Clinton...talk about a rewrite on history...sheesh....
Posted By: Clinton was an embarrassment. period. on 2008-12-21
In Reply to: Embarrassment - Gimme A Break
He was a waste of a good president. Ergo, he was an embarrassment, in more ways than one.
Where do you want your break, anyway?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
And history TRIES to rewrite itself...
Only the dubya blind will never see the truth...........
Jimmy Carter tries to rewrite history...
December 1, 2006 by Lee Green
Jimmy Carter Distorts Facts, Demonizes Israel in New Book
Former President Jimmy Carter has written an egregiously biased book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and is currently doing numerous interviews to sell the book and its ideas. Carter is attempting to rewrite history, and in his alternate universe, Arabs parties are blameless and Israel is at fault for almost all the conflicts in the world. One gets the feeling after reading just a few pages that if he could have blamed Hurricane Katrina on Israel, he would have. His main messages are that Israel is badly mistreating the Palestinians and that the cause of the conflict is Israel's refusal to return to what he calls its "legal borders" (sic), the pre-67 armistice lines.
Because the Palestinian Arabs have been offered a viable state of their own numerous times, including with the same borders that Carter desires, but turned it down since it meant recognizing Israel's legitimacy and permanence and ending the conflict, Carter either ignores or mischaracterizes the offers. He never lets the facts get in the way of his "must blame Israel" theories. In Carter's twisted universe, it is the Arabs who have always been eager for peace, with Israel opposing it at every turn.
Almost every page of Carter's book contains errors, distortions or glaring omissions. The following list is just a small portion of the many problems in the book:
• Carter claims Israel has been the primary obstacle to peace, that Arab leaders have long sought peace while Israel preferred holding on to "Palestinian land" over peace, and that if only Israel would "[withdraw] to the 1967 border as specified in the U.N. Resolution 242...", there would be peace.
Aside from his obviously questionable opinions, Carter is factually wrong when he asserts that U.N. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice line that was in place until 1967. He has repeated this serious falsehood in many interviews, such as on the November 28 PBS NewsHour:
"The demand is for them to give back all the land. The United Nations resolutions that apply, the agreements that have been made at Camp David under me and later at Oslo for which the Israeli leaders received the Nobel Peace Prizes, was [sic] based on Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories."
He mischaracterizes UN resolutions and apparently has forgotten what he himself signed as a witness to the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which states in Section A1c: "The negotiations [concerning the West Bank and Gaza] shall be based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements."
To claim now that the very agreement he witnessed and signed specifies withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines is outrageous. [While the 1979 Camp David document again mentions UN Resolution 242, it makes no further mention of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. It instead deals with Israeli-Egyptian relations, and includes a map of the Israel-Egypt International Boundary (Annex II). Tellingly, no maps demarcating any boundary between Israel and the Palestinians are appended to the Camp David documents, Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords, or the "road map".]
UN Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the land to the "1967 border", since there is no such border. The "green line" is merely the 1949 armistice line and the drafters of 242 explicitly stated that this line was not a "secure border" -- which 242 calls for.
The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."
The American UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that, "The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and the 'June 5, 1967 lines' ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."
The reasoning of the United States and its allies at the time was clear: Any resolution which, in the face of the aggressive war launched in 1967 against Israel, required complete Israeli withdrawal, would have been seen as a reward for aggression and an invitation to future aggression. This is assuredly not what the UN voted for, or had in mind, when it passed Resolution 242.
For more details on the meaning of 242, click here.
- Many media outlets have corrected erroneous characterizations of 242 (prompted by CAMERA), including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The corrections clarify that 242 does not require Israel to give all the land acquired in the 67 War to the Palestinians. For example:
Correction (New York Times, 9/8/00): An article on Wednesday about the Middle East peace talks referred incorrectly to United Nations resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Middle East War, calls for Israel's armed forces to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," no resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territory, including East Jerusalem, occupied in the war.
Correction (Wall Street Journal, 5/11/04): United Nations Security Council resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied" in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, but doesn't specify that the withdrawal should be from all such territories. An International page article Friday incorrectly stated that Security Council resolutions call for Israel to withdraw from all land captured in the 1967 war.
• Similarly, Carter repeatedly errs when he asserts that the West Bank is "Palestinian land," rather than disputed land whose (likely) division and designation will be decided through negotiations (as per Resolution 242).
For example, Carter said on the Nov 28 Newshour:
"And I chose this title very carefully. It's Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians' territory, not Israel."
• In his book, Carter almost always presents Israeli leaders in a negative light, and they are frequently described as trying to impede the peace process. In contrast, Carter describes despotic Arab leaders in glowing terms, quotes them at length, without any comments about the accuracy of their statements. He writes, for instance,
"When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1990, he stated 'The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel.' "
Carter fails to note that Arafat and the PLO have frequently called for the destruction of Israel and that the destruction of Israel is a key part of the PLO Charter (most explicitly in Articles 15 and 22):
"Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence..." (from Article 22).
Arafat regularly called for violence against Israel. In a speech to Palestinian Arab leaders from Hebron, broadcast on official PA Television on January 26, 2002, Arafat urged:
"Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad!"
Carter follows up the absurd quotation from Arafat by describing the PLO in admiring language, without mentioning the terror so central to their agenda.
• Carter spends much of the book conveying Arab grievances against Israel, while rarely providing any context from the Israeli perspective. When he does, it is perfunctory and brief. While terror against Israel is mentioned, it is rare and sharply minimized.
• The vicious incitement against Israel and Jews by the Arabs is treated as a trivial complaint rather than as the fuel that keeps the flame of bigotry and violence alive. The only time Carter mentions incitement is to complain that the Israelis insisted on cessation of incitement against Israel, "but the Roadmap cannot state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians."
Since there is no state-sponsored anti-Arab incitement in Israel, and incitement against Arabs is actually a crime in Israel, it would have been misleading to include a proscription against it in the Roadmap. That would have made it seem that incitement in Israel was comparable to the massive, systemic incitement in Palestinian society.
As for his reference to "Israel must cease violence...against the Palestinians," he appears to morally equate Israeli counter-terror measures with Palestinian terror against Israeli civilians.
• In describing what led to the conflicts this year between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and Hezbollah, Carter continues his pattern of minimizing Arab violence, thereby placing Israel's military responses into question due to the lack of context. Carter mentions the abduction of the Israeli soldiers, but fails to inform his readers about the rockets from Gaza that were being fired daily at Israeli civilians in southwest Israel and omits that Hezbollah did much more than abduct 2 soldiers; before the abduction, they fired missiles at Israeli communities in northern Israel.
• Carter obfuscates important aspects of history. Here's how he describes the British giving almost all of Mandate Palestine—78 percent—to Emir Abdullah after World War I to create Transjordan (later renamed Jordan): "Another throne was needed, so an emirate called Transjordan was created out of some remote desert regions of the Palestine Mandate ..." [emphasis added]
• He writes of various Arab leaders accepting the two-state solution, and sometimes mentions that they also require the so-called right of return (of the millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel, as opposed to the future state of Palestine). But Carter doesn't explain that due to the high Arab birthrate, the so-called right of return would quickly turn Israel into another Arab state, transforming the two-state (Arab and Jewish) solution into a two-Arab states solution. While he writes of the many items he feels are unreasonable deal-breakers demanded by Israel, he never addresses the Arab demands that are deal-breakers for Israel.
• In his conclusion, Carter accuses the American government of being "submissive," claiming that due to "powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Israel dominate in our media ..."
Carter's claim that "voices from Israel dominate in our media" is especially ironic at a time when Carter himself is all over the media spreading his anti-Israel message. And since Carter is prone to demonizing Israel, it likely never occurred to him that perhaps our politicians don't frequently criticize Israeli government decisions because Israel shares our values of democracy, pluralism and the sanctity of life, and its decisions are, on the whole, fair and just.
• Apparently admiringly, Carter writes: "At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan." That Carter apparently feels this is a more realistic, helpful worldview is revealing.
In general, Carter holds Israel to an unreasonably high standard of almost pacifist behavior, while holding the Arabs to no standard at all. In his world, the terror against Israel has been minimal, hardly worth mentioning and certainly not important enough for Israelis to respond to or for the world community to condemn. The Arabs should suffer no consequences for continuing to attack and terrorize Israel, for continuing to indoctrinate their population to see Jews as sub-humans who deserve to be murdered. Carter advocates having the Arabs' maximalist demands rewarded. It is Israel who must make all the concessions and sacrifices. The Arabs' bigotry and supremacist attitudes regarding non-Muslims and the west - attitudes central to the conflict -- are entirely ignored by Carter.
Since Carter is a former president, and because he is well known for his work on Habitat for Humanity, interviewers are for the most part being entirely deferential to him, while rarely pointing out that his book and statements are filled with inaccuracies and distortions. But Carter should not be allowed to rewrite history and erase decades of Arab bigotry, rejectionism and terror, while inventing Israeli intransigence and opposition to peace.
Sheesh....Clinton didn't go to funerals either....
and yes, soldiers died on his watch too (Somalia, Bosnia,etc). I did not see CNN covering flag-draped coffins then. Yes, more have died in Iraq; however, a soldier killed is a soldier killed. Clinton did not go to the funeral of that US serviceman who was killed and then his body dragged behind a Jeep in Somalia. Was that because Clinton felt guilty? Come on!! It is impossible for a President (ANY President) to show up at a private funeral without causing a media circus, and frankly, I would not want Bush there because along with him would come Cindy Sheehan, the pink ladies, the nutso religious group, the ones who hold up signs saying your son died for nothing, yada yada. Maybe THAT is why Bush does not go to funerals. Ya think???
As to stopping the media...what planet to you live on? As if Bush could stop the liberal media from showing anything they want...ala CNN and their terrorist-made sniper video as the terrorists stalked our soldiers. Good grief, new guy!!! The liberal media doesn't give a rat's patootie about who they hurt as they strive to take Bush down....ya think???
And frankly, new guy, do you think the public need to see a flag-draped coffin to know about the death toll in Iraq? I am surprised CNN has not installed a ticker to count them. Get a grip, get a clue, buy a vowel. You and other Bush haters like you just need to admit it. You hate the man, anything connected with the man, to the point that you criticize him for doing a wonderful thing by showing up at Virginia Tech. I think that shows a remarkable lack of human compassion on your part. Yeah...I THINK.
Let's talk about the Clinton family hypocrisy on...
law enforcement, and then the Kennedy family hypocrisy on law enforcement...if we are going to talk about ANY family and law enforcement in politics...shall we??
Genocide? Talk about extreme. And Clinton's lies
Yes, it's not a newsflash that ALL politicians lie, Dem and Repub alike, but the guy was busted with his cigar in the ... err, his hand in the cookie jar, yet stood there and lied to everyone. Guess that's okay as long as he's DEMOCRAT. If you think Dems don't lie just as much as Repubs, then you are completely blind. It's just all in whose lies you are more willing to believe, and apparently for you it's Democrat. Please, if you can't admit one other darn thing, you all have to admit that they ALL lie to us. This country is going to hellina handbasket, but the people of the country share some of that blame. The economy is bad, but a lot of people bought houses they couldn't really afford (bad loan companies or not, they had to know), racked up credit card bills they could never pay, and the list goes on. WE share in the blame. The only way any change is going to happen, whether it's Repub or Dem on Nov. 4, is if we all pull up our sleeves and work toward it instead of lashing out at each other based on stupid party lines and making excuses and placing blame for every single thing that happens, even when it's a natural disaster like a hurricane, flood, etc. God help us all if there are a lot of other people that think like you do. You DO realize that while you're blaming Repubs for only believing what they read/see in media and not researching what they believe, a lot of what you say comes straight from the media and isn't even entirely accurate. Do yourself a favor and practice what you preach and do some truly unbiased research, not based in Dem or Repub muddle, before you reply. No hearsay, no op ed piece drivel, no blog spewing, but honest to goodness FACTS. Going to be hard to find when the media is so biased, but it's out there. Something tells me you won't bother because you've already made up your closed mind, as long as it's Republican affiliated, you hate it. That's your idea of being a broad thinker?
No they shouldn't - lets talk about prosecution of Clinton
Listening to this reminds me of why I don't talk to my mom about politics. She is ignorant of the facts.
You may not like them and no, they were not perfect but they did what they had to do for the safety of the country.
Unlike what Clinton did during his administration. There is plenty there to prosecute him for.
How about this for a rewrite--LOL...(sm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-vDqgbqfQg
The good stuff starts at about 3:30 min.
You have no basis in fact that Bush is doing a rewrite...you hate him, which is fairly obvious.
Then go ahead and blame Clinton, if you believe there's enough blame to go around, but I don't see you taking up space doing so.
Um...well Bi(n La)den..sheesh,
just making an observation as many others will, I am sure.
Sheesh!
I can almost feel palpable hatred that Palin is so fond of inciting at her rallies.
I guess time is getting short, everyone keeps saying Obama will win, they're becoming very angry and the venom is spewing. Too bad they just can't stick to the issues and must resort to attacking posters instead of issues. I guess that just shows the extent of their desperation. 
Now, I don't know for sure if Obama will win. I'm very hesitant about feeling too secure about that. As long as there are the Karl Roves of the world and Diebold machines, anything can happen.
Sheesh....is there
anyone in D.C who pays taxes?
Again with the liar. Sheesh is right. NM
You are kidding, right? Sheesh. NM
Sheesh.....you are delusional.
Pay attention here...Bill Clinton...liberal to the core...regime change in Iraq was hatched during HIS presidency. You can't deny that. Well, you can, but anyone who cares to check will see the truth of it. So...your last paragraph should be aimed at liberals. Apparently, regime change is a LIBERAL idea.
John F. Kennedy...another liberal and incidentally as I have said on many occasions a man I admire...started getting involved in Viet Nam to "stop the spread of communism." FORCING western ideas on those folks. So I guess invading other countries to start democracies must be a LIBERAL idea.
Your rationalizing aka just because they were enacted during a conservative government doesn't mean it was a conservative idea. That is a ridiculous statement. What it DOES mean is that conservatives cared enough about the idea, WHATEVER it was, to actually DO something about it other than TALK about it. Ideas are fine, ACTION is what counts.
Look, for whatever reason and Lord only knows why, I am going to try this one more time. I consider myself an American. Not a conservative, not a liberal, not a libertarian, a Ron Paul supporter, polka-dotted or criss-crossed. I don't have any group, person, club, party who tells me what to believe. You can call me whatever you want to, pigeon hole me however you like, to suit your agenda. It is what you are good at. It makes absolutely no difference to me what you think of me or what group you want to put me in.
As to justifying my beliefs? My dear, you are the one who keeps justifying, and I can show that every major change in this country from the start was enacted under what you call conservative, what I call deeply morally convicted people...and then YOU justify by saying doesn't matter if "conservatives" actually DID it, it was a LIBERAL idea.
Geezzzz....whatever, piglet. If that is the case, thank you for the idea, and YOU'RE WELCOME for ACTUALLY ENACTING THEM.
Sheesh. LOL. THE END.
And you are in theposition to know all before it happens...sheesh...
and the pubs KNEW EVERYTHING for these last eight years and did what was supposedly good for this country?. One of many horrible things they did was push the average American worker out of the middle class while the fat cats got fatter, all the while thumbing their noses at us, not to mention the 'war' that never should have happened.
Sheesh - this is what your happy about?
You love to see people in misery? You like to see people unhappy? And why because they are connected to a republican which many hold so much disdain for. You know if John Kerry, AL Gore, Bill Clinton were going through terrible times with their children no matter how much I dislike them I certainly wouldn't be so gleeful that their kids are going through this. And please spare me the "they were pawns or objects" because of so, so was Bidens kids, and you wouldn't be so gleeful about that.
As for this guy going around to the TV shows, who doesn't now adays...especially when your offered a million dollars for your story or to appear on the air.
There are more important things going on now - unemployment, housing crisis, financial crisis, war, and your gleeful that relatives of Sarah Palin are having personal difficulties.
Shameful is what I call it.
sheesh is right, sam, GIVE IT A REST!!!
if we talked about the weather, you would turn it into an abortion topic. If we talked about fashion, you would turn it into an abortion topic. If we talked about sports, well, you get it. And WE GET IT. Give it a blanking rest.
Sheesh. Well I am so glad you are happy....
come to pick the bones with the rest of the crew? Well, bon appetit. LOL. geez.
Of course you will. It's called spin. lol...sheesh.
nm
Sheesh! You have way too much time on your hands!
Not failures...favors. Sheesh. lol nm
nm
Sheesh louise people.
For the love of pete.....the fact that Obama wants to raise taxes on businesses and the fact that it won't keep jobs in American because it will be cheaper to take their business to other countries.....that isn't fox news tabloid.....that is common sense.
Whattabuncha nay-sayers. Sheesh.
.
Sheesh. Just asked a question.
You said:
"like a very bad itchy rash, or the smell of cow manure, he is EVERYWHERE, even to ignorant dems/independents who (OH MY GOD) get all the nes channels, C-SPAN, that the special Republicans can."
You're all hyped up today. Calm down. I wasn't sure what you were saying and took it to mean C-Span was a garbage channel..
They are not murdering children - sheesh!!!!
Whether you want to call it murder that is your opinion. Embryos are not children. This is not a living breathing human being that has a mind, nerves, emotions or anything. That's like saying to eat eggs your are murdering baby chickens. When a child is born and is a breathing living fully developed human child and it is born and after it breaths air, and is killed then yes that is murder. Disposing of an egg is not murder, and it is probably the best thing that could happen to someone who is forced into a world of hate, unlove, and unwantedness. I guess it doesn't bother you one bit to see these children suffer because they have been born into a life of despair. Do you get a warm fuzzy feeling to know that a child will be miserable and may even want to commit suicide because they were born into a world where they are unloved and unwanted.
You really need to stop twisting reality into what you want to believe it is. Not every child is born into a loving family and people need to keep their nose out of where it doesn't belong.
Sheesh! I messed up my own joke!
I wrote: I said, "Well, let's see: "Algia" means pain. "Ceph" means pain, so pain in the head -- HEADACHE!"
Obviously, "ceph" means HEAD!
I just got out of the hospital (again for pancreatitis), and I believe MY "ceph" was left behind when I was typing my post.
Good thing I don't own a gun or I'd probably shoot myself in the foot. LOL.
NOT the same thing - sheesh! - see message
How can you compare the two. I pay taxes as do the companies we work for.
Tupperware reps pay taxes.
Churches do not pay taxes.
Unless churches plan to pay taxes they should not be holding business meetings in their homes.
History is history and opinion is opinion. You need to learn the difference.
x
I stand corrected - sheesh! who can you believe anymore
I'm totally confused with everything going on now adays. I don't know truth from smears. You would think if someone is actually putting their name to something they would be telling the truth due to serious outcomes of false accusations.
So how can we tell if something we hear on TV, radio or internet is true or not?
Makes me just not want to vote anymore and turn off the TV and put my head in the sand and ignore all going on. I just don't know what to believe anymore.
Drink another cup full of Kool-aid...sheesh. nm
.
Ever hear of TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT? sheesh you are limited
nm
This is the site you fraudulently tried to pass off as the *truth* about Donahue. Sheesh!
 |
|
 |
All About Philosophy - The Big Questions |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ABOUT US
Our Mission
Our mission is to lead people to Jesus and help them grow in their relationship with Him. We strive to deliver compelling evidence for the Christian faith to seekers, believers, and a skeptical world. We seek to be non-threatening, practical and informative, using the technology of the Internet to answer tough questions about God, Jesus Christ, the Bible and Christianity.
Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Matthew 28:19-20 KJV
Our Faith Statement
Although our ministry style often caters to wary skeptics, our group's foundation is based on solid, fundamental Christian doctrine.
Therefore, We Believe
The Bible is the only inspired Word of God – a supernaturally integrated set of 66 books, written by 40 authors, over nearly 2,000 years.
God created all things – from the massive cosmos to the microscopic cell.
We were created in God’s image, yet we were all corrupted and estranged from God after Adam fell into sin. The sin of Adam was the entry point of all sin, as well as physical and spiritual death on Earth.
God exists as three distinct personalities, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God who fulfilled over 300 Old Testament prophecies when he took on human flesh, through the miracle of the virgin birth, and came to Earth as the promised Messiah.
Jesus died a physical death on the cross as the ultimate love sacrifice and act of grace, which allows all who believe in Him to be cleansed of sin by His blood and have a renewed, eternal relationship with God.
Jesus rose from the dead as the ultimate sign of his deity. He ascended to heaven, with the ultimate promise of his return to Earth as our just and mighty Lord. We constantly strive to be a Spirit-filled ministry, regularly praying and seeking God's guidance for our activities. We remind each other daily that this is God's work, not ours.
But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. Hebrews 11:6 KJV
Contact Information:
All About GOD Ministries, Inc.
7150 Campus Drive, Suite 320
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80920
719-884-2246
719-884-2247 fax
Email: Questions1.1@AllAboutGOD.com
Website: AllAboutGOD.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Philosophy Home | About Us | Support Us | FAQ | Sitemap
Copyright © 2002 - 2005 AllAboutPhilosophy.org, All Rights Reserved.
|
Now that makes all kinds of sense. Sheesh. I am sure murders occur...
where you live too. Are you a murderer? What a goofy post. I just happen to be one of those people who knew of Bill before he came to national fame. And I did not say he murdered anyone. All I said is that there are unexplained deaths. All you have to do is google. People should not post rumor and innuendo if they do not want it turned around and applied to their side.
MSNBC doesn't encourage these witch hunts at all. Sheesh
Convention III of the Geneva Convention has to do with treatment of Prisoners of War.
Identifying who is to be classified as a POW is specifically called out in detail in Art 4 of Convention III.
The AL Queda and Taliban rogues, and other ''terrorists'' DO NOT fall under the protections of Convention III, commonly referred to as Common Article III.
Sheesh, you not only hate Bush, you hate PEOPLE!
x
not avoid their rehab, afford their rehab....sheesh lol
I will correct myself before someone else does...lol
I know history
Jews and Communism? Dont get the link there. Jews are definitely not communist and even in the old world, *Old Europe*, Austria, Germany, Poland, they were not communists..they were shop owners, jewelry makers, prosperous bankers..I have never met a communist or socialist jew and I grew up in NYC. To quote history, to remember history, to study history, does not mean we are contributing to terrorism..or aiding our enemies..that argument makes no sense. My major in college was history, minor anthropology. So, I pretty much know a bit about history. When people close their eyes to the truth, refuse to admit what is really happening or what type of administration is running the country, follow like sheep without question, that is when we are headed to ruin..not when there is free flow of ideas and talk of history, even quotes from the most evil of them..
What is history but....
windows that open and close. You are correct. However, you still want to beat Bush up for going to Iraq. We went. Nothing can change that. CLinton did not fight them in Somalia like he should...we cannot change that. However, the reason for not leaving Iraq post haste is as much about running yet again from Al Qaeda as it is about abandoning the rank and file Iraqi people. You have to understand that I have been in the military culture for a long time and have daily talks with someone who has been there and done that...he does not form my opinions and we have been known to butt heads...however, he does give me great insight. He knows who the enemy is. He has faced them.
It is history, kam...look it up.
Democrats are the ones who were against freeing the slaves. When Abe Lincoln and the Republicans(yes, he was a Republican) freed the slaves and after the war passed legislation to give them the vote, the Democrats immediately passed poll taxes and literacy tests so that the newly freed slaves would not be able to exercise their new right to vote. African Americans did not get clear right to vote until the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's, when enough Northern Democrats bucked the party and joined the Republicans to pass that act. It is all history, all fact. Look it up.
history and the
impact of Supreme Court decisions on the role of government? I guess it really has nothing to do with being VP. All you need is a rah-rah speech, a sense of victimization and a flag pin and you are good to go. Sorry, sometimes I think.
Here is a bit of history.
This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's life.
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Neither I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.
By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 20 03, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?
And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. Some mistake!
All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?
A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!
Don't you know your history?
Yes there has always been a President Elect. They become President Elect after the electorates vote the 2nd week in December. Until then they are still just a citizen. However the media is so anxious to get Bush out (and I don't blame them), that they are not reporting the truth (although that doesn't surprise me from what I saw during the campaign).
However "Office of the President Elect" is new and invented (created out of nothing) by the O.
Here's what one of a hundred different sites says...
Obama Invents 'Office of the President-Elect'
Monday, November 10, 2008 12:54 PM
By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size
Barack Obama has created a stir by proclaiming that he heads “The Office of President-Elect” — an office that does not officially exist.
At his first news conference on Nov. 7, Obama stood at a podium bearing a sign that read: “Office of the President-Elect. Also, his Web site, Change.gov, bears the words “Office of the President-Elect” at the top of its home page.
Writer Larry Anderson referred to the “made-up little title” on the American Thinker Web site, and declared: “I nearly busted a gut ...
“Once again, [Obama] can’t wait to invest himself with the trappings of office.”
Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wondered: “What other make-believe offices are they going to invent between now and Inauguration Day? I can’t ever recall in my lifetime any mention of such an office.”
Technically speaking, Obama may not even be the President-elect, according to the American Sentinel Web site.
“Megalomaniac Obama’s ego grows even more insufferable,” a weekend posting reads.
“Yes, he will be [president-elect]. But he’s not officially yet, until the Electoral College votes.
“The Constitution provides that on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, electors convene in their respective state capitals. It’s then that they formally elect the President of the United States, based on the general election results.”
Has anyone ever in history won by this
large of a margin & had the electoral college cast their votes opposite? No. You're grasping at straws.
Are you saying there's a different history?
x
How's this for a history........ sm
Scroll down to the bottom of the 5th page of this report and start reading. Ogden has argued against opposed the Child Internet Protection Act of 2000, challenged the Child Obsenity and Obscenity Enforcement Act and has represented numerous p*ornographic publishers in various causes. I think this is more than enough reason to oppose him as DAG.
http://www.scribd.com/full/11607068?access_key=key-18yr2u50t8o0sz54rbrl
You don't know your history very well, do you?
??
History speaks for itself. sm
You are simply ignorant of it and I said it was ONE of the reasons, not the only reason. Still trying to twist my words and worm out that you don't know history at all! Do you EVER watch the History Channel? Read historical books, not just college course books. I am through talking to you. People who can't even admit they are wrong and try to put the onus on someone else aren't worth talking to. Besides, you are so filled with hatred, I am surprised you didn't say how ugly Bush's daughters are just to throw that in just one more time.
A word on history.
Whatever it is that is being discussed concering global conflicts, when using history to clarify, define, explain, prove, whatever...I always try to remember that history has always been written and interpreted by the victor.
Ancient history
I dont care about ancient history. I care about right now in America. The fact is, the American people have spoken and they have stated with their vote that the Republican controlled congress was not working to their satisfaction or benefit and Bush's ideological based administration was heading American down the wrong track. I know it must be making many conservatives quite upset but majority rules in America, that is what democracy is, government by the majority of the people. So, accept it and move on. Democrats had to for the last 12 years and it was quite a hard pill to swallow at times. Finally, America will be on the right track and maybe we will be able to rebuild positive relations with the world and get out of Iraq before many more of our heroic soldiers are slaughtered for nothing but a bunch of lies.
You should care about history....
and should learn from it. Sadly, that is something neither party seems to do, and both have left their origins. The sad thing is...as they sow, so shall WE reap.
Your history is messed up
Look what I found in a book about the Democratic party:
The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's liberal principles.
_________
There are also multiple chapters as well as multiple books written about the metamorphosis of BOTH parties since their inception. See, sometimes books really can be a good thing!!! By the way, do you get your historical information from the chronic-liars-library or something? Cuz it surely seems like it.
|
