Ahhh. Wrong Clip? this is Obama count down…

Ok didn’t watch whole thing. I love the fact this woman drives Olbermann nuts LOL

Ah yes Frances…..tell us how you really feel.

She is such an “idiot” and her opinions don’t matter much, which is of course why George Stephanapolous asked POTUS about her?

Bwahahahahaha

I love how Palin drives the left over-the-top and out of their minds.

Olbermann is a sexist pig.

To Keith Olbermann anyone who dares to disagree with him is an idiot.

Keith: If they are such idiots, why not have them on your show and put them in their place? Have Michelle Malkin or Sarah Palin or Rush or any of the other “idiots”on and have a live debate on a subject of YOUR choice. Poor poor Keith. It must suck to be you.

KO is just the messenger. Palin as president would be scarry and almost everyone knows it.

Valkyrie101, it’s spelled “scary”. Palin isn’t running for president. KO hates all women unless they are gay and liberal. He get’s off on watching athletic men showering

Oh, come on, Frances, this little more than an ad hominem attack, barely above the caliber of Olbermann’s.

You’ve done well by iterating the obvious (and obviously reasonable) arguments against your paltry criticisms, but the best you’ve done to respond to them is nothing more than your essentially saying pleading that she’s an extreme case– dumb.. extremist…etc.

Let me say too, that one of the inherent notions in disarmament is the argument that the entire nuclear standoff IS chiefly ARBITRARY BECAUSE of fear. Mainly, the sort of fear that is based upon tribalism and prejudice.

The stuff of many a school yard brawl.

Palin is guilty only of using the sort of analogy best suited to the argument of her opponents.

Mark,
Yea, I am a terrible speller. Wish they had a spell checker here at mediaite.

Actually, Palin just ran for VP, on a ticket with a fairly old man, so I am pretty sure that indicates her wish to be President. And recently she was asked by Hannity if she would run for President, and she did not rule it out. As I said, KO is just the messenger. Attacking the messenger does not really address the issue of Palin’s competence to be President, or to comment on American nuclear policy.

MarkStr82Hell,

Since when is proper to use an apostrophe in “gets off”? If you are going to correct people’s grammar around here you better check your own.

P.S.
KO will bring on CONS to his show when Fox News hires a liberal to host a show. One in which Murdoch can cite in an interview and then not have to retract after realizing it is a bad example (i.e. Greta)

Frances:

This commentary piece evidences a profound ignorance about current events. Palin wasn’t even talking about the arms control agreement with the Russians. Hence, your condescending lecture about how “[n]uclear disarmament and the relationship between post-Cold War Russia and the United States is significantly less arbitrary than a schoolyard brawl” is wholly irrelevant to the task at hand. She wasn’t talking about disarmament. She was talking about our public policy regarding the circumstances under which we would use the remainder of our nuclear arsenal.

Specifically, Palin was talking about the new nuclear retaliation policies that Obama announced this week. Here is Charles Krauthammer, who I am sure everyone will agree is not an “idiot,” talking about the new policy:

_____

Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place.

During the Cold War, we let the Russians know that if they dared use their huge conventional military advantage and invaded Western Europe, they risked massive U.S. nuclear retaliation. Goodbye, Moscow.

Was this credible? Would we have done it? Who knows? No one’s ever been there. No one’s ever had to make such decisions. A nuclear posture is just that — a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice.
Our policies did. The result was called deterrence. For half a century, it held. The Soviets never invaded. We never used nukes. That’s why nuclear doctrine is important.

The Obama administration has just issued a new one that “includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture,” said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the U.S. response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons.

Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory.

Again: Credible? Doable? No one knows. But the threat was very effective.

Under President Obama’s new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is “in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” explained Gates, then “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.”

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up to date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT-noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

This is quite insane. It’s like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.
Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the United States without fear of nuclear retaliation?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/08/AR2010040804507.html

_____

Frances, you write that “the privilege of holding an opinion comes with the responsibility of having to defend it.” I agree fully.

I therefore challenge you to defend your opinion. Rather than simply calling Palin an idiot and criticizing her supposedly un-Christian stance on nuclear disarmament, EXPLAIN why Palin’s analogy between Obama’s new nuclear policy and a preemptive refusal to retaliate in a school yard fight is a false analogy. You apparently have studied “[t]he complexities inherent in a type of diplomacy that for decades relied almost exclusively on fear” and understand “[e]very piece of that relationship’s history– from WWII to the Bay of Pigs fiasco to the fall of the Berlin Wall.” So explain why Obama’s theory (a unilateral, preemptive limitation on retaliatory options) is more like to keep America safe from the types of the threats that Krauthammer describes than Palin’s theory (you don’t take anything off the table beforehand when you’re threatened with a fight).

I eagerly await your defense of your opinion.

Touché, same2u.
BTW, most smart conservatives know that Palin is nothing more than a conservative personality. She will never become president. We are not that stupid as a country. Stupak resigns! The dems are
caving! KO needs to take his anti-anxiety medications and come out of the closet!

same2u says:
April 9, 2010 at 8:47 am

Since when is proper to use an apostrophe in “gets off”?

I think you mean: Since when is it proper to use an….

If you are going to correct people’s grammar around here you better check your own.

hahahaha!!

Some people were afraid to vote for McCain because, if something happened to him we would have an inexperienced person as president. Also, as VP they said that Palin would be an embarrassment for saying stupid things.

So instead, they voted for a the ONLY person with less experience than Palin and a VP, Biden who…………say it with me………Is an embarrassment for saying stupid things.

And you wonder why I call Olbermann a blind partisan hack. That (man?) is an idiot.

The following is also intellectually immature:

_____

Her assertion that the child in her story saying “I won’t retaliate” is “unacceptable” is somewhat problematic considering that “I won’t retaliate” (or, more commonly, “turn the other cheek”) is a major tenet of the religion that Palin has relied so much on to gain popularity among religious Americans.
_____

At least since Thomas Aquinas (one of the greatest minds in the history of the world) wrote the Summa Theologica, Christianity has recognized the “just war” doctrine. As Aquinas wrote:

_____
I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): “He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): “Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner”; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.”

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.”

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [*The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.” For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.”
_____

So, Frances, for you to write: “Jesus said turn the other cheek, so nuclear retaliation is un-Christian” ignores a millennium of Christian philosophy on the subject.

Again, you said that “the privilege of holding an opinion comes with the responsibility of having to defend it.” I therefore challenge you to a debate on whether the just war theory, as articulated by Aquinas and confirmed by other Christian thinkers through the ages, is consistent with the teaching of Christ (who you claim to “respect”) and the United States’ nuclear retaliation policy as it existed prior to President Obama’s changes this week.

And, to be clear, in the final paragraph of my last post I was summarizing/paraphrasing Frances’ argument, so the quotes may be misleading.

So finch, is it therefore fair to say that you endorse the Palin view?

She gets under his skin so bad..

Baracky’s too. Did you see him squim when Stephanopolous rread him Palin’s quote??

Val:

I support the Krauthammer view. I’m waiting to hear Frances’ argument before I can determine whether what Palin said is consistent with what Dr. Krauthammer wrote.

In all candor, Val, I really don’t have a strongly formed opinion on the subject. I just hate it when poorly-educated journalists who have scant knowledge of disciplines like philosophy and law attempt to play the elitist intellectual card. I think anybody who, like Frances, writes an opinion piece that says, in effect, “I’m smarter then you; therefore, you’re wrong” needs to be cut down to size.

I really don’t care much about what Olbermann says about anything or anyone, but I also have to admit that Palin, in her seasonally inappropriate green crushed velvet nieder couture seemed oddly off her game. Shrill, with no voice control, erratic, even for her, and as wild-eyed as some thirteen (13) year old who just drank 2 liters of Mountain Dew followed by Red Bull chasers. She really did fill the nutty stereotype last night. In fact, she even made Bachmann appear reasonably stable, a very difficult accomplishment.

Good. Cecelia good to use:

ad hominem attack.

Maybe, she’ll get to use:

meme.

I think you should copyright both. Not that many people find the phrase and the word all that useful anyway.

Sarah N. Italy:

We are all blessed to have your input on typographical errors this morning. Do you have any substantive input?

Just for the record. I will not be correcting anyone here on their grammar and spelling. Because I’m the worst at it myself. I’m Just Interested in what people have to say here. not if they’re an idiot. LOL. Ahh, Olbermann I think the squirrels are looking for you…

RRK:

I’m pretty sure Richard Dawkins has the copyright on “meme.” He invented it, no?

KO, if ya want to see an idiot, look in the mirror.

BTW, FOX is still killing you in the ratings!

BTW, will the grammar and spelling police, please go to the page reserved for the anal retentive?

Thanks,
The Management

…” once in a while the stars align and he gets his finger right on the pulse of his viewers’ thoughts.”….

oh Lord save us…

Well, I think you have your own shtick to copyright, TRFRK.

Call it, How To Talk Without Saying Anything.

If Olbermann and the rest of the mainstream media were not corrupt they would have reported the really important story yesterday — namely that the head of the Congressional Budget Office admits that Obama’s policies are sending the U.S. toward inevitable bankruptcy.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35546.html

How can the media bury this story, while focusing on its constant stream of gotcha stories on Sarah Palin’s palm or Facebook page? This has gone beyond bias, and has become irresponsibility and corruption. We are heading toward a colossal train wreck, and the media won’t report what’s right before their eyes.

EXPLAIN why Palin’s analogy between Obama’s new nuclear policy and a preemptive refusal to retaliate in a school yard fight is a false analogy.

Because it is a false analogy. If you bothered to read the new policy (which I doubt you did you are basically a right wing talking point parrot) it says that the policy can be changed at any time and it does not limit retaliation by conventional forces.

A more accurate analogy would be for the child to say, “I’m going to hit you back for hitting me, but I’m not going to pull out a gun and shoot you for hitting me”.

felixw:

You answered your own question. They run stupid stories about Sarah Palin BECAUSE they don’t want to report on real stories like what Obama is doing with the federal deficit.

Sarah Palin is the idiot? LOL

The Leftwingers are the Idiots and here is why…

The Democrat’s want Big Government

Castro = Big Government
Chavez = Big Government
Mao = Big Government
Saddam Hussein = Big Government
Hitler = Big Government

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.
- William John Henry Boetcker

Republicans believe in freedom. We don’t want Big Government making our decisions for us. The left needs the Government to make their decisions for them because they really don’t want that responsibility of choice aka the Freedom

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” – Dr. Adrian Rogers

Why don’t you Dems have any pride! Are you that weak? Are you unable to take care of yourself and your family? Where is yourself respect? Do you really want to put your hand in the pocket of another man? Shame on you and those like you that would rather have a hand out than a hand up.

Have you ever seen the movie Cinderella Man? Do you remeber the part where he paid back everthing he took from the Governrnent to feed his family?

All those so called rich Repubs did not start out that way? They were hard for what they have earned. Good for them. Now go get yours.

Obama – pissing on your American Dream since 2009 (funny how it worked out for him)

TRFRK says, “We are all blessed to have your input on typographical errors this morning. Do you have any substantive input?”

Seeing that your entire repertoire of responses here, consists of nothing but “rebuttals” such your claims that Sara offers nothing substantive, that I use certain terms too often, that AnonymousFinch’s arguments are predictable, and that your political contrarians are rubes, racists, and rednecks, etc.; when are YOU going to offer anything substantive?

You answered your own question. They run stupid stories about Sarah Palin BECAUSE they don’t want to report on real stories like what Obama is doing with the federal deficit.

Yeah well they didn’t run many stories about how Bush and the GOP took us from surpluses at the end of Clinton’s term to record deficits.

TRFRK says, “We are all blessed to have your input on typographical errors this morning. Do you have any substantive input?”

“Seeing that your entire repertoire of responses here, consists of nothing but “rebuttals” such your claims that Sara offers nothing substantive, that I use certain terms too often, that AnonymousFinch’s arguments are predictable, and that your political contrarians are rubes, racists, and rednecks, etc.; when are YOU going to offer anything substantive?”

Oh, snap! Hello- TRFRK gets nailed again!

JamesA:

That’s an asinine argument.

First, any policy unilaterally announced by the President can be changed at any time. Duh!

Second, you can’t defend a policy by saying that it can be reversed at any time. For example, if Obama said, “From now on, members of the U.S. military will no longer use live ammunition in their guns. They will only load up with blanks. But don’t worry, I reserve the right to reverse that policy at any time.” The final sentence of that statement doesn’t justify the preceding two. It just helps to render the entire policy more bizarre and incoherent. In fact, it’s not a policy at all, but an aspiration.

And let’s follow your analogy through to it’s logical conclusion. Which of the following kids is more likely to get punched:

Child A, who says, in your words, “I’m going to hit you back for hitting me, but I’m not going to pull out a gun and shoot you for hitting me.”

Or, Child B, who says, “I’ve got a loaded gun right here, and if you punch me, I’m gonna blow your head off.”

Child A is asking to get hit. Nobody is going to mess with Child B. That’s the paradox of game theory that President Obama doesn’t understand. If you project power, it is far less likely that you’ll actually have to use it.

JamesA:

Under President Obama’s own budget (in other words, if he gets everything he wants in terms of legislation and the economy goes exactly the way he thinks it will) the SMALLEST deficit of Obama’s (potential) 8 years in office will be LARGER than than the BIGGEST deficit of Bush’s 8 years in office. Preisdent Obama added more to the federal deficit in his first MONTH in office than Bush did in his first TERM in office. You are comparing apples and oranges.

When is (White) Royal going to offer anything substantial? LOL. He’s become little more than the fashion and grammar police. As for Olbermann, he’s just doing his usual. Hate anyone who disagrees with him and call then an idiot, then throw in some outrage over semantics. As BR said above, if Olbermann is really that outraged all the time, why doesn’t he have some of these ‘idiots’ on his show and debate them? Instead, he gets most of his guests from Daily Kos and Huff Post, and they simply sit there and nod at everything he says. What are you afraid of, Keith? Man up and have guests that aren’t extreme far left like you.

Finch,
So if you had been Truman in 1950, would you have gone with MacArther’s request to drop the nuclear bomb on the amassing Chinese troops coming over the border into Korea? China had no nuclear capability in those days. Would you have said, back off or we will drop a nuclear bomb, like your child B?

Because here is the problem with your analogy, the kid threatening to punch you might have a friend who also has a gun, and he might retaliate on behalf of the non-gun toting bully. So then, to avoid getting punched, you are now dead. And if child B is willing to use his gun to kill the bully to avoid getting punched, don’t you think that the bully’s gun toting friend will consider preemptively just killing child B?

The entire school yard analogy is complete nonsense and reflects the simplistic mentality of Palin, and apparently her supporters.

Valkyrie, speaking of simplistic…umm…mutually assured destruction applies to all warring parties on the school ground.

valkyrie, she used a playground analogy so libs would understand it.

We already understand that she is not particularly smart so it was unnecessary to proove that again.

Well, Frances (BTW I assume you are female b/c that spelling is typically the feminine form), Atticus presented an outstanding rebuttal to your article.

Can we expect a reply from you or do you have no defense against his rebuttal?

Mutual assured destruction is why the guy with the gun does not go around threatening to kill someone to avoid getting punched.

The implied threat (which the school yard analogy represents) is why.

Exactly, valk. And that’s what Palin was getting at. What’s so difficult about it?

In fact, it’s not a policy at all, but an aspiration.

So in a sense you are admitting that all the fearmongering coming from Kauthammer and Palin is pure BS.

Child A, who says, in your words, “I’m going to hit you back for hitting me, but I’m not going to pull out a gun and shoot you for hitting me.”

Or, Child B, who says, “I’ve got a loaded gun right here, and if you punch me, I’m gonna blow your head off.”

You’re analogy falls apart because no where does the policy state that if we are attacked by nuclear weapons, we won’t retaliate with nuclear weapons.

That’s the paradox of game theory that President Obama doesn’t understand. If you project power, it is far less likely that you’ll actually have to use it.

No that’s just being a school yard bully, something you don’t understand.

Val:

First of all, I’m not saying whether we should or should not ACTUALLY use nukes in any given situation. I am saying that you don;t take the option off the table and announce what you’re going to do beforehand. If you want to talk about China policy, the analogy I’m talking about is our policy of “strategic ambiguity” towards Taiwan. As a matter of official policy, we have never said (and hopefully will ever say) how we would react if China ever attempted to reclaim Taiwan through force. All options are on the table. In other words, China, act at your own peril and assume the worst. That policy works for a reason.

And, Val, let’s look at your example. A bully threatens to punch you. He also has a friend nearby who secretly has a gun pointed at you. You respond by saying, to use JamesA’s words, “I’m going to hit you back for hitting me, but I’m not going to pull out a gun and shoot you for hitting me.” Do yo really think the bully is going to say, “Wow! You are so moral. I’m so impressed with how moral you are that me and my gun toting friend are going to go away and leave you alone.” Hell, no! The bully is going to beat the living crap out of you!

In my example, even if there is a third person with a hidden gun, there is still an EQUAL risk to all parties. By keeping the use of force (your gun) as an option, you’ve simply leveled the playing field instead of unilaterally ceding it to the aggressor.

And the larger point is that if you look at the history of the Cold War, you see that all strategic deterrence is based in the discipline of game theory: things like Nash equilibrium, the prisoner’s dilemma, and Pareto optimality. Those guys made an academic and intellectual profession out of analogizing strategic defense to simply games like checkers, chess, and poker (though they did so with an intellectual rigor like few have ever seen). It’s not “complete nonsense.”

You are comparing apples and oranges.

No I am comparing media coverage and the selective outrage of some. Bush and the GOP took us from surpluses to huge deficits, but there was very little media coverage of it back then and most conservative, not all but most, complained about it.

JamesA:

By definition, the person who waits to be attacked before retaliating is NOT a “bully.” That’s what Obama doesn;t understand. He thinks that leaving a nuclear retaliation on the table makes us a bully. No, sorry, it doesn’t. The party acting in self defense may act disproportionately, but they are not the aggressor and they are not a “bully.”

_____
You’re analogy falls apart because no where does the policy state that if we are attacked by nuclear weapons, we won’t retaliate with nuclear weapons.
_____

I never said it does. That’s not the point. There are plenty of ways of doing significant harm without using nukes. That’s completely irrelevant.

Your discussion about nukes ignores the other countries out there who have nuclear weapons. Your nuke policy involves threatening, and when people get threatened they get scared. And when people get scared they do irrational things, like getting even one day. If we have a crisis with another nuclear country we do not want the option of using nuclear weapons on the table. If the other countries know that, we are all safer. But let’s face it, whatever agreement you sign means very little when it comes to dropping nuclear weapons. I mean, at that point, who is going to care if someone violated an international agreement because most of us would be dead. So signing these agreements is more a token of mutual good will than anything else. Everybody knows that too.

Grammie:

Thanks for the words of support. But I don’t think any of us should hold our breathe waiting for a response from Frances (who I also assume is a female). She’s very brave in calling people stupid when they can’t defend themselves, but I seriously doubt she’s got the guts to debate me on an equal playing field.

If someone says, “I am going to punch you”, and you respond, “then I am going to kill you with my gun”. Make no mistake about it, you are a bully.

Val:

You are absolutely, positively wrong. I’m not suggesting that we threaten anyone with the preemptive use of nukes. I am saying that we reserve the right to use them in self-defence. If you are a peaceful country and you don’t attack us, you have nothing to worry about. If you are a belligerent country and attack us, you should expect the worst. Whether we will actually resort to “the worst” depends on a post hoc evaluation of the circumstances.

That’s what just war theory is all about. You don’t measure the moral significance of the use of force by WHAT TYPE of force is being used. Rather, you measure by the PURPOSES for which it is used.

We are the only nation in the world to ever use nuclear weapons in combat. Was that wrong or immoral? Absolutely, positively not. It saved lives. If we had invaded the island of Japan it would have cost far, far more lives on both sides. The weapon used was horrible, but the purpose was just, as was the war itself.

No, sorry Val, you are wrong. That’s called self-defense.

Yes, glad you and Sarah will not be sitting in the white house any time soon.

Pretty much everyone knows that using nuclear weapons is a short cut to the end of the world. Better to fight a conventional war than to use them. It is important that even our enemies know that.

Val just summed up the policy very succinctly:

We’re all safer if the nuclear option is off the table, but we’re not really safer…

So what deters both our enemies and us, Val? What you called the “token” gesture, or the very real threat?

Yes, cecelia, marriages are just a token of good will, but there are never any guarantees.

Self defense, smelt defense… AnonymousFinch, what does it matter as long as we have a policy that makes the president and Valkyrie FEEL good…

That’s why you don’t pooh-pooh prenups nor take anything off the table, Val…

did mediaitde hire all its columnists from the daily kos and huff post to save money?

another ridiculous column.

Dan, try hiring journalists pal, this is embarrasing.

This is why I love ex politicalmedia hack. He’s a fairly liberal guy. I know he and I disagree on a lot of policy issues. But’s he’s intellectually honest and won’t defend the indefensible. If our paths should ever cross, the beers are on me!

Ahmadinejad is a good example of dealing with a bully. Obama warns, “If you don’t stop what you’re doing, we’ll impose sanctions.” Ahmadinejad laughs, and in so many words replies: “Kiss my ass!”

Speaking of Grammie, AnonymousFinch, sometime you must ask her to repeat the truly hideous insults leveled at her by The Real Royal King on another board.

He’s affected a civilized image here (when not calling opponents racist) but he was quite an education to conservative women on the blog Olbermann Watch.

That may be true, Cecelia, but I’ll match the King’s fashion sense against Bruno any day of the week.

I don’t want to stir the pot but Frances, by reporting the truth you have created a maelstrom of political debate. Try not to be so logical next time.

Frequent posters: y’all have way too much time on your hands, but I sure appreciate reading all of the posts as sorting the puffery from the facts is an education in itself. Thanks for the opinions!

Cute kitty!

You’re welcome, Merry, and thanks for taking all that time to read those opinions and then warning folks about having too much time on their hands. That kinda gives us some insight into your psyche.

What was Keith’s opinion when Jimmy Carter said he asked Amy about nuclear weapons? And what time is it?

Writer said: “Ahmadinejad is a good example of dealing with a bully. Obama warns, “If you don’t stop what you’re doing, we’ll impose sanctions.” Ahmadinejad laughs, and in so many words replies: “Kiss my ass!”

So writer, you are suggesting that we threaten Iran with nuclear proliferation?

And when they laugh in our face, do you then suggest that we nuke them?

The party acting in self defense may act disproportionately, but they are not the aggressor and they are not a “bully.”

Acting disproportionately is being a bully. That is totally part of the bully mentality.

There are plenty of ways of doing significant harm without using nukes.

Exactly the point. Thus, we don’t need to respond with nukes for a non-nuclear attack.

“Thus, we don’t need to respond with nukes for a non-nuclear attack.”

NO ONE here has argued otherwise.

Exactly, Cecelia. JamesA and Valkyrie are simply to dense too appreciate a principle of strategic deterrence that has been around at least since the beginning of the Cold War (if not since Sun Tzu): namely, ambiguity. You never tell your enemy what you are willing to do or not do beforehand. If an enemy is planning an attack on you, you want them to expect the worst.

Moreover, they refuse to accept the moral distinction between aggression and self-defense. They don’t care who is the aggressor and who is acting in self-defense. Rather, they think whoever has nuclear weapons must be wrong.

finch,
Well it figures you get your inspiration from the Art of War. But none of those ancient people you keep quoting were around during a time when we are just one or two misunderstandings away from being “On the Beach”.

Val:

You’re watched “War Games” too many times. Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy aren’t going to start World War III with their Commodore 64.

Exactly, Cecelia. JamesA and Valkyrie are simply to dense too appreciate a principle of strategic deterrence that has been around at least since the beginning of the Cold War

Yes and that was built upon other countries using nuclear weapons against us. That has not changed with this policy. All this policy says is that we won’t attack another country with nuclear weapons for a non-nuclear attack. And as yourself stated “There are plenty of ways of doing significant harm without using nukes.”

Moreover, they refuse to accept the moral distinction between aggression and self-defense. They don’t care who is the aggressor and who is acting in self-defense. Rather, they think whoever has nuclear weapons must be wrong.

First, you’re the last person to lecture anyone about morals. The only morals you have are the latest right-wing talking points. Second, don’t put words in my mouth. That’s just intellectually dishonest but from you I should have learned to expect that.

But you’re right there is a moral distinction. If someone punches you in the face, punch them back. Don’t pull out a gun and shoot them in the head. That is a disproportionate response to the initial attack which is the true moral distinction.

JamesA:

First, strategic deterrence was not just about nuclear deterrence. How do you think the US kept Western Europe from being invaded by the Soviets for 50 years when their conventional forces massively outnumbered ours on that continent?

Second, don’t call me immoral. You know nothing about me. The fact that you would throw a word like that around when you don’t have the information to make such a judgment only proves what an ignoramus you are. You are completely unconcerned about facts.

Third, I’m going to say this one final time because you still don’t get it. I’m not advocating repelling any kind of attack (whether it be a punch in a school yard or a chemical attack in Manhattan) with disproportionate force. I am saying that as a matter of strategic deterrence you never take any options for a response off the table ahead of time. If an enemy is thinking about attacking you, you want them to assume the worst. If they do actually attack you, you don’t necessary have to respond that way. You wait until after the fact to decide what is appropriate.

Again, that is a simple, well-established principle of warfare and game theory that is decades (if not centuries) old. It was the official policy of the United States until earlier this week. If you want to be an ignorant jerk, you can continue to ignore the argument I’m actually making and instead pretend that I’m advocating nuking anyone who looks at us cross-eyed. But when you ignore my argument and substitute your own straw-man, you’re not persuading anybody that you are right.

No finch, I gave you a clue from one of your heroe’s movies, but I guessed you missed it. Using a nuclear weapon for any purpose other than in retaliation for another country’s use, is unacceptable, even if attacked by conventional means, because being morally right is no consolation for the end of life on earth, which use of nuclear weapons invites. Thus, threatening the use of nuclear weapons is also unacceptable since it invites, at the enemies earliest convenience, a first strike against us. Obama is simply moving in the direction that Nixon and Reagan both advocated that we move, the gradual reduction of nuclear weapons toward the eventual elimination of them.

You were much more honest when you stated the obvious, Val:

“But let’s face it, whatever agreement you sign means very little when it comes to dropping nuclear weapons. I mean, at that point, who is going to care if someone violated an international agreement because most of us would be dead. So signing these agreements is more a token of mutual good will than anything else. Everybody knows that too.”

Cecelia,
That is why I compared nuclear disarmament treaties to a marriage. People get married, usually with great pomp and circumstance, with all their friends and relatives joining in the celebration, hoping that their marriage will be for life. The ceremony of marriage is an important committment that the two make, that they want to believe in. Of course, that committment is not binding in an ultimate sense, but it is perceived to help in keeping the dream of an ideal relationship alive. Likewise, with nuclear non-proliferation agreements, we enter those in good faith hoping that they keep us from world ending proliferation, but ultimately, anyone could break one.

Obama has not in any way compromised our security by reducing the number of nuclear weapons to 1500. That should be of some comfort to you, even if you remain dubious of a future world where nuclear weapons are not needed.

First, strategic deterrence was not just about nuclear deterrence. How do you think the US kept Western Europe from being invaded by the Soviets for 50 years when their conventional forces massively outnumbered ours on that continent?

But we are not talking about huge armies invading other countries like in the cold war. There is a difference.

Second, don’t call me immoral. You know nothing about me. The fact that you would throw a word like that around when you don’t have the information to make such a judgment only proves what an ignoramus you are. You are completely unconcerned about facts.

Well you are the one who brought up morality and used it to attack Val, Cecelia and me. So spare me the hypocrisy.

But I know enough about you from what I’ve read. You’re a right wing talking point machine who even when confronted with facts from non-partisan sources with continue to spin, obfuscate and deny reality.

As far as the namecalling, I’ll leave that to you.

Third, I’m going to say this one final time because you still don’t get it. I’m not advocating repelling any kind of attack (whether it be a punch in a school yard or a chemical attack in Manhattan) with disproportionate force. I am saying that as a matter of strategic deterrence you never take any options for a response off the table ahead of time. If an enemy is thinking about attacking you, you want them to assume the worst. If they do actually attack you, you don’t necessary have to respond that way. You wait until after the fact to decide what is appropriate.

No I get and saying it in a another way doesn’t chance things. The policy doesn’t say there will be no response as Sarah Palin dishonestly stated just that under certain conditions there won’t be a nuclear response. And as you said yourself “There are plenty of ways of doing significant harm without using nukes.” BTW Thanks for proving my point for me.

Again, that is a simple, well-established principle of warfare and game theory that is decades (if not centuries) old. It was the official policy of the United States until earlier this week. If you want to be an ignorant jerk, you can continue to ignore the argument I’m actually making and instead pretend that I’m advocating nuking anyone who looks at us cross-eyed. But when you ignore my argument and substitute your own straw-man, you’re not persuading anybody that you are right.

Resorting to namecalling. I always know I’m winning an arguement when the other guy resorts to namecalling. And since the policy states that it can be changed at any time based on the circumstance, your point it mute. Buh-bye!

Sorry that should be ‘moot’, not ‘mute’.

So valk, how do you suggest dealing with Ahmadinejad? I wasn’t suggesting nuking him for laughing at us, but having the threat on the table may make him think twice. All that sanctions talk has only resulted in him taunting us like the French taunted the English in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. “Go away, or I will taunt you a second time, you silly English persons.”

writer,
Obama did not take the nuclear option off the table with regard to Iran and N.Korea because they have both refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation agreement. So nothing has changed with regard to those two countries, other than the fact that they now feel even more isolated and vulnerable. What can we do about either of those two countries other than keep the pressure on and hope that internal forces change their administrations, like what happened with the East block..

No offense valkyrie101 but you need to turn off your computer once and awhile and get some fresh air. Go for a walk. Make a new friend. Establish a sex life. Obama will make it just fine without your assistance every hour or every day. Go ahead…I know you can do it! A new beginning. I will be exciting!

JamesA:

_____
“Second, don’t call me immoral. You know nothing about me. The fact that you would throw a word like that around when you don’t have the information to make such a judgment only proves what an ignoramus you are. You are completely unconcerned about facts. Well you are the one who brought up morality and used it to attack Val, Cecelia and me. So spare me the hypocrisy.”
_____

I said that your failed to recognize the moral distinction between aggression and self-defense. You called me immoral. The first is a legitimate response to your argument. The latter is an ad hominem attack.

_____

“No I get and saying it in a another way doesn’t chance things. The policy doesn’t say there will be no response as Sarah Palin dishonestly stated just that under certain conditions there won’t be a nuclear response.”
_____

This is so disingenuous. No one claimed that Obama took the use of nukes off the table in all circumstances. I’m saying he shouldn’t take it off the table in any circumstances.

Val:

_____
“Obama did not take the nuclear option off the table with regard to Iran and N.Korea because they have both refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation agreement. So nothing has changed with regard to those two countries, other than the fact that they now feel even more isolated and vulnerable.”
_____

You REALLY think Iran and North Korea are unhappy with Obama’s new policy change? You think that’s why Ahmadinejad responded with such belligerence? Because now, suddenly, Obama has them right where he wants them?

I said that your failed to recognize the moral distinction between aggression and self-defense. You called me immoral. The first is a legitimate response to your argument. The latter is an ad hominem attack.

Accusing someone of not recognizing what is moral is the same as saying they are not moral. Try to spin it as you usually do by we both know what you meant.

This is so disingenuous. No one claimed that Obama took the use of nukes off the table in all circumstances. I’m saying he shouldn’t take it off the table in any circumstances.

No that is exactly what Sarah Palin was doing with her analogy. And Ms. Martel, a conservative, was honest enough to call her out on it. Too bad you aren’t.

I don’t even know why George S. asked Obama that question. It was stupid. There are plenty of intelligent conservatives out there of whom he could have chosen to use their arguments but he chose Palin? Really George? Not only was her statement vacuous, it was meant to be derisive. This woman has plenty to say about everything, why can’t she host a townhall so people can actually inquire and challenge her on these issues?

I mean, this woman in the year 2008 still believed Saddam was behind 9-11. Who wants to hear her opinion on foreign policy?

To be fair, Hannity & Gingrich also misrepresented the goals of this treaty. It’s as if there’s some Foxnews misinformation echo chamber.

All the bad guys were supposed to start playing nice once we got rid of the hated George Bush. Guess they didn’t get the message.

Palin’s hero, Ronald Reagan, agrees with Obama.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2008/01/13_krieger_reagan_abolitionist.php?krieger

She is beyond stupid. She knows NOTHING.

How can so many people lie about Palin on one page? They must be reading mediamatters, Huffington Post or moveon. I guess you think if just keep repeating the lies everyone will believe them? Sorry, it is not going to work. Watch in November.

How can so many people lie about Palin on one page?

Ms. Martel, who wrote the article, is a conservative. She’s not lying but being honest about Palin. If you think she is lying, why don’t you post some facts that refute her.

Sarah Palin is the brightest star in the Republican Horizon. Stop the hate. You are nothing but a Sarah Palin wannabe. Anyway whatt was your name? Francus or something like that? When Sarah takes the destiny of the United States to the Cosmos you are going to be an insect. We, the Team Party are the Best!

All Mr. Olbermann has to do if he wants to find an idiot is to look in his mirror.

Sarah Palin is in this statement not mixing politics and religion. She is saying that governments cannot and should not act as individuals should in a situation where they are punched. A Christian should turn the other cheek but a government should not.

Is that not honoring Jesus’ words of giving Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s?

same2u says:
April 9, 2010 at 8:47 am
“P.S.
KO will bring on CONS to his show when Fox News hires a liberal to host a show. One in which Murdoch can cite in an interview and then not have to retract after realizing it is a bad example (i.e. Greta)”

Both Mr. Murdoch and yourself seem to have forgotten about Colonel Mustache: Geraldo Rivera.

KEITH TELLS THE TRUTH…….OUCH…. IT HURTS SOMETIMES

Palin and FOX should be flattered: they have an entire network obsessed with them.

All the LOSERS love to go off on Sarah Palin. These dweebs are green with envy at her prowess for making money, 12 MILLION last year. Eat your little lily-livered hearts out, losers. Go Sarah!

Sarah may not understand the big “nuclear” picture, as Obama said, but he doesn’t seem to be doing too hot himself. Like sarah, I think it more important to understand the people involved. Nukes, in and of themselves, don’t fly to distant lands to wreak havock. Simplistic Ronald Regan understood this, stood firm and down came the wall. Sound like a bible story? Before you start saying what Sarah, the Christian, should do or think, read the Bible. It isn’t her word, but God’s Word. Besides, these experts are the ones that have got us into the mess in the first place.