Faramond, I could be wrong, but I don't recall hearing Obama say that meeting with Ahmadinejad would be the first thing that happens.Faramond wrote:But the meeting between Obama and Ahmadinejad should not be the first thing that happens.
The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46326
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Um, there were tax cuts for the rich -- massive tax cuts. Trade agreements do cost jobs.solicitr wrote:You mean like 'tax cuts for the rich'? Or perhaps 'NAFTA costs jobs'?What will be the false notion, this year, that the majority of Americans will end up believing is true through the sheer force of inane repetition?
Demagoguery is not confined to one party.
I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.
edit to add quote for clarity
Last edited by Cerin on Fri May 16, 2008 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
When was the election? When did President Obama take office?halplm wrote:The only thing I can get out of this thread, is that people have radically different views of how the world works... and they are not compatible.
Vison, I compaired Obama to Carter... and the more I learn of his foriegn policy plans, the more that comparison makes sense to me.
It is not a good thing to be compared to.
As for it not being a "good thing" to be compared to Jimmy Carter, would you rather be favourably compared to George Bush? Those seem to be the 2 alternatives, in the current neocon playbook.
In reality, the world is a complicated place and puerile, simplistic notions lead only to trouble: look at Iraq.
Dig deeper.
- solicitr
- Posts: 3728
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
A few glimpses of the lovely harmless Iranian regime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuMiulc0VVQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlWhJMI_JEI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuMiulc0VVQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlWhJMI_JEI
- solicitr
- Posts: 3728
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
There were tax cuts for everyone- and of course 'rich' in the Demoganda context means everybody making above 100k- hardly rich in any objective sense.Um, there were tax cuts for the rich -- massive tax cuts.
Balderdash.Trade agreements do cost jobs.
Last edited by solicitr on Fri May 16, 2008 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- solicitr
- Posts: 3728
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
What are the Democratic options? Bill Clinton? Nope, he believed in fiscal responsibility. JFK? A hawk. LBJ? Even worse.As for it not being a "good thing" to be compared to Jimmy Carter, would you rather be favourably compared to George Bush? Those seem to be the 2 alternatives
This election has so many parallels to 1976 it's not even funny. Not remotely. Very, very unfunny in fact.
I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by saying stuff like this, but it is annoying (which I now think might be exactly what you're trying to accomplish...).vison wrote: When was the election? When did President Obama take office?
And the republicans really seem to want a candidate like Reagan... they just didn't elect one in the primary (not that they really had one to choose).
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
It's not my job to educate you, it's your job to educate yourself, old boy.solicitr wrote:Vision, please enlighten me on one point-
Why did you Canucks rush to jump into the European war in 1939? It isn't like Hitler was any threat to you.
(I'm not going to fall for this, any way. Are you perhaps, in your sly way, attempting to show me that we Canucks of This Day and Age ought to regard Iran as we Canucks, speaking for the whole nation, once regarded Nazi Germany? Do you think that because you, as an American, might believe that we HAD to enter the war because our Mother Country entered the war, that we should therefore have supported the Bushwar since Bush's pet Tony B. did? I leave it to you to figure out and I'm pretty sure, almost confident, that you can do that. Although, on reflection, your habit of jumping to weird conclusions might cause a failure of understanding here . . . .)
Besides, what us Canucks did or didn't do, and why we did or didn't do it, has little to do with me. I'm really old, but I wasn't around until 1944 and while I was a precocious and brilliant child, I had not yet begun my Rule.
Dig deeper.
I am to understand from your response to me that my post contains the following:vison wrote:Um. Faramond? The guy isn't president yet. When he is (and he will be) he will no doubt send the appropriate message to the Iranians, and that message may well contain precisely the caveats you think it ought. I think this hysteria is completely out of hand, and I might just toss my cookies if I see the name "Chamberlain" one more time today.
an assumption that Obama is president right now
hysteria
a mention of Chamberlain
Or does your response to me stop at "Um. Faramond?" That's the only part that seems responsive to what I actually said.
Am I not allowed to question Obama's proposed policies because he isn't president right now? You even say that he will be President. I really don't understand the admonition that "he isn't president yet."
He said in a debate that he would meet without precondition, which is close to what I meant by "first thing".Faramond, I could be wrong, but I don't recall hearing Obama say that meeting with Ahmadinejad would be the first thing that happens.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/350/
I assume this link is realiable. The overall context is an assessment of one of Bush's statements.
During the CNN/YouTube debate on July 23, 2007, in South Carolina, the Democratic candidates were asked whether, if elected, they would meet "separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
Obama said he would. Clinton said she would not, because she didn't want such meetings to be used for propaganda purposes. She later attacked Obama's answer as "irresponsible and frankly naive." Obama, however, has stood by his position, saying it represents a dramatic turn away from the Bush administration's minimal diplomatic efforts.
"As president of the United States, my job is to look out for the national security interests of this country. Iran, in particular because of the bad decision this administration has made by invading Iraq, is a major player in the Middle East," Obama said to reporters in September 2007. "If it is in the United States' interest to make certain that we can stabilize the situation and avoid further military confrontation and curb state-sponsored terrorism they've been involved with, that's something we should be willing to do."
Obviously Obama's intent is good --- but I've never thought it wasn't. I'm afraid I agree with Hillary here.
PS -- Joba Chamberlain has a wicked fastball.
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46326
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Can everyone please try to ramp down the sarcasm and personal references other posters? It really is getting tiresome. It really is possible to make your points without resorting to that type of thing.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
It would be great if someone could explain to me why people that earn more, should pay a higher percentage than people that earn less.Cerin wrote:Yes, even for the wealthy people who didn't need tax relief. Those are the tax cuts being referred to as 'tax cuts for the rich.'solicitr wrote:There were tax cuts for everyone
"Because they can afford to.." is not a good enough answer.
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46326
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
- solicitr
- Posts: 3728
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
Cerin:
"Didn't need them".. Oh that's right. They're the Rich, and so therefore inferior and Undeserving.
Speaking as a very middle-class individual who, according to President-in-waiting Obama, doesn't pay enough in taxes because, you see, I'm 'rich,' I find this line hard to swallow.
The rich are always going to benefit disproportionately from broad-based tax relief, because they (actually, we) pay a disproportionate share of the taxes to begin with. I suppose you want a continuous ratchet, so that increases are placed on the 'rich' and relief only applies to the 'non-rich', so that eventually we evildoers pay all the taxes.
Herre's a crazy notion- stop spending so much damn money!
Edit: X-posted with Voronwë. </snarkiness>
"Didn't need them".. Oh that's right. They're the Rich, and so therefore inferior and Undeserving.
Speaking as a very middle-class individual who, according to President-in-waiting Obama, doesn't pay enough in taxes because, you see, I'm 'rich,' I find this line hard to swallow.
The rich are always going to benefit disproportionately from broad-based tax relief, because they (actually, we) pay a disproportionate share of the taxes to begin with. I suppose you want a continuous ratchet, so that increases are placed on the 'rich' and relief only applies to the 'non-rich', so that eventually we evildoers pay all the taxes.
Herre's a crazy notion- stop spending so much damn money!
Edit: X-posted with Voronwë. </snarkiness>
Last edited by solicitr on Fri May 16, 2008 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6157
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
This my opinion, straight from the TORC thread:
What we need to keep in mind with Iran is that, for all its faults, it does have an elected Government (to an extent), operates under a Constitution ratified by vote, and is an entirely legitimate state of long-standing. This creates issues that we don’t have dealing with totalitarian states like North Korea, and I think a slightly different approach is needed.
Personally, I like Ronald Reagan’s – work to maintain military power and make it clear you’re not afraid to use it, while also be willing to negotiate and compromise where advantageous. Still, I don’t see Iran as a really pressing threat – it’s not promoting some sort of expansionist ideology or making territorial demands on its neighbours, nor is there any real evidence it is a supporter of international terrorists or Islamist movements (outside it’s meddling in Iraq), nor does it seem to want to try to use some sort of leverage over the Middle Eastern Oil supply to hold the west to ransom (as North Korea does with it’s Nuclear Weapons). I can be pretty hawkish on foreign policy, but I think there’s bigger fish to fry.
What we need to keep in mind with Iran is that, for all its faults, it does have an elected Government (to an extent), operates under a Constitution ratified by vote, and is an entirely legitimate state of long-standing. This creates issues that we don’t have dealing with totalitarian states like North Korea, and I think a slightly different approach is needed.
Personally, I like Ronald Reagan’s – work to maintain military power and make it clear you’re not afraid to use it, while also be willing to negotiate and compromise where advantageous. Still, I don’t see Iran as a really pressing threat – it’s not promoting some sort of expansionist ideology or making territorial demands on its neighbours, nor is there any real evidence it is a supporter of international terrorists or Islamist movements (outside it’s meddling in Iraq), nor does it seem to want to try to use some sort of leverage over the Middle Eastern Oil supply to hold the west to ransom (as North Korea does with it’s Nuclear Weapons). I can be pretty hawkish on foreign policy, but I think there’s bigger fish to fry.
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46326
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
- solicitr
- Posts: 3728
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
I would differ there, Lord M: through its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas Iran is doing precisely that. I'd say Hezbollah's bid to conquer Lebanon qualifies as expansionist- not to mention Hamas' quest to eradicate Israel. And don't forget who blew up the Israeli Embassy and Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires- international terrorism by any definition.nor is there any real evidence it is a supporter of international terrorists or Islamist movements (outside it’s meddling in Iraq),
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Just posting to mention that personal incomes of $100,000 or more constitute 5.63% of all U.S. personal incomes. Perhaps it doesn't seem like a lot to you, soli, but $100K+ is not an ordinary middle-class income anywhere I've ever lived. The median household income in the United States is about $48K.
Link
Link
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
And how about a fairly recent (in the last, you know, decade) bombing of Baghdad? Where does that figure in the whole "expansionist, threatening to other nations" meme? The bombing nation also possesses the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons!!!! And has actually used them and so is likely to use them again!!!!
True facts, ya know.
There are obviously people who want a war with Iran. And yet - given the outcomes of the last 2 major wars the US has conducted, one wonders why? Are wars really that good for the bottom line?
True facts, ya know.
There are obviously people who want a war with Iran. And yet - given the outcomes of the last 2 major wars the US has conducted, one wonders why? Are wars really that good for the bottom line?
Dig deeper.