illusions makes my day.

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      :-) Watching you defend your illusions makes my day.

                      Yeah, I predicted you wouldn't actually try to defend your claim, and instead would make a dumb ad hominem response, because you so obviously can't defend your claim.

                    • What's to defend? The man is a sham who represents a significant decline, a cartoon war monger and bank robber who ruined the economy for everybody outside the aristocracy he served, with your friend Thatcher serving the same role on her side of the pond. It's all there in the press and the hearings, and other things that are notably absent. Besides, with you, what's the point? Your mind is made up. All disagreement with your preconceptions are nothing but lies. You have your plastic Reagan right next to yo

                    • But hey, since we're all just so much meat, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
                      That is, I can't seem to reconcile how you're hyper-materialist, bordering on Calvinist in your existential acceptance of the status quo on the one hand, and then bother analyzing matters to call #OccupyResoluteDesk "a sham who represents a significant decline". Not only: Why do you care?, but How do you care?
                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      What's to defend?

                      The stuff you wrote I shot down in the previous post.

                      The man is a sham

                      Again, I already proved you're wrong.

                      It's obvious that:

                      a. you hate Regan
                      b. you don't know much about Reagan

                      Like, you claim he's a warmonger, even though he ended our longest running war. You claim he ruined the economy, even though he helped turn it around from when it was far worse, and it was pretty great in his wake. You claim your views are backed up "in the press and the hearings," even though the actual data disagrees with you.

                      Besides, with you, what's the point? Your mind is made up.

                      Shrug. I go by fact

                    • That is, I can't seem to reconcile how you're hyper-materialist, bordering on Calvinist in your existential acceptance of the status quo on the one hand, and then bother analyzing matters to call #OccupyResoluteDesk "a sham who represents a significant decline". Not only: Why do you care?, but How do you care?

                      I know! Isn't it scary? It's kinda like Vincent Price in a Michael Jackson video...

                      Sooo, let me ask you a question.. Do you take the garbage out because your god (or your wife) told you to? Or because

                    • Sooo, let me ask you a question.. Do you take the garbage out because your god (or your wife) told you to? Or because you don't like the smell and want to live in a clean house?

                      It's both unsanitary to live amidst trash, and I pay for removal service.

                    • Well then, you should have no trouble reconciling those issues you brought up, as well as answering your other questions.

                    • :-) Heh, ever the comedian you are...

                      I don't hate Reagan. I merely mock you moroons for believing the Hollywood facade created around him.. We knew what he was before he became governor. I believe that would be before you were born. So all you know is the squeaky clean propaganda shown to you by your favorite authoritarian figures tat you continue to appeal to for favored treatment. You have no "facts" to speak of, only fables. You idolize a false god. I do not lie. Unlike you, I have nothing to gain by doi

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      I don't hate Reagan. I merely mock you moroons for believing the Hollywood facade created around him.

                      You're a liar. I gave facts. You ignored them and pretended that it was a facade. That's what actually happened.

                      We knew what he was before he became governor.

                      Right: we knew he was an actor and broadcaster who had certain well-thought-out political convictions, and could eloquently state them.

                      So all you know is the squeaky clean propaganda shown to you by your favorite authoritarian figures tat you continue to appeal to for favored treatment.

                      You're a liar.

                      You have no "facts" to speak of, only fables.

                      You're a liar.

                      You idolize a false god.

                      You're a liar.

                      I do not lie.

                      You're a liar.

                      Unlike you, I have nothing to gain by doing so.

                      You're a liar. I have nothing to gain by lying.

                    • Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!

                      You recite fairy tales. That's all you know.

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      You're projecting. And we know this, because I am the one who provided actual evidence, while you provided none at all.

                    • Well, you keep at it. I'm going to take a break from your schtick for a few minutes.

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      Projecting.

          • ...I think Russia needs to back the hell off...

            What the hell for? If a bunch a fascists take over, that would be a clear and present danger on their border. You know nothing of their history. You just repeat cold war rhetoric and propaganda. Would you tell the US government to back off if an anti-American government tried to take over Mexico by force?

            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              ...I think Russia needs to back the hell off...

              What the hell for?

              You misunderstand. I said I *might* add that, were I President, and if, like the President, I disagreed with what Russia was doing.

              I concede I was not entirely clear, but my intent was merely to say that even if I opposed it, I would say it only as a private citizen, and clearly distinguish that between the policy of the American government.

              I don't currently have an opinion about what Russia should do.

              If a bunch a fascists take over, that would be a clear and present danger on their border.

              Perhaps.

              You know nothing of their history.

              False.

              You just repeat cold war rhetoric and propaganda.

              Bullshit. If that were the case, I'd have been much more forceful in what I wrote. Please

          • I know what I'd do. Say it's none of our business, unless Ukraine wants to enter into a treaty with the United State

            Can you clarify how that differs from not doing anything? So far, as best I can tell, the US government has officially not done anything other than allow a few officials to make a few general statements. I'm not sure how to distinguish what you are saying you would do from what has been done so far.

            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              I know what I'd do. Say it's none of our business, unless Ukraine wants to enter into a treaty with the United State

              Can you clarify how that differs from not doing anything?

              It's about what you say and project. Obama is wagging his finger and making completely impotent threats. He weakens us instead of strengthening us. In international politics, what you say and how you say it is more important than what you actually do. Obama may know that, I don't know; but he certainly doesn't know what the hell to do with it.

              So far, as best I can tell, the US government has officially not done anything other than allow a few officials to make a few general statements. I'm not sure how to distinguish what you are saying you would do from what has been done so far.

              The Russians, and all career diplomats, see a massive difference between what I said, and what Obama said.

              • So far, as best I can tell, the US government has officially not done anything other than allow a few officials to make a few general statements. I'm not sure how to distinguish what you are saying you would do from what has been done so far.

                The Russians, and all career diplomats, see a massive difference between what I said, and what Obama said.

                Well sure, what you said has no meaning to any diplomat because you're just some guy on slashdot. However, what Obama has said doesn't really carry much weight either. He said something about "a price to be paid" if Russia sends troops in to Ukraine. However some of us recall that not-too-long ago when talking about the regime in Syria he mentioned "a line that should not be crossed", which was of course crossed. Being as no consequence came from crossing that line, why should anyone expect there to be

                • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                  Well sure, what you said has no meaning to any diplomat because you're just some guy on slashdot.

                  Um. The hypothetical is the President saying what I wrote.

                  However, what Obama has said doesn't really carry much weight either.

                  Exactly the point. Obama projects weakness. If he said what I wrote -- assuming he had been saying such things all along, and if he stuck by what he said -- then that would not project weakness, even if the result in both cases is no action.

                  We could also compare this most recent comment to the comments of "you're either with us, or against us" or "axis of evil" that came from a certain recent international leader. I don't recall you being bothered by those lines.

                  Bush followed through. Bush did not project weakness. Say what you want about Bush, but despite the cries of the left, the rest of the world continued to respect us, and fear when the President gave warnings.

                  • However, what Obama has said doesn't really carry much weight either.

                    Exactly the point. Obama projects weakness. If he said what I wrote -- assuming he had been saying such things all along, and if he stuck by what he said -- then that would not project weakness, even if the result in both cases is no action.

                    At this point, if we measure the age of the Ukrainian conflict in days since the protests started to gain the attention of the global media (a few days before Ukrainian sharpshooters started picking them off), we can say the situation is a couple weeks old. It has been a few days since Obama said there would be "a price" for Russia to send troops into Ukraine. It is worth noting that the agreement for Sevastopol between Russia and Ukraine allows for about twice as many Russian troops as were there before

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      It has been a few days since Obama said there would be "a price" for Russia to send troops into Ukraine.

                      My point is that Obama has always projected weakness. That's not to say he's never acted, but he often hasn't, and no one believes he will engage in any serious action now.

                      If you are accusing him of "projecting weakness", do you mean that you are assuming he will not use military action? At what point in time would you say you could confidently say that no military action was used? By comparison it was almost a full month after 9/11 before we invaded Afghanistan [wikipedia.org], which makes your assumption of projecting weakness seem a bit premature at this point.

                      If this were the first year of his presidency and he had not already been projecting weakness for several years, you'd have a point.

                      Say what you want about Bush, but despite the cries of the left, the rest of the world continued to respect us, and fear when the President gave warnings.

                      Fear? Probably. Respect? That is debatable.

                      No, it's not. Again, the world continued to look to the U.S. to help solve problems all over. It was respect. Dislike, disagreement ... but, on balance, respect.

                      Considering the millions around the world who protested against our policies you don't have a very good argument for the rest of the world respecting us.

                      I am not talking about the man in the stree

                    • no one believes he will engage in any serious action now.

                      If no one believes he will engage, then why even say anything at all? If honestly no one believes, than even Obama himself does not believe he will engage, which makes his very statement pointless.

                      If you are accusing him of "projecting weakness", do you mean that you are assuming he will not use military action? At what point in time would you say you could confidently say that no military action was used? By comparison it was almost a full month after 9/11 before we invaded Afghanistan, which makes your assumption of projecting weakness seem a bit premature at this point.

                      If this were the first year of his presidency and he had not already been projecting weakness for several years, you'd have a point.

                      My point is that the conflict hasn't gone on long enough for us to be reasonably certain that nothing will come from Obama's statement. You also did not answer the questions that I asked, I ask you to please consider them.

                      Fear? Probably. Respect? That is debatable.

                      No, it's not. Again, the world continued to look to the U.S. to help solve problems all over. It was respect. Dislike, disagreement ... but, on balance, respect.

                      In case you didn't notice, there were plenty of problems that went through in that time

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      If no one believes he will engage, then why even say anything at all?

                      I meant no one who matters -- domestic and international politicians, mostly -- believe it. Putin certainly doesn't. But the masses? Hell, they still believe that our current economic problems are Bush's fault. They'll believe anything.

                      My point is that the conflict hasn't gone on long enough for us to be reasonably certain that nothing will come from Obama's statement.

                      *My* point is that due to his history, we have no reason to think anything WILL come from his statement. And THAT is the problem.

                      You also did not answer the questions that I asked, I ask you to please consider them.

                      I already did consider them, and decided they were not worth directly answering.

                      In case you didn't notice, there were plenty of problems that went through in that time that the US was not consulted on.

                      No more than before or after Bush, no.

                      Just because you don't like the common man doesn't mean he is of no importance.

                      Non sequitur.

                      Even more so, there were plenty of international leaders who also opposed the US strategy and administration.

                      Non sequitu

                    • You also did not answer the questions that I asked, I ask you to please consider them.

                      I already did consider them, and decided they were not worth directly answering.

                      If you came here to talk to yourself - rather than participate in a discussion where questions are asked and ideas are shared - then there is no point in continuing this. Perhaps you like to speak in an echo chamber, but I did not post to this JE to set one up for you.

                      You're a liar.

                      ... and back to the regularly scheduled program.

                      If ever you want to have an actual discussion, where people are allowed to voice their opinions and ask reasonable questions with the expectation of receiving responses from the other pers

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      If you came here to talk to yourself - rather than participate in a discussion where questions are asked and ideas are shared - then there is no point in continuing this.

                      You are implying that if I respond to anything you say, I need to respond to everything you say. That's fucking stupid.

                      Stop being fucking stupid.

                      and back to the regularly scheduled program.

                      Yes. You lie. A lot. Regularly. Nothing new here.

                      If ever you want to have an actual discussion, where people are allowed to voice their opinions and ask reasonable questions with the expectation of receiving responses from the other person to them, come back later and we can try that.

                      No, you're the one who needs to leave, if that's what you expect. There is not, and never has been, ever, in any way, an expectation that someone will respond to every question you have, in any casual discussion, whether online or in person. You're full of shit.

                      Those questions are simply not worth answering.

                    • If you came here to talk to yourself - rather than participate in a discussion where questions are asked and ideas are shared - then there is no point in continuing this.

                      You are implying that if I respond to anything you say, I need to respond to everything you say.

                      No, I am not. I am indicating that a discussion between sensible and mature adults involves the exchange of ideas and responses to queries. You do neither of those in good faith. You come here and state your opinion and then proceed to lob accusations and insults at anyone who dares to disagree with you.

                      In short, you are not here for discussion. You are here to state your opinion and call everyone else inferior human beings for not sharing your opinion.

                      There. I replied without even asking you

          • by Arker (91948)
            It's a poker game and it appears our President is no better at poker than he is at Constitutional Law.

            He didnt start this, of course, the US government has been placing bets in Ukraine for some time. But they're foolish bets. We have no vital interest to defend here, no reason to be in the hand at all, but there we are.

            Also, why should Russia back off? Unlike the US they do have a clear and important reason to be there (which is a good reason we should never have bet on this pot to start with) and it's hard
            • >He didnt start this
              No, but BHO's generally supine position on foreign policy sure is a setup for humiliation.
              • by Arker (91948)
                I am not sure that a less supine position would really be an improvement though.

                I mean, he could certainly act stronger and look better doing it but that would only bring disaster more certainly. If we had Romney or McCain in his place instead the nukes might even be flying already.

                The US has no critical interest here, nothing on the line but prestige foolishly wagered. The Russians on the other hand are looking at the possibility of losing Crimea, which means they are staying in this hand regardless, they
                • The lack of options on Ukraine goes back to our impotence over in Georgia. Failure breeds failure.
                  • by Arker (91948)
                    Georgia was a very similar situation.

                    US put prestige on the line where it didnt need to, in Russias backyard, where they could not back down, and pushed... until Russia pushed back and we folded. Now I agree that weakened us but it almost seems you are implying the McCain position - that was should have gone to war with the Russian Federation on behalf of the corrupt government Georgia, and I have to say, that would have been an even bigger disaster.

                    • And then you pull back and look at the Green Revolution in Iran, or Zelaya in the Honduras, and see that our Foreign Policy has a strange affection for thugs.
                      If we're at least supporting reform, stability, and free/fair elections as carrots, then Americans can support the big military stick.
                      But we've opted for confusion and sucking up to the Bad Guys.
                    • by Arker (91948)
                      Rather apropos to your comment, I was just reading this: http://original.antiwar.com/chris_ernesto/2014/02/28/look-who-the-us-is-siding-with-in-ukraine-egypt-and-syria/
                    • Yep. I don't think our Community Organizer in Chief has a real foreign policy clue of any sort. None.
                    • ...our Foreign Policy has a strange affection for thugs.

                      Please, tell us something new. And where has Obama been any different on such matters? The people that matter to him are very happy.

                    • The people that matter to him are very happy.

                      Well, if that's the standard, then I guess I should lay by my dish.

                    • What are you complaining about? You vote for him when you vote for either faction of the party. If you are so against the status quo as you say, then it would seem to me you would have to show it.

                    • Are you arguing that one should not vote at all? Indeed, you can cast a ballot, and neglect choices at your leisure. This lets you follow your conscience, while remaining innocent of failure to participate in our representative democracy. Is this your point?
        • So, your argument is that the no-talent rodeo clown lacks talent, but so does everyone else, so, enjoy?
          • That wasn't even as amusing as the worn-out

            when did you stop beating your wife

            meme. Once again, though, I will point out that you are avoiding the question. You are trying for a conspiracy theory here that you can latch on to, to try to launch an overthrow campaign upon. However if you really want anyone outside the conservative blogosphere to believe that there is reason to see a conspiracy here you need to - at the very absolute least - provide a plausible alternate option that Obama could have exercised leading up to this point.

            Yo

            • You're roughly the last person on /. equipped to bemoan any high-mileage memes.

              You are trying for a conspiracy theory here that you can latch on to, to try to launch an overthrow campaign upon.

              If I didn't enjoy such belly-laughs from you blowhard, lunatic variations on the theme of paint-huffing idiocy, I'd have to ignore you. You just stay sexy, girl.

              • You have championed more anti-Obama conspiracy theories on slashdot than anyone else I have ever seen the writings of. You happen to have a couple favorites that you put more energy into than others, but you have shown that you are more than willing to latch on to a new one when it comes along. Hence the most reasonable expectation here is that you don't actually give a shit about the plight of the Ukrainians, Russians, or anyone else in that part of the world but rather you are looking for another way to
  • You can do better than that!

"Show business is just like high school, except you get paid." - Martin Mull

Working...