OT In defense of pirates ...
 

On Apr 14, 11:24*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
DaveS wrote:

... This **** is so
pathetically "I hate this man almost as much as I hated the Kennedy's" ....

That would be an exactly spot-on, hit-the-nail-on-the-head analysis
except Rick is too young to have ever hated the Kennedys with the
same pathetic, over-the-top, transparently rabid and thoughtless
hatred he displays toward Obama.

When he is able to twist a very minor asymmetrical military plus of
Obama's into fodder for his Uh-oh, tee-hee desk you know the guy is
nothing but a rabid, little bull****-puppy yapping at the ankles of
the President.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I think we come close to agreeing on the longer term solution and
causes. Much less so on the near term action. But thats probably
because we have no one with the charisma of the leaders of the Right
to tell us Socialists what to think. ;0)))

Dave

OT In defense of pirates ...
 

DaveS wrote:

I think we come close to agreeing on the longer term solution and
causes. Much less so on the near term action. But thats probably
because we have no one with the charisma of the leaders of the Right
to tell us Socialists what to think. ;0)))

Yeah, us educated types tend more toward forming circular firing
squads than forming outraged crusades.

The guy filling in for Olberman was a hoot yesterday. He was talking
about these astro turf tea parties planned for tomorrow when he came
up with this gem: "... if you are planning simultaneous tea bagging
all around the country, you're going to need a Dick pause Armey."

LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT In defense of pirates ...
 

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:24:23 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

DaveS wrote:

... This **** is so
pathetically "I hate this man almost as much as I hated the Kennedy's" ...

That would be an exactly spot-on, hit-the-nail-on-the-head analysis
except Rick is too young to have ever hated the Kennedys with the
same pathetic, over-the-top, transparently rabid and thoughtless
hatred he displays toward Obama.

You know, that's just another of your patently wrong "observations" - not only
do I not "hate" Obama, from what little I really know about him as a person, he
seems like a guy who genuinely wants to do go what he believes is right for his
country (a trait, IMO, he shares with George Bush) and generally wants to see
happiness and prosperity in the US and the world. The "problem" I have with
Obama is that while he is an intelligent guy, he doesn't have the experience,
the "street smarts," or real-world mental toughness to deal with many of the
problems the US and world face (again, traits shared with Bush). Add to that
the fact that many of those around him that he chooses to look to as advisors
are rabid partisans with some goofy ideas - again, like Bush, but where he
differs is that, in Obama's case, many of those advisors have no more experience
than he. And ROFFian shtick aside, there are many important areas in which
Obama's lack of experience is showing. For example, here's a WashPost piece:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...src=newsletter

No "rabid" partisanship evident, seemingly a "just the facts" critique. Camille
Paglia has done a coupla-few pieces in the WP's Salon - here's one:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/...bow/index.html

If you see critique of his performance as "rabid and thoughtless hatred," you
really are, well, bereft of meaningful thought.

When he is able to twist a very minor asymmetrical military plus of
Obama's into fodder for his Uh-oh, tee-hee desk you know the guy is
nothing but a rabid, little bull****-puppy yapping at the ankles of
the President.

This was not a place for a US President to interject himself - it was, at its
basis, a minor law-enforcement matter, not a military matter, and a "savvy" CinC
would not have even discussed it with the press beyond stating that, if he
simply couldn't control himself in front of a mic and cameras (although a truly
"savvy" CnC would have controlled himself). Again, it's not some deep personal
failing on his part, it's just a total lack of experience.

HTH,
R

OT In defense of pirates ...
 

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:34:45 -0700, "asadi"
wrote:




Moreover, if their demands were for food and medicine, or the
wanted international media coverage to shine a light on the alleged
problem,
that too would tend to lend credence to the whole "po' folks trying to
survive"
thing.


TC,
R
...

Damned good point.....I've often thought that some of those we call
terrorists are not properly using the public relations media....

john

A big reason is that because _most_ of those "we" (since I'm not sure who "we"
is, I'll take it from the context that you mean, generally, "westerners" with an
emphasis on those in the US) call terrorists are not really "terrorists," but
criminals, and it's pretty hard to do any effective PR for criminals (...it's
not particularly easy to do so for "terrorists," either...). When someone
tries, they wind up looking like, at best, a naive goofball - see Ken's article,
or at worst, a nutcase - see responses here putting a couple of mercs with
heavy machine guns and/or varmint rifles on merchant ships or listen to Rush or
other assorted loons.

IAC, while it can be argued that it is the job of the US military to protect
US-flagged vessels at sea, if such a mission is undertaken, it needs to be with
all necessary resources and some hard decisions about roles and goals. People
will get killed and the possibility for "collateral damage" is present and it
appears fairly high. Either accept the risks and get on with it or don't, but
pick an option and stick with it.

TC,
R

OT In defense of pirates ...
 

OT In defense of pirates ...
 

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:00:08 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
DaveS wrote:
... This **** is so
pathetically "I hate this man almost as much as I hated the Kennedy's" ...
That would be an exactly spot-on, hit-the-nail-on-the-head analysis
except Rick is too young to have ever hated the Kennedys with the
same pathetic, over-the-top, transparently rabid and thoughtless
hatred he displays toward Obama.

You know, that's just another of your patently wrong "observations" ...

Yeah, sure it is.

If you see critique of his performance as "rabid and thoughtless hatred," you
really are, well, bereft of meaningful thought.

I don't see rational critiques as rabid, thoughtless hatred. I see
your almost daily snickering and sniping over even the most trivial
of things as rabid and thoughtless partisan hatred.

When he is able to twist a very minor asymmetrical military plus of
Obama's into fodder for his Uh-oh, tee-hee desk you know the guy is
nothing but a rabid, little bull****-puppy yapping at the ankles of
the President.

This was not a place for a US President to interject himself - it was, at its
basis, a minor law-enforcement matter, not a military matter, and a "savvy" CinC
would not have even discussed it with the press ...

What a bunch of stupid bull****. You keep repeating the same old
lie. Obama never "discussed" the incident with the press.

Ah...maybe some pirates hijacked the White House website:

4/12/2009
Statement by the President on the Rescue of Captain Phillips


4/8/2009
Treasury Department Statement on Auto Supplier Support Program


4/7/2009
Statement by the President on the 15th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda


4/5/2009
United States European Council Joint Statement on the North Korean Launch


4/5/2009
Statement by the President: North Korea launch


4/3/2009
Statement from President Obama on the Tragic Shooting


4/3/2009
Statement By The President On Senate Passage Of FY10 Budget

....and the press:

"WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama on Monday said the United States was
resolved to confront pirates and vowed to hold those who prey on
shipping accountable for their crimes.

Obama's comments came a day after US merchant captain Richard Philipps was
rescued by the US navy on Sunday after a five-day hostage drama off the coast of
Somalia and following warnings by pirates that they would target Americans.

"We are going to have to continue to work with our partners to prevent future
attacks," Obama said, during a visit to the US Department of Transportation in
Washington.

"We have to continue to be prepared to confront them when they arise and we have
to ensure that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their
crimes," Obama said.

The president's comments came hours after a Somali pirate chief threatened to
target Americans in revenge for the rescue of the US captain in an operation
that saw military snipers kill three of his captors."

....and thehuffingtonpost.com:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_186120.html

(OK, so maybe that one isn't so far-fetched...)

....and Obama hisownself:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor...ef=videosearch

You can
say it til you're blue in the face but it will still be a bull****
lie. And *that* is a display of rabid, thoughtless, partisan hatred.

Um, Ken, the computer screen is the thing _NEXT_ to the mirror...

And to Obama's credit, he did refuse to discuss it at one speech/press
conference, at least personally during the soundbite part of the QnA (although
spokespeople then spoke about it).

HTH,
R

OT In defense of pirates ...
 

OT In defense of pirates ...
 

On Apr 15, 6:41*am, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:34:45 -0700, "asadi"
wrote:









Moreover, if their demands were for food and medicine, or the
wanted international media coverage to shine a light on the alleged
problem,
that too would tend to lend credence to the whole "po' folks trying to
survive"
thing.

TC,
R
...

Damned good point.....I've often thought that some of those we call
terrorists are not properly using the public relations media....

john

A big reason is that because _most_ of those "we" (since I'm not sure who "we"
is, I'll take it from the context that you mean, generally, "westerners" with an
emphasis on those in the US) call terrorists are not really "terrorists," but
criminals, and it's pretty hard to do any effective PR for criminals (...it's
not particularly easy to do so for "terrorists," either...). *When someone
tries, they wind up looking like, at best, a naive goofball - see Ken's article,
or at worst, a nutcase - see responses here putting a couple of mercs with
heavy machine guns and/or varmint rifles on merchant ships or listen to Rush or
other assorted loons.

IAC, while it can be argued that it is the job of the US military to protect
US-flagged vessels at sea, if such a mission is undertaken, it needs to be with
all necessary resources and some hard decisions about roles and goals. *People
will get killed and the possibility for "collateral damage" is present and it
appears fairly high. *Either accept the risks and get on with it or don't, but
pick an option and stick with it.

TC,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No one advocated arming merchant ships with varmint rifle toting
mercenaries. I don't know where you get some of this stuff.

Dave

OT In defense of pirates ...
 

On Apr 14, 11:39*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
MajorOz wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I don't want to sound like I approve of lawlessness or piracy
on the high seas. I posted the link so that before folks started
waving their flags, thumping their chests and working themselves
into a red, white and blue bloodlust they had a chance to look
at another side of the story.

Somalia is a failed state, a lawless rogue state, and that's the
crux of the problem. The problem isn't going to be solved by
lobbing in a few cruise missiles...

Agreed. *No purpose achieved.

...or even killing every Somali "pirate" in the shipping lanes.

Yes it will. *Neatly solve the problem.

I sympathize if your wife is dying of gung ho of the bung ho and your
kids are starving and their skin is flaking off.
But point a gun at me and you will die without negotiation.

My oh my, a real tough guy.

Not at all. Quite quiet and mild, actually.

The substance is big and bad and macho
but you really gotta work on your style. I mean, you get zero style
points for that lame post.

Perhaps you strive for points. I don't. Just results.

[snip delusional projection]

cheers

oz

OT In defense of pirates ...
 

MajorOz wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
My oh my, a real tough guy.

Not at all. Quite quiet and mild, actually.

A quiet and mild homicidal sociopath who would travel the
high seas shooting teenagers without negotiation. I get it,
you're more Jeffrey Dahmer than Clint Eastwood.

The substance is big and bad and macho
but you really gotta work on your style. I mean, you get zero style
points for that lame post.

Perhaps you strive for points. I don't. Just results.

Well, you do get points for honesty.

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT In defense of pirates ...
 

On Apr 13, 11:06*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:28:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

One or two guys, with a single heavy machine gun on a 500-plus foot ship with
low freeboard. *Now, add into the equation that those one or two guys are hired
guns. *What you have is a recipe for a total, complete cluster****. *If you are
in favor of a armed response, this is not the way to go about it. *And
huffingtonpost nonsense aside, these aren't farmers with pitchfolks, they are
pirates with real weapons (regardless of whether or not some might have once
been farmers/fishermen). *Let me ask you this - do you favor putting mercenaries
in _your_ local bank - you know, the one where you and your family bank - with
orders to open fire on any potential robbers? *If not, why not?

HTH,
R


... and it would then only be a matter of time before the guys in the
villas bought some real weaponry and set a tanker ot two on fire from
5-10 miles away .... and then we'd escalate again .... and the
military contractors would have yet another Business Opportunity to
soak the taxpayer.


Man's a sorry lot...

Guy