“Mr. Snowden’s claim that he is focused on supporting transparency,
freedom of the press and protection of individual rights and democracy
is belied by the protectors he has potentially chosen: China, Russia,
Cuba, Venezuela and Ecuador,” the official said. “His failure to
criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has
been to injure the national security of the U.S., not to advance
Internet freedom and free speech.”
Hey dumbasses, you're going after him for espionage. You're going after him with such force and threat, that the places where he will be the safest from arrest are the countries that we're at odds with the most. Good job idiots. I'm sure he'd be just find living in the United States if you'd let him, but if you haven't noticed lately, he's sort of a a priority of the US Government at the moment to track down and arrest. Any friendly country to the US that he could go to would send him right back. So you're forcing his hand of going to the countries of our enemies. Did you not really think this stuff through?
And he's not criticizing those regimes because he's trying to get on their good side so he can live there in peace. Why would he start talking shit about the countries that might be offering him asylum? Do you even think this stuff over before you open your big mouths? This has been such an embarrassment for our government and these stupid comments in the press aren't helping. Get your shit together already.
This is just embarrassing. Ann Coulter was on Real Time With Bill Maher back in July for a debate on politics and foreign policy. She had a question for Bill Maher: "What do you think about Libya and Egypt...as long as I have you here."
Bill Maher: What about them?
Coulter: Are you in favor of us intervening in these two countries that didn't hit us on 9-11 solely for purposes of regime change?
Maher: First of all I didn't think we were intervening in Egypt, are we?
Coulter: We did.
Maher: What did we do? What did we do in Egypt?
Newsflash: We did not intervene in Egypt, we did nothing militarily, which at the time was commonly talked about being that we supported Mubarak for years and now we were doing nothing at all while the chaos erupted.
It was almost the perfect fail/owned moment. Unfortunately the other guests started to chime in and talk about how we didn't intervene in Egypt. Even though they were correcting Ann Coulter it somehow took a bit of the sting away. It would have been much more satisfying to hear a full minute of dead silence after Bill Maher asked "What did we do in Egypt?".....
Her main point presumably was going to be something along the lines of this: liberals were so anti-war during the Bush administration, but now here we have Obama getting us involved in all these wars and the anti-war liberals are silent. There actually is a decent point to be made there, but you Republicans need to know your shit before you start spouting off. I don't know what's happened in the past decade or so but it's become fashionable with conservatives to not really know what's going on, Sarah Palin being the prime example of this. Playing dumb is not cute, actually being dumb is definitely not cute - it's just downright embarrassing and sad, and it takes all credibility from what ever argument you were trying to make - even if somewhere in there was a valid point.
Read up on what's going on, even if it bores the hell out of you. You have got to do your homework if you're trying to win the hearts and minds of the people. But I suppose this is pretty much what we ought to expect from Ann Coulter, it's been her shtick for years - making inflammatory comments that make headlines, and somehow the facts are lost in it all and become secondary. Fortunately this time she was called right out on it.
Well it's official: Herman Cain is finished. He no longer has a chance to become president in this upcoming election. If by some miracle he ends up winning the Republican primary, there is no way he will be able to beat Obama. Either way he's toast. And it has nothing to do with the sexual harassment allegations. We gave Herman Cain the benefit of the doubt and still do. More details may come out later of course that indicate he did sexual harass those women, but at this point in time we simply don't have any evidence that he did. No, the reason Herman Cain is toast is this "performance" during an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Watch below:
This is just embarrassing, and it's too terrible to justify. There's no way to spin this one at all. How could anybody be so clueless as to what's going on in the world? Sure, when you run for President of the United States, you have to quickly learn a ton of information - everything from international politics to tax policy to more local issues that are going on in the towns that you visit while campaigning. But at this point in the campaign he should be up to date with what happened in Libya.
And let's say we give him a pass for not knowing too much about Libya or the Middle East. Let's look at how he handled it. A third grader could have done a better job answering the question. "Uhmm Libya...ok let's see....uhh....Obama...was.....for...the opposition..right? Ok...uh" He's asking the interviewer to help him answer the question, and that's pathetic. And you gotta love how he shuffles his water bottle back and fourth on the table like he's some kind of genius deep in thought. Nope, not fooling anybody. That may have worked during corporate board meetings but it definitely didn't help here.
Once he's at the understanding that Obama was for the uprising and the ousting of Gaddafi, he then begins to offer his criticism on the way Obama handled it:
"I don't agree with the way he handled it for the following reasons:
uhmmmm.....nope that's a different one. Uhm... let's see..I gotta go back and see..uhh...I got all this stuff twirling around in my head...uh...specifically what are you asking me what do I agree or not disagree with Obama on?"
That's just terrible man. Just admit that you don't know. People already know that you don't know much about what's going on in the middle east, we get it, it's not your specialty. But to try to pretend that you do and fail so miserably is just embarrassing. And to attempt to criticize Obama for the way he handled it when you don't even know the situation or how Obama handled it? How are you going to criticize something before you even know the details of what happened? For all Cain knows, Obama's strategy on Libya was genius.
For the record: we here at People Liking People would prefer not to get involved at all with Libya or any other of these uprisings and civil wars. Do we not have enough of our own issues to deal with? And that's the real answer Cain should have given. Why are we talking about Libya when we have so many problems of our own? Let's take care of our own first, Libyans will find a way to work things out on their own.
And that reveals another problem with Cain. He's afraid to give his real opinion on international politics. Now maybe he isn't the brightest guy in the world when it comes to the middle east, but he's gotta have some kind of views one way or the other. But instead of giving his honest view, he's sitting there trying to remember what the establishment Republican positions are. He doesn't want to say anything that's out of line with the status quo, because he knows if he gets called out on it and asked to back it up, he's in trouble. So he's trying to play it safe and give the standard answers. Israel? Support it 100%. Libya? whatever Obama did, that was wrong. He's afraid to take real unique positions. He may have a "bold" 999 plan but with everything else he's merely going along with the Republican talking points and is afraid to take a stand or real position on anything.
We wanted to see Cain do well, in the beginning he really seemed to shine above the other candidates. But the more his campaign continued the worse it got. In the beginning of his campaign when he was asked international questions, he would say things like "I do not know the best way to resolve that because I need to look over the facts". Back then we thought it was kind of a weak answer but at least it was honest and we understood. Now he's trying to fudge his way through answering those types of questions and it just doesn't work.
Wow, this is pretty bad. So yesterday President Obama had a meeting with congressional leaders and continued the ongoing debate of what to do about the debt ceiling. Evidently talks broke down and things became heated when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor challenged Obama on spending cuts. What happened next has to be one of the dumbest lines ever uttered in negotiation. In response to Cantor's challenge, Obama responded "Don't Call My Bluff".
Don't call my bluff, really? So you're telling the other side that you're bluffing or attempting to deceive them (read: LIE)? Just how strong is your position where you outright tell the other side to not call you out on your bullshit?
Posts
