You can't talk to the Iranian leaders
Posted By: Backwards typist on 2009-06-17
In Reply to: McCain isn't the only one...(sm) - Just the big bad
They are the cleric and they are the ones who rule the country. They rule with an iron fist and by the power of Islam. The president of their country is only a puppet just like in the U.S.
We should NOT get involved unless asked, which probably will not happen. Sure, there are some in this country who thinks we should and it's both sides who have that opinion, not just the pubs. President A will be the winner, you can be sure of that, since they are only doing recounts on certain areas of the country (probably those that voted for President A.
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
Which leaders? I didn't know that leaders of ...sm
any other countries had endorsed either candidate.
I'm not Iranian
Nor is my husband. The friend is. He married a Korean. They chose conservatism. I may not have clarified that. Sorry about that.
I have to wonder where many get their news. I know politics every which-way, so won't even go there. I kick total butt at it.
Not interested in this.
From one Iranian spouse to another...
Left me get this straight. You are married to an Iranian, yet you paint Iranians with such a broad brushstroke that you suggest negotiations can only take place with radical Islamic extremists? Do you also include his family (your in-laws) in that monolith? Are you able to distinguish between the single ultra-conservative party, the 7 main parties of the conservative alliance, the other 11 main parties of the reformist coalition, the 3 repressed parties of the dissident coalition inside Iran and the roughly 70 separate parties living in the Iranian diaspora, which roughly break down as follows:
• 17 communist parties
• 8 socialist and social-democrat parties
• 24 ethnic-based parties
• 6 nationalist parties
• 9 liberal democrat parties
• 4 conservative parties
Let’s not overlook the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Iran and has the final word in all aspects of foreign and domestic policies.
When you say you and your husband are active in conservative politics, I assume you refer to US brand of conservatism…or is it the Iranian brand? There is a difference, you know…or do you? Do you speak Farsi? Are you confident that you know exactly where your husband stands when it comes to the politics inside his own country….you know, that discussion he has in Farsi with his buddies in social gatherings and over the telephone?
Are you at all familiar with the recent history of Iranian politics, i.e. the era of the US CIA-sponsored coup to overthrow Mosadegh in the early 1950s to restore the exiled shah to power and the disastrous consequences that have ensued, an act which ushered in the current era of ill-advised US interference in the region? If you have taken the time to explore any of THEIR issues, even on the most superficial of levels, then you know that the leaders in power do not necessarily reflect the will of their people and by no stretch of the imagination are Iranians all Islamic fundamentalists.
Let us at least extend the respect to our spouses that it just might be possible that Iranians should be in charge of their own political affairs and should not surrender their country as the next US colony in Middle East. It in on their behalf, the behalf of their/your families in Iran, and in our own interest as Americans that these negotiations should commence. It just might be worth a try to present US leadership that uses new approaches to diplomatic issues, starting with the intent to listen as much as the intent to talk, an attempt to establish common goals, mediate differences, engage in dialog void of orders and ultimatums and, at the very least, a commitment to avoid becoming party to nuclear holocaust that has the potential to decimate populations both at home and abroad.
BTW, beware of cowboy diplomatic initiaties. An American Interests Section (quasi precursor to an embassy) will be just that. Translation: An "intelligence" (if such a word can be uttered in the same context as Bush diplomacy) collecting dugout established to gather dirt to manipulate in the US media in an attempt to justify dialing conservative-style nuclear nonproliferation up a notch, just in time for an election. Ain't that handy?
Do you honestly think the Iranian president can be reasoned with?
I know you think Bush is as evil as he is (maybe you think Bush is worse) but do you honestly think the Iranian president is a reasonable person? I think nukes should be a last resort, but it should be in the contingency. I think you and the writer of the article are looking at this all wrong. Sometimes you have to saber rattle. When the neighborhood bully is issuing threats and does not appear open to negotiation you have to show him you can beat him up, and basically that's true. We could light up his little sandbox of a country inside of 30 minutes. He knows that, but he's just testing the waters to see how passive, poll-sensitive our country has become. He, like the rest of the fundamentalist Islam Jihadists, are testing what our resolve is.
Hey, but have a good shopping spree. I'd hate to have to count on a nuclear war to erase my debt...
You might want to read another article by an Iranian on the other board.
It helps to know both sides of the story and since I am pretty sure Beth is not in Iran right now, or Iranian in nationality, the one who IS there might have a better handle on things. Get the picture?
I've actually listened to what the Iranian president says.?
You said for liberals only, so excuse my intrustion into your world, but have you honestly not listened to some of the speeches he makes in his own country which usually begin something like *Death to America* etc. etc.? He's sounding all diplomatic right now, because he knows that his soldiers got caught in Hezobollah's forces, and he knows he has everything to lose. I'm going to watch it not because I think he's the best thing since sliced bread like some of you do, but because it's going to be real interesting when on Monday morning the free press rolls out all the hate/kill America speeches he's made, but you all will just believe they are fabricated too.
The Iranian president is a whack job & needs to be snuffed out.
Don't know which board or which specific Iranian you're referring to.
If you want me to read something, then post it, so I can, but please don't suggest that I go on some kind of wild goose chase on some other unnamed *board* for a post by some unnamed *Iranian.* I simply don't have that kind of time.
If you don't think the Iranian president is nuts, then blame the media and the administration because that's he way he's been portrayed by both, and his actions sure suggest that he is. Please post his redeeming qualities as you see them.
I posted this because I thought it was humorous, yet dead on accurate in the way a lot of Americans feel.
Get the picture? 
FOR LIBERALS ONLY: 60 Minutes Interviews Iranian President Sunday.
I am looking forward to watching this interview because I am truly interested in hearing what this man has to say.
I can recall as a child growing up to the tune of We have to fight Vietnam because the Communists want to take over the world. During those times, the worst thing a person could be called in the USA was a Communist.
It seems to me these days the USA is the one that wants to take over the world. It has no respect for any government that cares about its poor people or even America's poor, for that matter. (For example, Chavez tried to provide cheap oil to the poor last winter while Bush didn't care if poor Americans froze to death.) Any country that removes the profit incentive from medicine or education for its citizens is a terrorist nation in Bush's eyes. We're quickly approaching the day when most of us will be poor as the middle class continues to disintegrate before our eyes.
I am suspect of everyone Bush labels as terrorist these days, and I want to hear both sides. Bush refuses to sit down diplomatically and listen to what Ahmadinejad has to say, so I'm grateful that Mike Wallace took the time to do so.
The Iranian President has challenged Bush to a live debate...sm
I would be interested in hearing that. One quote from the article:
The debate should be uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5295550.stm
yep, no wonder world leaders
supposedly want Obama in office -- he is in their back pockets.
praying for our leaders
we are admonished to pray for our leaders ...sort of a political love your enemies :-) please do not forget to pray for and support our third party candidates as well - brave men and women have not shed blood for this country so that it can be "ruled" by one party masquerading as two. we are in a homeland security crisis - our own Wall Street is committing domestic financial terrorism, exactly what we were warned that foreign terrorists would do. why are we being protected from our "enemies, both foreign and domestic"?? the corruption of our financial stability is treasonous, and the names of the traitors are known.
Foreign leaders
I've seen a lot of the video clips and pictures also. You know there is so much hoopla about everything in politics, it's really hard for me to believe anything I see much less anything I hear. I think we've sunk so low in our politics that the one who can throw the most mud is the one who will win. I don't care about Obama's association of 40 years ago. I do care about his recent so-called church affiliation. I do not care if Palin fired the guy for not firing her ex-brother-in-law (of course she did). I do care that all she can talk about is how "bad" Obama is and how "saintly" John McCain is. Pull the string and see what Sarah says.
The common sense side of me tells me that most of the garbage we hear from both campaigns is stuff dug up by the other side trying to discredit the other candidate.
A MOST aggravating thing happened this morning.......a REPUBLICAN acquaintance stopped by to see us this morning. The unexpected call was to campaign for John McCain. He got ANGRY when I told him I wasn't voting for either candidate. Pretty much called me a redneck hillbilly for not agreeing with him. LOL
VOTING WITH A WRITE IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS.
Being from hurricane country, our leaders do not
nm
Since when does talking with other country leaders
Better brush up on your reading skills.
and when she sits across from world leaders?
everyone is supposed to what, bow down to her and protect her from the big bad men? I smell Hillary here. gotta see that one when she gets sent overseas to talk to some of these foreign leaders like Cheney does now.
I am open right now to vote either way; however, I was thinking of McCain actually until SP came on-board.
she is too scattered, spreads herself too thin, too many different directions, looks like she is some wort of a whirlwind all the time and the interview she looked like a deer caught in headlights, hate to say it she looked stumped.
why do we want someone in office who needs to be protected, I just don't get it.
When leaders get messiah complexes...sm
When Leaders Get Messiah Complexes
Thursday, October 23, 2008
By Col. Oliver North
Washington, D.C. — On Wednesday this week, I was an unwilling eyewitness to a dramatic political event and it made me wonder where we are headed as a nation. More on that in a moment. First, a little background.
There is no doubt that leadership matters. The study of human history provides evidence that empires — even entire civilizations — rise and fall on the ideas, virtues and skills of great leaders. From Mesopotamia to the European continent, those who chronicled the triumphs and failures of great leaders in the Western world measured success based on military prowess and territory conquered. Herodotus detailed how the Persian Empire, built by Darius, eventually succumbed to Alexander the Great in the 5th Century B.C. That vision of leadership began to change in what is now Israel.
Old Testament prophets described a Messiah — in Aramaic, měshīhā — a leader — a savior who would deliver the Jewish people from their travails. For more than two millennia, Christians have believed that the Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth and that at the appointed time he will come again in triumph. Unfortunately, in the modern era there have many other leaders who perceived that they had messianic qualities that only they could provide.
Napoleon, in the aftermath of the bloody French Revolution, described himself as "essential" to the future of France – and was appointed dictator. The aftermath was a disaster for his countrymen and much of Europe.
Adolf Hitler was elected by the German people and then given absolute power because he claimed that only he could "preserve the Aryan race." The result was a global conflagration that resulted in the death of more than 25 million.
More recently — from Idi Amin in Uganda, to Pol Pot in Cambodia, Kim Jung IL in Korea and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe — all have "led" their people to perdition after describing themselves as the only men capable of leading their populations through difficult times. Yet, all their people were ultimately worse off.
It is notable that until the 20th century, the American people managed to avoid selecting leaders who held messianic self-esteem. Neither George Washington nor Abraham Lincoln — arguably two of this nation's greatest leaders through the toughest crises in our history — described themselves in such terms. In fact, the record of what they said and wrote is replete with humility.
Not until Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided in 1940 that our country needed his "seasoned leadership," did any U.S. president even contemplate a third successive term in office. While FDR rose to become a great wartime leader, there is also little doubt that he amassed far more power in the office of chief executive than any of his predecessors. Roosevelt's authority was so great that his successor, Harry Truman, the modest man from Missouri, saw fit to endorse a constitutional amendment limiting presidents to two terms.
Given America's history of limiting executive power in government — if by no other means than term limits — it is interesting to note how much hope some people now vest in such office. And it's not just the presidency.
New York City, where FOX News Channel is headquartered, has a public law limiting the mayor to a tenure of two terms. Despite this ordinance, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, citing the current "economic crisis," insists that he should have a third stint in office. Though he was once a believer in term limits he now claims that, "Given the enormous challenges we face, I don't want to walk away from a city I feel I can help lead through these tough times."
That's messianic thinking. But apparently the Big Apple isn't the only place it's happening.
During Wednesday afternoon's rush hour, I was making my way home on the "Dulles Greenway" when a phalanx of police motorcycles and cruisers stopped all traffic and ordered us to pull our vehicles off the highway onto the shoulders. Over a loudspeaker we were told to stay put until the Obama campaign convoy passed, on the way to a rally in Leesburg, Virginia.
Instantly, hundreds of people were out of their cars. Directly in front of me a group of supporters — evident by their bumper-stickers — jumped out with cameras, cell-phones and banners. They began chanting: "The Messiah! He's coming! Obama is coming!" The shouting only intensified as the candidate and his entourage — motorcycles, police cars, black Secret Service Suburbans and busses — roared past us.
What I found so disturbing was seeing so many of my countrymen who apparently think — or believe — or hope — that the next president of the United States will save us from ourselves. Senator Obama has said we can not, "Wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for." He would do well to remember that unfulfilled expectations are the greatest cause of anger on the planet. That's true whether it is between a husband and wife, students and teacher, employers and employees, or leaders and the led. He might also recall that humility is a virtue that has distinguished our greatest leaders.
What all this means to the future of this republic, I don't know. I'm a military historian, not a prophet. But I do know the first name of the Messiah. It's not Mike. And it isn't Barack, either.
Oliver North hosts War Stories on FOX News Channel and is the author of the new best-seller, "American Heroes: In The War Against Radical Islam." He has just returned from assignment in Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443829,00.html
No other leaders of other countries bowed
At least none that I'm finding. I could be wrong but I've been searching to see if other world leaders like France, PM Gordon Brown, Swiss, or any other leaders that attended the summit if they bowed. I'm not finding anything. Only the One.
The military leaders are threatening to resign sm
From today's London Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece
Praying, trusting and respecting leaders?
I'm curious as to why one would consider this a viable option for change. Maybe I'm taking the remark out of context? No one just "deserves" respect. You earn that. It is not an entitlement. Neither is trust. Nothing is really, except for basic human decency. An example would be our soldiers. They earn their respect....most of them anyway. Our leaders are another story entirely.
Kicking and screaming and ranting is part of dissent, not only a right, but a responsibility. Folks need to have a look at our Declaration of Independence. Seriously.
Let our leaders hear us loud and clear
Reading all the posts it seems like everyone agrees on the same thing. None of us likes either candidate. What I'm reading a lot of is "I'm democrat so I'm voting democrat no matter what" or "I'm republican so I'm voting republican no matter what". The country has developed over the years into believing our vote counts. Whether you want to believe it or not, it doesn't. The country has been run not by who the people want elected but by big government and big corporations. People who have thousands and thousands of dollars to spend (if not millions) donate that money to ensure who they want to be elected is elected. Also, do some research on the "mysterious group" that meets each year yet the public is not allowed to be in those meetings and there are armed guards enforcing that. Those are the people who decide the fate of the country. Just the way it is and I accepted it a long time ago. If Americans truly did have a say in what goes on with our politicians we would see more and more of them fired, but they aren't. They still remain in office. I say let our leaders hear us loud and clear. We are against both candidates. If voting dropped or nobody went to vote I think they'd get the message loud and clear that we are disatisfied.
Obama will do just fine with hostile leaders.
Actually, understanding Islamic principles will serve the man of his intelligence quite well when up against either Ahmadinejad or with Israel. Obama knows exactly what to do with facing hostility. He certainly has faced enough of it on the home front here during the filthy word wars waged by the media and in fanatic chat room posts and has demonstrated the capacity to stoop to those low levels with the best of them. However, beyond the election, he will have not use for such petty, meaningless tactics and strategies. He is calm, collected and calculated in his responses, or lack there of, and has an uncanny ability to be conciliatory without having to compromise his basic values or objectives. Will be a breath of fresh air to see somebody at least try an approach that is not designed to promote US imperialism, world economic domination or the war of the civilizations.
Second paragraph of your post. It's all in the perspective, point-of-view and public perceptions. Being a good democrat does not necessarily make him a Washington insider, despite his long career. It only means that he knows his way around there and that his constituents continue to send him back there election, after election after election. Somebody somewhere must like him a lot. No further comment on your personal opinion. Sour grapes over an excellent pick. Let's see if McCain can show as much good judgment.
Why do all of a sudden want to hold leaders accountable?
wHat about Bill Clinton committing felony perjury? Having sex with an intern in the oval office? Where was the personal responsibility and who is holding him accountable? WHen are you going to drop the double standard and apply the same set of rules to everyone?
How do Arab leaders make their speeches? (sm)
If you could post a link to a video it would be appreciated. I really would like to see what you're talking about here.
Bush, military leaders let bin Laden escape
CIA operative says Bush, military leaders let bin Laden escape
Capitol Hill Blue | January 2 2006
The top CIA counterterrorism officer who tracked Osama bin Laden through the mountains of Afghanistan says the United States could have captured the terrorist leader if President George W. Bush and the American military had devoted the necessary resources to the hunt and capture.
In addition, says Gary Bernsten, a decorated espionage officer, the post-Cold War downturn in recruitment and attention to espionage has left a crippled spy agency that will need a decade or more to build up its clandestine service for the U.S. war on terrorism.
Berntsen led a paramilitary unit code-named Jawbreaker in the war that toppled the Taliban after the September 11 attacks.
He says his Jawbreaker team tracked bin Laden to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have killed or captured the al Qaeda leader there if military officials had agreed to his request for an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops. But the administration was already gearing up for war with Iraq and troops were never sent, allowing bin Laden was able to escape.
His account contradicts public statements by Bush and former Gen. Tommy Franks, who maintained that U.S. officials were never sure bin Laden was at Tora Bora.
Berntsen says CIA Director Porter Goss faces an uphill battle to fill the agency's senior ranks with aggressive, seasoned operatives.
He's probably more aggressive than most of the senior officers in the clandestine service. So I think he's having to pull them along a bit, Berntsen said in an interview.
(Goss) is trying to improve the situation. But it's going to be tough. The rebuilding is going to take years. A decade, at least, he told Reuters late last week.
The CIA, widely criticized for lapses involving prewar Iraq and the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, has seen its clandestine staff dwindle to less than 5,000 employees from a peak of over 7,000, intelligence sources say.
Experts blame a post-Cold War downturn in recruitment for a current lack of seasoned clandestine operatives that has been exacerbated by a rush to lucrative private sector jobs in recent years.
We have a smaller number of really, really aggressive, creative members of our leadership in the senior service, said Berntsen, who recently published a book about his exploits in the war on terrorism, titled Jawbreaker (Crown Publishing).
Former CIA Director George Tenet told the September 11 commission in April 2004 the CIA would need five years to produce a clandestine service fully capable of tackling the terrorism threat.
Goss later said at his September 2004 Senate confirmation hearings that rebuilding the clandestine operation would be a long build-out, a long haul.
President George W. Bush issued an order last year that called for a 50 percent increase in CIA clandestine officers and analysts to be completed as soon as feasible.
The CIA is moving aggressively to rebuild and enhance its capabilities across the board, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said.
But intelligence sources say the rebuilding process has been complicated by disaffection for Goss' leadership within the clandestine service.
Years of double-digit growth in federal spending on intelligence that followed the September 11 attacks may also be about to end.
John Negroponte, the new U.S. director of national intelligence, has endorsed an intelligence budget for fiscal year 2007 that is relatively flat, with current spending levels believed to total about $44 billion for the 15-agency intelligence community. Fiscal 2007 begins in October.
Berntsen, 48, who also led the CIA Counterterrorism Center's response to the 1998 al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa, sued the CIA in July, accusing the spy agency of trying to stop him from publishing his book.
Gimigliano said the CIA reviewed Bernsten's book before publication only to ensure that it contained no classified information.
In the book, Berntsen says his Jawbreaker team tracked bin Laden to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have killed or captured the al Qaeda leader there if military officials had agreed to his request for an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops.
But the troops were never sent and bin Laden was able to escape, he said.
His account contradicts public statements by Bush and former Gen. Tommy Franks, who maintained that U.S. officials were never sure bin Laden was at Tora Bora.
We're pussycats compared to some foreign leaders. sm
What's she going to do with them, and anyone else she can't just bully and fire?
Palin meets her first world leaders in New York. sm
Palin meets her first world leaders in New York
By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 23, 7:30 PM ET
NEW YORK - Sarah Palin met her first world leaders Tuesday. It was a tightly controlled crash course on foreign policy for the Republican vice presidential candidate, the mayor-turned-governor who has been outside North America just once.
ADVERTISEMENT
Palin sat down with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. The conversations were private, the pictures public, meant to build her resume for voters concerned about her lack of experience in world affairs.
"I found her quite a capable woman," Karzai said later. "She asked the right questions on Afghanistan."
The self-described "hockey mom" also asked former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for insights on Georgia, Russia, China and Iran, and she'll see more leaders Wednesday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meetings.
It was shuttle diplomacy, New York-style. At several points, Palin's motorcade got stuck in traffic and New Yorkers, unimpressed with the flashing lights, sirens and police officers in her group, simply walked between the vehicles to get across the street. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, three hours behind Palin in seeing Karzai, found herself overshadowed for a day as she made her own rounds.
John McCain's presidential campaign has shielded the first-term Alaska governor for weeks from spontaneous questions from voters and reporters, and went to striking lengths Tuesday to maintain that distance as Palin made her diplomatic debut.
The GOP campaign, applying more restrictive rules on access than even President Bush uses in the White House, banned reporters from the start of the meetings, so as not to risk a question being asked of Palin.
McCain aides relented after news organizations objected and CNN, which was supplying TV footage to a variety of networks, decided to pull its TV crew from Palin's meeting with Karzai.
Overheard: small talk.
Palin is studying foreign policy ahead of her one debate with Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, a senator with deep credentials on that front. More broadly, the Republican ticket is trying to counter questions exploited by Democrats about her qualifications to serve as vice president and step into the presidency at a moment's notice if necessary.
There was no chance of putting such questions to rest with photo opportunities Tuesday.
But Palin, who got a passport only last year, no longer has to own up to a blank slate when asked about heads of state she has met.
She also got her first intelligence briefing Tuesday, over two hours.
Karzai generated light laughter when he told an audience at the Asia Society that, in addition to Rice and Norway's prime minister, he had seen Palin on Tuesday. Thomas Freston, a member of the society's board, drew loud applause and laughter when he responded: "You're probably the only person in the room who's met Gov. Palin."
Randy Scheunemann, a longtime McCain aide on foreign policy, was close at hand during her meetings. Another adviser, Stephen Biegun, also accompanied her at each meeting and briefed reporters later.
Karzai and Palin discussed security problems in Afghanistan, including cross-border insurgencies. They also talked about the need for more U.S. troops there, which both McCain and Democrat Barack Obama say is necessary, Biegun said.
With both Karzai and Uribe, Palin discussed the importance of energy security. With Uribe, the conversation also touched on the proposed U.S.-Colombian Free Trade Agreement that McCain and Palin support but Obama opposes.
Her meeting with Kissinger, which lasted more than an hour, covered a range of national security and foreign policy issues, specifically Russia, Iran and China, Biegun said.
"Rather than make specific policy prescriptions, she was largely listening, having an exchange of views and also very interested in forming a relationship with people she met with today," he said.
Before Palin's first meeting of the day, with Karzai, campaign aides had told reporters in the press pool that followed her they could not go into meetings where photographers and a video camera crew would be let in for pictures.
Bush and members of Congress routinely allow reporters to attend photo opportunities along with photographers, and the reporters sometimes are able to ask questions at the beginning of private meetings before they are ushered out.
At least two news organizations, including AP, objected to the exclusion of reporters and were told that the decision to have a "photo spray" only was not subject to discussion. After aides backed away from that, campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the reporter ban was a "miscommunication."
On Wednesday, McCain and Palin are expected to meet jointly with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko. Palin is then to meet separately with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Palin, 44, has been to neighboring Canada and to Mexico, and made a brief trip to Kuwait and Germany to see Alaska National Guard troops.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDU4OTdhMTFhN2YwZTY3MmMzNGFhYzc3ODdhOTA0ZjQ=
GOP blanket bombs on Chicago's dem civic leaders
Right-wing rants that cite email sources are suspect at best. Google any one heading included in yesterday's post and discover links to the "common sense" of the Getting' After Left show and a barrage of right-wing blogs. Surprise, surprise.
BODY COUNT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Despite being the 3rd largest US city, Chicago's murder rate ranks 20th behind much less populous cities Baltimore MD, Newark NJ, St. Louis MO, Oakland CA, Cincinnati OH, Buffalo NY, Kansas City MO, Miami FL, Pittsburg PA, and Cleveland OH. Guess who is ranked #21 (same general category)? That would be McC's hometown of Phoenix Arizona. Chicago has experienced an overall decline in crime since the 1990s.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
You seem to be equating Iraq fatalities to murder. I agree. On that Iraq body count figure, since you are talking civilians in Chicago, it is only fair to include those folks in your first six months of 2008 figure. In 2008, the average daily violent occupation-related loss of life via suicide attacks, vehicle bombs, gunfire and executions is 27 x 182.5 days in first six months = 4,927 + you 221 = 5148. While we are at it, may as well throw out that total civilian body count in Iraq, the very most conservative documented count being 88,373, or World Trade Center x30.
"COMBAT ZONE"
Naturally, no reliable data is available on this claim, it being a subjective pronouncement that seeks to pontificate.
STATE PENSION FUND
Here we see the smear leap from the Chicago to the state level...an apples to oranges, smoke and mirrors maneuver the GOP attack machine thought they might slip by unattentive readers. OK. Let's go there. As recently as February of this year, we find the following: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/02/25/daily29.html
Center on Budget and Policy and Priorities: McCain's red state: Arizona Budget Deficit Worst in the Country. Follow link for all the fascinating details.
http://www.cbpp.org/1-15-08sfp.htm Info updated 08/05/08
For starters, state budget deficits are ranked in terms of shortfall percentages.
In the US, 29 states face budget shortfalls totaling 48 billion in 2009. Notice how similar this 29-state total is to the amount in the GOP smear that claimed a $44 BILLION dollar deficit IL pension plan funds. Arizona's shortfall percentage = 17.8%, now in second place behind the nations most populous state, California. Illinois' shortfall percentage = 6.6%, making AZ's budget deficit nearly 3 times that of IL. So, if we hold dems (and by pub logic, O) responsible for Chicago, then who, pray tell is responsible for Arizona, the political culture from which JM comes from?
COUNTY SALES TAX
To suggest that any party's local (especially municipal or county) tax schemes would be reproduced on a national level is downright ridiculous. Tax structures are entirely different and wildly varied from state to state. Speaking of states, I came across this link http://www.fairtaxation.org/facts/sales_tax_rank.php which shows the Arizona sales tax rate ranks higher (#10) at 7.8% than Illinois at 7.6%.
CHICAGO SCHOOLS WORST IN NATION
I bit hard to address this second subjective pronouncement that seeks to pontificate. In terms of WHAT exactly is it the worst? They are certainly not an uneducated bunch of folks:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a80Zfbu_.k4g&refer=us University of Chicago has produced 82 Nobel prize winners and 10 Nobel Prize winners in economics, more than any university in the US. The John Bates Clark Medal, bestowed every two years, recognizes the nation's most outstanding economist under 40. U of Chicago has produced more than any other US institution, 6 out of the 31 recipients. Seems like those Chicago economists are sort of, well....exceptional.
I really could go on and on about Chicago's booming economy but I am out of time here. Maybe later then.
High expectations for leaders...nah, Clinton pretty much blew that. No pun intended. nm
we should destroy any country that has missile parades or giant posters of their leaders?
Glenn Beck: I Think We Should Destroy Any Country That Has Missile Parades Or Giant Posters Of Their Leaders
The statement was creepy enough but the look of glee on Glenn Beck's face as he joked about destroying Iran, the country whose traditions he didn't like, was extremely troubling for a national news host. By the way, despite his enthusiasm for having other people engage in mass killing, I could not find any evidence that Mr. Destroyer ever put his own flabby fanny on the line for his country.
In a 2/10/09 discussion with author Joel C. Rosenberg, Beck sounded almost giddy as he said, "I think we should destroy any country that has missile parades or giant posters of their leaders. They never turn out like good friends. You know that? And (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) looks a little too spooky."
Rosenberg replied, "I don't want to destroy the country but I would like to remove the leadership."
"I could go either way," Beck said, with all the gravity of someone deciding whether he wanted red or white wine. "How irresponsible!" he joked.
Copy-cat campaign strategies; copy cat leaders.
amfm
Anyone willing to talk about something serious...
instead of talk radio or Gore's electrice bill. I am referring to Libby's trial, the firing of 8 judges, Pete Domineci, the unnecessary and ever rising numbers of dead - everywhere, 40 towns in Vermont calling for impeachment (of course this won't go anywhere but the gesture is telling), a pardon for Libby (and does he have to admit guilt to be pardoned which he has not done), the fact that Libby was the attorney to the much maligned Marc Rich who was pardoned by Clinton, which was also much maligned. Was Scooter as evil as Clinton for having defended him in his dealings with Iran and his tax evasion as Clinton was for pardoning him ?? If all this was just about infighting between the FBI and the administration and George Tenet, then why did Libby lie at all; wouldn't be important enough to lie about, IMHO. Throwing it out there.
You need to talk to someone who has
more knowledge about this than your average Joe. It is $250,000 per individual. Not couple, not family. Trust me, JM is going to have to get the money somewhere to offset this astronomical deficit. CHINA owns all of our securities!!!!! JM is not going after the rich for this money..........so where is he going to get it? We are headed for an all-out depression. We need to stockpile cash, food, basic necessities. If you are breaking even on your ranch - I clearly do not see where Obama's tax proposal is going to affect you. I do see more of the same screwing the entire country.
I only want to talk about what you are going to do to fix it. nm
.
Pie in the sky talk
There is no way he can do that. We have a state representative who lives on our street. When he heard this, he said he nearly fell over and couldn't believe this guy was making that kind of promise to the AMerican people. He said there is NO WAY that will ever happen because he admitted the Senators have a very cushy healthcare plan we all pay dearly for but there will not be an affordable plan to get the same healthcare plan they get. He has misled or just downright lied about that one.
You darn right it won't be free and it WON'T be affordable. Obama knows the only ones who would be able to afford that are the ones that are very well off, the very rich he condemns. Well, news flash, they already have that kind of plan.
Just another tactic to get your vote because he knows healthcare is a big factor here.
What are you trying to talk about now?
x
Is no one going to talk about this?
I think it is a legitimate concern. This is a site I found that kind of analyzes the Obama's tax returns. For the amount of money they make, they didn't really give that much to charity.
Shouldn't they practice what they preach?
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
I mean if you can explain this, please do. I just want to understand why he expects us to "be our brother's keeper" yet he doesn't seem to do much at all charity-wise.
Hey, you can't talk about HIM like that...LOL
You think we can talk to those who would rather
nm
OMG....talk about
nit picking. You people have no problem nit picking pubs, but if we dare to nit pick dems....we are called racist. Well....how about this......I think that woman is obnoxious and not even worthy to watch. I personally think Michael Steele is great and I'm glad he is the head of the RNC. He obviously is a black man and I think it is perfectly fine for him to use the term "bling-bling." What...because he is a pub the usual racial outcries don't apply? If someone attacked Obama for saying bling bling and using hip-hop as a reference to how his party is going to be....you all would bow down and kiss his feet. They bring up Michael Steele's catering business and a federal investigation.......what about Obama's buying of his house in Illinios with Rezko? That was okay according to liberals...just hide that tid bit and down play it and federally investigate a pub who isn't even the president. Appoint a tax evader to the head of the IRS and that is okay but federally investigate a pub over his sister's catering company. Such double standards!
OKAY!! Let's see what happens! Then we can talk about it. NM
x
I don't think you can talk about....(sm)
socially acceptable behavior without looking at the influences that set those standards. Christianity is what determined homosexuality to be unacceptable. It is the dominant factor in this debate as far as the US goes. The US generally accepted christianity as the norm some time ago in this country. In doing so it automatically put people in the sinner and non-sinner brackets. Homosexuals were obviously put into the sinning bracket. That is why they have been put in the closet. Not because "it's just not natural," but because it's a sin.
And that's where I have a problem with the whole thing. Since we are not a theocracy, religious concepts have no place in determining something as personal as marriage. For that matter, I also think it's absolutely absurd that govt weighs in on this issue. I think it's a personal choice, not for the church and not for the govt.
Wow, talk about creepy. sm
First of all, the above poster failed (I am sure it was a honest mistake) to say why I left the board. Context certainly means something. You remind me of the creep who was stalking me and was keeping a running tab of all my posts (much of what is posted above are not my posts). That's just weird. As far as serving, I was a military brat for a whole lot of years and I believe it is service. But of course, anything to label someone a liar. You are sad little people. I won't bother you anymore because obviously, your brain has limited capacity for anything except hatred, bitterness, and all that goes with it. Have a nice evening accomplishing nothing but your little hate party and bitterness regalia.
Talk about fireworks! LOL
If we continue down the path we're headed, it may as well be the end (but I'm old, so I figure I'm probably gonna die soon, anyway) 
Well, okay then. Talk about overreacting. sm
anyways, might want to lay off the Christian bashing. We all know the libs want to get rid of Christianity but I think they are trying to keep it a secret. Shhhhhhhhhhhh.....
Why you talk strange?
I do not get.
Me need new insult, yes.
Talk about a disconnect.
What does he care? He earns $212,000. Let's not let the facts stand in the way of his salary.
http://clerk.house.gov/members/memFAQ.html#salary
Do you talk about anything on this board besides
Ann Coulter and conspiracy theories. I mean wake up people! North Korea is firing off missles, there's some important legislation coming up, the supreme court just made an astounding judgment on Gitmo, and you guys are posting Pink songs. Get with the program. Have some debate here! No wonder I can scan down the page and see the same people over and over. You'll never get new blood like this.
I didn't say you did talk that way.
It was simply an exaggerated example to make a point about the subjectiveness of deciding what constitutes an observation versus an insult. I think that was obvious to most people. Regarding your snide observation, no I do not talk like that. As I said it was an example.
Perhaps your other boards do not have such a marked slant. And shall I make an observation on the tedious repetition that is found in your milieu's absolutely ENDLESS recitation of the evils of liberals, just to mention a few? ONe doesn't even need to read the content of the posts, merely scan the subject lines and the repetition is obvious.
Talk about twisting....
You said:
There are things that the poster felt needed to be said, and you see, this is a liberal board.
As it has been said ad nauseam, anyone can post on this board. Liberals post on the conservative board as well. I must have been absent the day you were named moderator.
You said:
You have a habit of mis-representing the facts, of twisting them to fit your agenda and your conscience.
On the basis of what, three posts, you say I have a habit of misrepresenting the facts and twisting them to fit my agenda and m conscience. Pot calling the kettle black, I would say. You posted erroneous information, represented it as fact, and I called you on it. If anyone's conscience should be bothering them, that would be you.
You say most of the people of the U.S. were against slavery. At different points in history that may or may not have been true, there weren't a lot of nationwide polls back then. Could you share your facts? Just the facts, ma'am.
I again refer you to history. History is full of the people who opposed slavery. We are at war right now as a country but as it is perfectly clear, is it not, that the whole country is not behind the war.
The fact is though that slavery was perfectly legal for 100 years in this country. Try twisting that one. That's what I mean when I say this country condoned slavery. But I think that was obvious to most folks.
Because it is legal does not mean all the people in the country condone it. Abortion is legal in this country but I sure as heck do not condone it. That doesn't mean I bomb abortion clinics or stand outside them and ridicule the people using them. But I do not condone it, nor do many others. I follow the laws of the land but I do make sure with my vote and in other ways to work to see that law gone. And I think that is obvious to most folks as well.
Secondly, you say this was Congress's war just as much as Bush's. Well, we know that is not true either. It was Bush and his cronies that planned this war, probably even before 9/11. There was erroneous evidence presented to Congress that led them to okay military action.
I really am incredulous that there are still people who buy that nonsense. Erroneous evidence presented to Congress? The Senate Intelligence Committee had the very same information the Bush administration had. And if all those congresspeople are so ignorant they could be *fooled* into buying into lies (if there were any, which there is no proof there were) that led the country into war, then I would think, for the love of pete, that you would be equally as incensed at them. What proof do you have that Bush and his cronies planned anything? None, because there is none. As you said, just the FACTS, ma'am.
If your daughter came home from school and stated that the neighbor girl beat her up you would might believe the evidence. However, do you not change your course of action if it turns out the neighbor girl didn't do the actual damage? I am sorry, I do not grasp your analogy. If you are saying now that maybe Congress screwed up, and now they realized they screwed up, how many years into it, so now the thing to do is, after we committed ourselves to the Iraqis to just up and go, leave them dangling, just like we did in Viet Nam? Nothing noble about that. And make no mistake...if the war suddenly became popular they would fall all over themselves backpedaling again ahd saying *I did vote for it and I voted against it but now I am for it again...* yada yada. They are politicians.
I believe you twist and arrange the evidence so you don't feel guilty about this utter madness and endless slaughter we know as Iraq as you similarly defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples.
There you go again. First, my friend, I do not feel guilty. I have nothing to feel guilty about. I support the American military and I certainly support the war on terrorism. I do not readily forget 3000 people dying. I will never forget watching those people jump out of that building to avoid being incinerated and for what? Simply because they were Americans. How easily you seem to blow that off.
And I did not defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples. I did not defend slavery. Both were wrong. Abortion is wrong, but they happen every day, and they happen NOW. There is no longer slavery and there is no longer the slaugher of indigenous peoples. Why does it not bother you that it is legal to slaughter upwards or over a million babies unborn babies every year? Why don't you get involved to stop that?
My whole point is that the US is indeed a great and often noble and generous country. I really want it to stay that way though and powerful people have a way of corrupting the moral values that have sustained this country for so long.
Excuse me yet again...but that is exactly what I said. The moral values that the country was founded upon and have sustained and how far we have gotten from that. But I guess we are talking about two different sets of moral values. What set are you talking about?
The US has taken some pretty bad detours along the way but fortunately common sense and good character have generally won out in the long run. Complacency and acceptance of corrupt power is always a threat though and that's why we need to QUESTION always those that are in near-absolute power. I firmly believe that those who question are the MOST patriotic.
I never said questioning was unpatriotic. What is unpatriotic in my view and always will be is suggesting that any American soldier died in vain. What I think is unpatriotic is while we have men and women dying in combat, no matter who sent them there or for what reason, we owe them the respect to, if we cannot support their mission, to not go public with rampant criticism and for the love of everything Holy not to suggest publically that they are fighting and dying for nothing. Not only do I think that is unpatriotic, I think it is selfish and mean. Doesn't mean you or anyone else can't grouse about it friends in the privacy of a home, but to go public with it where friends, family and loved ones of soldiers who have died there, were injured there and continue to fight there can read it. I don't know why some people (not naming anyone in particular) cannot just hold all that in until the troops come home. Then if they want to dissect it, take it apart, malign it or whatever, our troops are home and no longer in harm's way.
It is rhetoric like you are repeating that Al Qaeda loves to hear, and their greatest propaganda tool. Playing right into their hands. And yes, giving that upper hand to the enemy is to me, yes, unpatriotic.
You talk about them like they are the enemy.
Tsk tsk tsk.
|
