HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Stupefacto » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 13, 2013, 07:05 PM
Number of posts: 36

Journal Archives

Obama understands that some people use guns to protect their families

From 2012, his views on guns:
“I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.”


Brazilian President cancels trip to the USA thanks to NSA spying

Because the NSA spied on Brazilian companies and even the President herself. The following is the english translation of the news in a Brazilian newspaper.


I am no longer skeptical about Assad's responsibility in chemical weapons attack

Sources which were previously cautious about assigning blame are now saying that the UN report points to the Syrian Government.

The New York Times: "Forensic Details in U.N. Report Point to Assad’s Use of Gas"

Thinkprogress: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/09/16/2626601/syria-chemical-weapons-report/

Besides, Human Rights Watch has concluded that Assad was the culprit as well. This organization has no dog in that fight, therefore is credible in my view.

President Assad needs to be brought to trial in a world court.

Tweety report concludes Syria's President Assad was responsible for chemical weapons attack

On September 6, Chris (Tweety) Matthews said to a guest:

COLE: There is a lot of butchery going on.

MATTHEWS: What is your limit on Assad, about Bashar al-Assad?


MATTHEWS: How many times can he kill his own people with nuclear --
with chemical in this case, sarin apparently, sarin gas, before you say

COLE: It`s not really the -- well, I`m not sure -- the real question
to me, am I willing to risk American lives to go in there

The UN doesn't know. Chris Matthews does!


Washington Post hits the nail on the head, on what made Summers withdraw his nomination to the Fed

Obama had been strongly leaning toward picking Summers, who helped him navigate the depths of the financial crisis and recession at the beginning of his term, and had assurances from Democratic Senate leadership leaders that they would work to get him confirmed, according to people familiar with the matter.

But amid an intensifying uproar of liberal Democrats and left-wing groups opposed to his nomination, Summers decided to withdraw his name on Sunday, telephoning the president to tell him his decision.


HuffPo made me believe the UN Chief accused Assad of chemical weapons use

huffington Post Headline: UN Report To Confirm Chemical Weapons Used In Syria Attack As Ban Ki-Moon Accuses Assad Of Crimes Against Humanity

The chemical use confirmation next to the crimes against humanity sentence made me believe the UN found that Assad was responsible for the use of chemical weapons that has led to so much controversy.

Fortunately, I read the rest and yup, the Huffington Post was engaging on "link-bait," which is the practice of posting crappy teasing titles aimed at bringing lots and lots of fools to a website via a big, bold misleading headline.


John Kerry says he ‘opposed the president’s (George W. Bush) decision to go into Iraq’

Fact-checking website Politifact.com rules that his statement is "mostly false."

Kerry said recently that he "opposed the president’s decision to go into Iraq." In 2002, he voted to give the president the authority to attack, with a stern warning that Bush ought to exhaust diplomatic channels first. In 2003, as the president invaded, Kerry accused him of a "failure of diplomacy."

As a Democratic presidential primary unfolded in which the war was unpopular, Kerry kept up his criticism of Bush’s handling of the war. But he still said at a 2003 debate that he thought it was "the right decision" to disarm Hussein and that "when the president made that decision, I supported him." In 2004, he said he would vote to authorize force all over again.

It’s clear Kerry opposed the president’s handling of the war, and perhaps the president’s decision to "go into Iraq" militarily at the time he did. He suggested diplomatic opportunities were squandered. But he did vote to authorize force, and he said later he supported the president’s decision to disarm Hussein. It was a nuanced position — one too nuanced to be summarized accurately by a claim as blunt as having "opposed the president’s decision to go into Iraq."

These are critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate Kerry’s claim Mostly False.

All emphasis is mine.

Let me kill one likely counterargument before it even shows up in the thread. Some will try to defend Kerry by pointing out that he warned Bush that he needed to find a diplomatic solution first. Well, why then did Kerry say in 2004 that he would have trusted Bush with authorization of force AGAIN, if he was so much against Bush's non-diplomatic solution? Why did he say in 2003 (after the war began) about Bush's decision, that "I supported him"?

Go to Page: 1