How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 I Don't Get It   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

I Don't Get It

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


125 posted 02-16-2011 12:28 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
How many times was Bush referred to as Bush the president as opposed to Bush the man by democrats during his tenure with regards to controversial issues?

Bush who?

quote:
No, neither achmed, mustapha or I were buying it and I'm still surprised you do.

Different perspectives. I don't see the President of my country as an enemy.

quote:
Oh, man, please don't get me started!!!

Okay, I won't.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


126 posted 02-16-2011 01:11 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Do you really think achmed and mustapha regarded Obama as an enemy to their country? From what I see, what they thought of Obama was that he was immaterial to their issue and had done nothing worthy of any undeserved praise. It's not unlike a politician trying to sneak in for a photo op in someone else's picture. They refused to acknowledge him, much to the discomfort of reporter Robertson.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


127 posted 02-16-2011 01:31 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Newsweek's new columnist makes his debut in this week's issue with a cover story on Obama's Egypt debacle and the strategic vacuum it exposes in the White House.

"The result has been a foreign-policy debacle. The president has alienated everybody: not only Mubarak's cronies in the military, but also the youthful crowds in the streets of Cairo. Whoever ultimately wins, Obama loses. And the alienation doesn't end there. America's two closest friends in the region—Israel and Saudi Arabia—are both disgusted. The Saudis, who dread all manifestations of revolution, are appalled at Washington's failure to resolutely prop up Mubarak. The Israelis, meanwhile, are dismayed by the administration's apparent cluelessness.

The defining characteristic of Obama's foreign policy has been not just a failure to prioritize, but also a failure to recognize the need to do so."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-13/obamas-egypt-muddle-niall-ferguson-blasts-the-presidents-foreign-policy/
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


128 posted 02-16-2011 02:27 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Almost all of my references to President Bush were made specifically to Bush the President.  I made a point of using the title as frequently as I could, not only because he earned the title — though as you may remember, I voiced some question about that, and gave my reasons for that — but also because that was his job.  I felt that some of his actions were not Presidential.

     I made a point of criticizing them because he fell short of the responsibilities of the office.  His lies about the cause of the was in Iraq were not Presidential.  His revision of those lies was not presidential.  His claims for finding weapons of mass destruction were not Presidential.  

     Rather than go through the whole array of these things, I would simply say that part of the problem there was that his role as President was seriously flawed.  He certainly seemed to have damaged the standing of the country in the world.

     I would level some criticisms against our current President as well, and for some of the same reasons.  While I believe he has accomplished useful things, which I believe  Denise and Mike would disagree with me about, involving health care reform and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, among others, I feel that he has failed seriously in other places.  His failure to fight the upper class tax cuts and the borrowing which we have had engage in to support them has endangered the economy.  It seems that he is too willing to try to get along with the Republicans in the mistaken belief that he will be able to work with them in passing necessary legislation.  

     Rather than fight to keep human services and education, he seems all to willing to given them away.  So no, my thrill with the man is limited.  Unless there's somebody who appears electable running from further to the left, however, it appears that I'll need to support him during the next election cycle as well.
    
     Mike's notion that he could only count half a dozen times where President Bush was addressed or thought of as a President rather than as the man during the past two presidential terms is, from my position, incorrect.  I certainly saw him as the President.  I gave him credit for things he did as president that I thought necessary, such as the massive bail out at the end of his administration.  I thought that took courage.  I also disliked and criticized many things he did as President.  

     I disliked him as President, for the most part; I still made the distinction between President and man.  I believe many of us did.  Making the distinction didn't require us to like him in either role, though.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


129 posted 02-16-2011 03:07 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I think Achmed and Mustapha are justifiably suspicious of President Obama and anything he says.  I think that you might well find a similar set of suspicions in many if not all Middle Easterners, especially Muslim Middle Easterners, but in many cases Israeli Middle Easterners as well.  In the case of the exchange quoted above, it's fairly clear that the reporter wasn't taking the kernal of what his informants were telling him and reporting it accurately to his audience.  Ron may well be correct in his analysis of why that was the case; he certainly makes sense to me.

     The point is that they didn't appear to feel America or President Obama had been helpful for them in achieving their goals over the past six weeks.  My own particular view is that the United States should be on the side of Democracy against oligarchy in those cases where the question comes up.  As a private citizen, I can afford to hold that view.  I don't know what I might feel I needed to say were I in a position of political power.  I certainly like to think the same thing, but in that case I'm not certain I'd have the luxury of representing purely my own interests.  I'd have to make a judgement of what the interests of my country were, then I'd have to attempt to support those.  This, I suppose, is why I'm not interested in running for office.  Also, I don't have a skin like a rhino.

     Mubarak was our go-to guy in Egypt.  He help serve our interests.  He helped maintain stability.  

     He was also a tyrant in the less appealing modern sense of the word, not in the old fashioned more cuddly Roman sense of the word.  Great Powers tend toward the Psychopathic, I'm afraid, in that they think their own best interests are best for the world, and that anything seems justified in their pursuit.  In this, President Obama stands in a long line of Presidents who seem to hold the same set of values, Republicans and Democrats alike.

     The Israelis want us to remain faithful to our alliance with them.  The Muslims are not much different at heart; they want the United States to Show the same level of sympathy and committment to their interests as the Israelis have come to count on in our relationship with them.  I don't think that is impossible, though it is surely enormously difficult.  The analogy that comes to mind is that of parents of jealous adult kids.

     Please pardon the part of the analogy that is by its nature parental, patronizing and somewhat insulting to everybody, including us.  Everybody needs everybody else and claims they don't.  Nobody trusts anybody else to do the right thing, and everybody thinks that doing something decent first makes them a sucker to be taken advantage of by the other people.  Everybody is right.  Everybody is wrong.

     How much more grown up are we?  

     I'd have to say that the more we think of ourselves as the grown ups in the bunch, the more out of control we're going to feel and be.

     I think that those Muslim fellas have a right to want us to treat them as straightforwardly as we do the Israelis.  I think we have a right to figure that our friends aren't going to kill us or each other.  I figure the Israelis have a right to feel reasonably safe — as safe as anybody else does.  They and their neighbors have worked that out for now.  As for me, I'd wish I were a bit safer, but then I'm not living there, am I?  And if they want things to feel safer, they all have a pretty good idea of how to lower the tension level, don't they?  

     In the meantime, perhaps it might be a good idea if we made what America says and does as interest5ing to the Egyptions as it is to the Israelis, by giving them the same reasons to be interested in the relationship.  Allowing some actual friendship between the two countries to bloom.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


130 posted 02-16-2011 10:48 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Denise

You said at #1:

"Where was the 'U.S. statement of support' of the citizens of Iran during their peaceful demonstrations against the Islamic regime. Now that there are violent demonstrations by the citizens of Egypt, fueled and instigated by the Muslim Brotherhood to install an Islamic/Sharia government, against a secular regime, the U.S. Administration is all for that."


And at #13:

"If we can issue a statement of support for the Egyptians, why couldn't we have issued a statement of support for the Iranian people 2 years ago. Are they not treated as badly as the Egyptians?

If the Iranian people (who protested peacefully, and not violently as in Egypt) longed for a better government, wasn't their desire worth our support? All they heard was that the U.S. and the President of the U.S. can't be perceived as "meddling" in the affairs of another country.

But now it's okay to meddle.

That was my point, Rob."


Yet now at #121 you say:

"I'm not confused, and their really isn't any inconsistency, actually, between the way Egypt and Iran were handled."


So, to sum up, there was inconsistency at the start of the thread, but now there isn't.

You changed your mind?

You posted the first posts in error misunderstanding the position, and over-anxious to put the boot in to poor old Obama again?

Like I indicated in my #2 (elucidated by subsequent posts), the only consistent thread I can perceive in your contentions is that the Administration is always wrong.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


131 posted 02-16-2011 11:46 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

No I didn't change my mind and I wasn't confused, Rob. I was asking questions to draw out responses to see if perhaps others came to the same conclusions as I did, without my mapping out in advance the conclusions that I had reached.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


132 posted 02-16-2011 04:01 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Ah, I see.  You were pretending to believe something you didn't in fact believe at all in order to provoke a lively debate.

Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


133 posted 02-16-2011 05:22 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

quote:
I believe this to the core of my being, but hope that I am wrong and I am open to being persuaded, through any new information or evidence to the contrary.


Why would you be persuaded by "new evidence" Denise? So far you seen to be pretty well persuaded by no evidence whatsoever, at least you haven't presented any.

Can you explain how Soros acted to instigate the protests in Egypt? Why Soros, a Jew, would want to destroy Israel using "communist" tactics, a system of ideological ideals he fought so hard to overthrow in Hungary?

I've noticed that Americans, and especially the American right wing, seem to be particularly enamoured by conspiracy theories. Is this a cultural thing Denise? Is it perhaps somehow connected to your statement in another post regarding the inherent mistrust that most Americans have for their government?

I don't believe any of the claims of a nefarious NWO style conspiracy. Apart from the fact that there's no evidence backing up the claims there's a bigger problem. If there is a small group of conspirators scheming to take over the world then they are, you'd have to admit, pretty darn inept at it. The NWO conspiracy theory has been around for over a hundred years and in all that time they've quite spectacularly failed to take over anything. In fact the original conspirators are long dead failures, the current ones, if they actually exist, are second or third generation failures.

In the early days the League of Nations was supposedly evidence of a unified world government and an elitist plot to unify the world, a claim later made of the UN. Yet the League of Nations and UN have both failed to bring about world unification. The Nazi's were next in line as the proponents of a new World Order and we all know how that one worked out. The Communists who faired about as well as the Nazi's before them were the next to be accused of being behind the New World Order. Enter the Islamist, socialist, communist, anti-Semite  George Soros and CND etc. Their cunning subterfuge is, allegedly, easily capable of duping the mindless folk in Egypt to unwittingly rise up and open the way for the foxy stoats to take over the world but they're apparently helpless when it comes to suppressing the  protesters in Iran.

There's no real evidence to suggest that a group of NWO types are pulling the global strings and an insurmountable pile of evidence that even if there were there's little chance that they'd succeed.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


134 posted 02-16-2011 07:42 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Not at all, Rob. I was asking the same questions that I had been asking myself.

I've seen the interviews with Soros, Uncas where he claims to have toppled the governments of some countries and devastated the economies of others and that the feeling it gives him is that of being God, and how wonderful a feeling it is, and that he and his fellow globalists believe what is needed is a NWO. Is he just a delusional crackpot? I hope so, but if he is, he is still a delusional crackpot with the money and power to attempt to make his vision for the world a reality. But I really don't think he is. I think he is deadly serious. And when he dies I hope it is as a failure.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


135 posted 02-17-2011 03:37 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



   "I have seen"  is a frustratingly vague reference, Denise.  

     You have from time to time been able to show references from solid sources about some of your assertions.  I can remember checking them out, though, sadly, I don't remember the subject right now.  I'm sorry for that.  The assertions you make about Mr. Souros really require that kind of back up to be taken seriously by people who take their sources seriously, and who might want to use points you make to buttress points they make in another discussion.  

     Right now, you have your audience at the point where all they can say is, I know a woman who said she heard it  or saw it someplace.  But she wouldn't say where.

     If you were going to quote me in a discussion (be still my heart!), I suspect you'd want more than that.  I also suspect you'd want the source to be solid, not "some left-wing rag or other."

     Have a heart, Denise, will ya?

     You know what you've offered here isn't really enough for anybody who doesn't already agree with you to work with, don't you?  Someplace neutral, like the Christian Science Monitor, or solidly right wing but with a committment torack solid research, Like The Economist, or someplace that is on a clear par with them would really be a help.

     Mike occasionally uses some good right-wing English papers.  Just someplace that lets us talk across the gap, whatever your preference for your main news source may be.  I tend to like Media Matters a lot, which shouldn't surprise you, and The Nation, but using them in our discussions tends to hurt the communication.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


136 posted 02-17-2011 06:04 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Some interviews I saw on TV. I've seen others on the net. If you google him you may find quite a few interesting clips and articles, Bob. Of course certainly not from Media Matters or other Soros enterprise funded sources.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


137 posted 02-17-2011 03:26 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


I thought Google were part of Beck's conspiracy theory Denise. He said they weren't to be trusted didn't he? That they were in on the conspiracy? The Soros funded sources obviously can't be trusted either, but by the same logic neither can Fox. I mean it's no secret that the second largest shareholder at Fox is an Islamist - Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal - who provided substantial funding to those nice folk at the Cordoba institute.

How long will it be before Beck is hung by his own petard; forced to declare himself part of the conspiracy by dint of his clear association with Islamists? After all working for, and accepting money from, an Islamist is surely enough evidence of an Islamic connection for Brother Glenn.

I predict tears before long.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


138 posted 02-17-2011 07:17 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Being the second largest shareholder doesn't make him the majority shareholder. He has some influence but not the final say on anything.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> I Don't Get It   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors