Obama got the nomination! Happy Dance! (that is all) :)

[astrid]

Oh, I know he'll bring change...let me count the ways - higher taxes, less freedom, Cap and Trade (ugh!), weaker military and of course dignifying world terrorists with interface meetings. I wish I were RipVanWinkle and could go to sleep and wake up in 2012.

 

 

You make some pretty inflamatory statements there. Can you back them all up with fact? Concrete data? Where did he say that he'll "dignify world terrorists with interface meetings?" Yes, he says that he'll engage in rational discourse and diplomacy. But how can we ever hope to reach understandings and achieve peace if we rely on bully tactics alone?

 

You wish you could jump forward in time to 2012. With all due respect, I wish we could travel back to the election of 2000. You know, the one that Bush didn't actually win? Back when gasoline was $1.49 per gallon? Before the Constitution was trivialized, and those who spoke up were dubbed, "Anti-American?" And when the United STates had some respect in the world?

 

See, it's all relative.

[Vida Winter]

Wow! Tell the minorities who frequent the boards (including my familiy) how you really feel even though your opinion is quite fallacious in content and lacking fact.

 

Carmen, I really do not mean to offend you. I am sorry for that. As you can probably tell, this issue is a very sore spot for me; life-changing, in fact.

 

You have always been one of my favorite posters and I always look forward to reading about the exceptional job you are doing with your children.

[LisaNY]

I guess I'm really surprised by the responses. Yes, as far as a potential black president, I believe we have come a very long way and there is much to be joyful about on THAT. BUT I don't think very much of the character of the man, despite his race, nor do I think much of the character of Hill'ry, despite her gender. I'm afraid that there is still so much blindness in this area that people will vote that direction JUST so we can have a black president, as they would have JUST so we could have a female. I know I'll get tomatoes. Throw them if you like. I wish the people had had more to choose from democrat as well as republican.

 

T

 

I have not been impressed with ANY of the candidates this year - on both sides.

[Mrs Mungo]

:iagree:

I'm shaking in my shoes, folks.

 

www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036

 

Looks like this video was produced by a supporter of McCain. I'm not a supporter of either one of them. In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd be voting for Hillary. But, I do know better, so not. gonna. do. it. This will be the first national election that I've chosen to skip ever. Please, ya'll, you have to do some homework and understand that they are all professional agitators.

 

Seriously? This isn't just propoganda or a version of the truth like you usually get by watching this or that news station. It's full of lies and misleading statements. That's why you're only seeing these things on the internet and not on any news network. Do your homework is right. Don't believe everything you see on the internet. A similar video (maybe the same one but I think some stuff has been added to this latest version) has been addressed before on this board, a couple of times now.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24148&highlight=Hussein

[Diane]

We have to remember there are two kinds of changes. I pray our leader will be a change for the better.

[LizzyBee]

If Fox were more respectful of people with different idealologies, then I would have more respect for it.

 

OTOH, the Clinton campaign thanked Fox for their fair and balanced reporting of the 2008 presidential campaigns.

[PineFarmMom]

One of my goals is to teach my kids to be discerning consumers of information and to base their views on research and most importantly, I want them first to see when a website, book, video or organization is objective or has an agenda. IMO, Information literacy will ultimately make or break this country.

 

This is a skill that has to be taught because it is not easy to tell the difference.

 

I don't really see how that video could be seen as anything but hateful fear mongering but I would love to hear a defense of it because maybe there is something there that I'm missing.

 

Since you quoted me here, I thought I'd have to throw out that I didn't even watch the video in question. My name and quote seemed to be attached to something I had nothing to do with placing out in cyberspace.

 

T

[Jumping In Puddles]

Since you quoted me here, I thought I'd have to throw out that I didn't even watch the video in question. My name and quote seemed to be attached to something I had nothing to do with placing out in cyberspace.

 

T

 

oops, sorry about that, I fixed it... I was actually editing that post but copy and pasted something for another post on that page. I wanted to quote you for this post on page 2: link

[PineFarmMom]

Well, sorry, I still wouldn't care to live in Sweden. Perhaps this article might shed some light on what the "welfare state" has done for Sweden. And we won't even mention the decline in morality and sexual perversion there. I'm not an educated person on this matter, just observant and I still think that when you have a socialist mindset that everyone is to share things equally (And Obama does believe this) that responsible living declines or goes out the window.

http://mises.org/story/2190

 

From the article:

 

"While my generations' parents are only "partly tainted" (which is bad enough), my generation is totally screwed up. Not having grown up with the sound values of our grandparents, but instead with those propagandized by the nanny state, the grandchildren of the welfare state have no understanding whatsoever of economics."

 

My 21yo nephew spent a year abroad last year. He's a keen, mean, political/economical machine for his age. This is much what he saw in Sweden. It looked good to him upon his first arrival, but then he saw the truth after spending some time there. Interesting.

 

Socialism is bad for everyone, it's just been proven too often in history.

 

T

[MomofSeven]

You make some pretty inflamatory statements there. Can you back them all up with fact? Concrete data? Where did he say that he'll "dignify world terrorists with interface meetings?" Yes, he says that he'll engage in rational discourse and diplomacy. But how can we ever hope to reach understandings and achieve peace if we rely on bully tactics alone?

QUOTE]

 

Barack Obama's original answer seemed crystal clear: last July, asked whether he would meet with the "leaders" of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea "without precondition," during his first year as president, he quickly answered yes. This is from ABC News 5-20-08

 

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.

 

I don't believe that any world leader should be meeting with a man who wants to wipe a nation off the map. BO says he would, unconditionally meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What a great photo op for this crazy guy...he'd actually feel legitimate meeting with the Pres. of the US.

[MomofSeven]

You don't think the US should take measures to wean the United States off of foreign oil?

 

 

I think congress should start by opening up all the restricted oil reserves in and around the US. Even China is drilling oil on our borders...that's so pathetic.

[Danestress]

..

[Jumping In Puddles]

I think congress should start by opening up all the restricted oil reserves in and around the US. Even China is drilling oil on our borders...that's so pathetic.

 

Because drilling for oil in the US and continuing to use oil as our primary source of energy is still contributing to pollution (even if you don't believe in global warming) and oil is dirty and still will be controlled by greedy US oil companies, I think the answer lies in using our good old American ingenuity and coming up with inexpensive, clean energy. :)

[astrid]

You make some pretty inflamatory statements there. Can you back them all up with fact? Concrete data? Where did he say that he'll "dignify world terrorists with interface meetings?" Yes, he says that he'll engage in rational discourse and diplomacy. But how can we ever hope to reach understandings and achieve peace if we rely on bully tactics alone?

QUOTE]

 

Barack Obama's original answer seemed crystal clear: last July, asked whether he would meet with the "leaders" of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea "without precondition," during his first year as president, he quickly answered yes. This is from ABC News 5-20-08

 

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.

 

I don't believe that any world leader should be meeting with a man who wants to wipe a nation off the map. BO says he would, unconditionally meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What a great photo op for this crazy guy...he'd actually feel legitimate meeting with the Pres. of the US.

 

Kennedy met with Khrushchev. In fact, it was a triumph of American diplomacy. So, you feel that NO ONE should engage in any kind of communication with Ahmadinejad? So......we wait until he presses the button and then wipe him out? But it'll be a little late then, no?

We reserve diplomacy for only a few world leaders? How do we expect to defuse the situation without escalating it and costing more loss of life?

 

I just don't get why so many Americans are petrified of employing diplomacy before military tactics.

[astrid]

:iagree::iagree:

[MomofSeven]

Because drilling for oil in the US and continuing to use oil as our primary source of energy is still contributing to pollution (even if you don't believe in global warming) and oil is dirty and still will be controlled by greedy US oil companies, I think the answer lies in using our good old American ingenuity and coming up with inexpensive, clean energy. :)

 

I agree (except the part about greedy oil companies). However, in the meantime, since we don't have an alternative energy source, we must rely on fossil fuels. Currently there is no substitute. It's a short term solution, but at least it will serve us UNTIL there is an alternative. Why should we hamstring ourselves when there are resources at our disposal and other countries are eagerly tapping into them?

 

As for American ingenuity...well, this has always been the solution to our problems, but I don't think we necessarily need government to dictate it.

[MomofSeven]

 

Kennedy met with Khrushchev. In fact, it was a triumph of American diplomacy. So, you feel that NO ONE should engage in any kind of communication with Ahmadinejad? So......we wait until he presses the button and then wipe him out? But it'll be a little late then, no?

We reserve diplomacy for only a few world leaders? How do we expect to defuse the situation without escalating it and costing more loss of life?

 

I just don't get why so many Americans are petrified of employing diplomacy before military tactics.

 

The US has a longheld policy of not negotiating with terrorists. When you put the prestige of a president of the United States in a meeting with a leader of a terrorist state, you’re giving it a legitimacy and currency it never had.

 

As for the Kennedy-Khrushchev precedent, well that wasn't really very successful in that Russia began building the Berlin Wall just a few weeks later. Furthmore Khruschev was an enemy, but not leading a terrorist nation, so the analogy sort of breaks down.

[Jumping In Puddles]

As for American ingenuity...well, this has always been the solution to our problems, but I don't think we necessarily need government to dictate it.

 

:eek: I think government would KILL the ingenuity! If we are forced to find alternatives because currently the free market fuel costs are high, and rising (as well as the environmental cost) just opening up America's pipelines for more oil will not give us the urgency that I think we need in preparing for "the end of oil" I think we need to think very long term and not just about relief for the here and now. It will ultimately benefit our country to go clean and efficient and sustaining even if its a little painful in the process. Opening up our pipeline could have more harmful effects... we can do this! (without the gov't!) Already, look at some of the fascinating stuff entrepreneurs are coming up with!

 

We can do this, we need to be self sufficient. I don't like the fact that we're starting to outsource our food, I don't like the dependency on oil (foreign or otherwise) as it is ultimately limited. Let's think beyond our generation and into our children's generation.

[Sahamamama]

could be happening for real in America.

[Donna T.]

Warning, do not watch the linked video with children present. Graphic photo after beheading.

 

 

Kelli, I'm so sorry. I should have thought to say that.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[Tammy]

You can....just click on 'advanced'.....

[astrid]

:eek: I think government would KILL the ingenuity! If we are forced to find alternatives because currently the free market fuel costs are high, and rising (as well as the environmental cost) just opening up America's pipelines for more oil will not give us the urgency that I think we need in preparing for "the end of oil" I think we need to think very long term and not just about relief for the here and now. It will ultimately benefit our country to go clean and efficient and sustaining even if its a little painful in the process. Opening up our pipeline could have more harmful effects... we can do this! (without the gov't!) Already, look at some of the fascinating stuff entrepreneurs are coming up with!

 

We can do this, we need to be self sufficient. I don't like the fact that we're starting to outsource our food, I don't like the dependency on oil (foreign or otherwise) as it is ultimately limited. Let's think beyond our generation and into our children's generation.

 

 

Bravo! JIP! :iagree::iagree:

[Parabola]

 

The US has a longheld policy of not negotiating with terrorists. When you put the prestige of a president of the United States in a meeting with a leader of a terrorist state, you’re giving it a legitimacy and currency it never had.

 

As for the Kennedy-Khrushchev precedent, well that wasn't really very successful in that Russia began building the Berlin Wall just a few weeks later. Furthmore Khruschev was an enemy, but not leading a terrorist nation, so the analogy sort of breaks down.

 

The thing is, terrorists organizations have "legitimacy" whether we recognize it or not. They are the gov't in some countries. And more to the point, they are "legitimate" enough that they kill innocent people daily. It has currency and strength already, putting our fingers in our ears and humming is not going to make it go away. Communication and education have a better chance of resolving violence.

 

As for the distinction between enemy and terrorist, does it really matter? Each side will kill for its own gains, whatever they may be, just because the army isn't affiliated with a particular government doesn't mean its bullets are less deadly.

[astrid]

That a person of color secured a nomination for President? Wow....is that how you really feel? Because I read your reply to mean that you are disappointed/shocked/horrified/otherwise displeased that Obama could be nominated from a major party for President.

 

Please help me understand..... is this what you mean?

[Parabola]

And I completely agree with JIP up there too, when govt gets its bumbling hands on things...it never goes well it seems.

 

And I'll also agree with Astrid agreeing with everything JIP said. Cuz really some of the stuff I've seen come out of independent entrepeneurs is enough to inspire hope that we aren't going to pollute ourselves out of existence.

[MomofSeven]

 

The thing is, terrorists organizations have "legitimacy" whether we recognize it or not. They are the gov't in some countries. And more to the point, they are "legitimate" enough that they kill innocent people daily. It has currency and strength already, putting our fingers in our ears and humming is not going to make it go away. Communication and education have a better chance of resolving violence.

 

As for the distinction between enemy and terrorist, does it really matter? Each side will kill for its own gains, whatever they may be, just because the army isn't affiliated with a particular government doesn't mean its bullets are less deadly.

 

Furthermore, there's a huge difference between a national enemy based on policy and a terroristic state sworn to destroy our way of life. It's a distinction that seems pretty obvious to me.

[Jumping In Puddles]

 

Furthermore, there's a huge difference between a national enemy based on policy and a terroristic state sworn to destroy our way of life. It's a distinction that seems pretty obvious to me.

 

Bush and McCain have been mocking Obama's supposed "naivete", saying that it is not good policy to talk to your enemies.

 

Well...

 

 

U.S. on the Outside in Peace Efforts

By Robin Wright

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, May 22, 2008; A20

 

Just days after President Bush returned from the Middle East, the Middle East is moving beyond the Bush administration.

 

Two major peace efforts -- a surprise announcement of indirect talks between Israel and Syria brokered by Turkey and an eleventh-hour deal to prevent a new Lebanese war brokered by Qatar -- were launched without an American role, and both counter U.S. strategy in the region.

 

For years, the Bush administration has resisted overtures from Jerusalem and Damascus to participate in revived peace efforts over the Golan Heights. The administration balked at including Syria in the Annapolis conference on Middle East peace last year, relenting only under pressure from allies, according to Western officials.

 

At his Senate confirmation hearing on May 1, James B. Cunningham, the ambassador-designate to Israel, said expanding peace talks to include Syria would be difficult. "We have taken the position that it is not very useful right now for us to be talking to Syria," he said. As a result, over the past year Turkey has taken the initiative to launch shuttle diplomacy, a role once reserved for U.S. secretaries of state.

 

For the past 18 months, the United States has also urged the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to resist a new political arrangement that would reflect the shifting balance of power on the ground. Over the past two years, Washington has pledged $1.3 billion in aid, much of it to build up Lebanon's military.

 

"The United States wanted the Siniora government to take a harder-line position and hold out against Hezbollah, but it couldn't provide enough support to make this possible," said Marina Ottaway of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

 

To prevent a new war, Qatar stepped in to mediate. The peace deal struck yesterday favors Hezbollah, the powerful Shiite political party and militia armed by Iran and Syria, which will gain enough new cabinet seats to veto any decision.

 

The United States is not playing a role in other critical Middle East initiatives, Ottaway noted, including an Egyptian effort to reconcile the two major Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, and negotiations between Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council sheikdoms. The Bush administration is absent "across the board," she said.

 

That absence reflects Bush's lame-duck status, experts said. "The president spoke in Jerusalem a week ago about standing up to dictators and not appeasing those who used force. He isn't home a week, and the dictators and the forces of violence have triumphed," said Bruce Riedel, a former National Security Council staff member.

 

John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, described as a "wake-up call" the Israeli and Syrian announcement of the first peace effort in eight years. "What did the leaders of Israel, already engaged in negotiations with Syria, think when President Bush stood before the Israeli Knesset and invoked Hitler in labeling engagement with rogue nations 'appeasement'? " he asked.

 

The administration responded coolly to the news of talks in Istanbul. "We hope that this is a forum to address various concerns we all have with Syria's support of terrorism, repression of its own people, and so we will see how this progresses," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

 

Apparently if you're not gonna take part in Middle East negotiations, they're gonna do it for themselves.

 

Another way Bush (and by extension McCain) have abdicated our authority as a superpower.

 

I think this makes Obama more appealing and why he is getting my vote. I do have some problems with Obama's positions. This is not one of them.

[Parabola]

 

Furthermore, there's a huge difference between a national enemy based on policy and a terroristic state sworn to destroy our way of life. It's a distinction that seems pretty obvious to me.

 

I'm not asking any president to begin negotiating with terrorists. As sad as it is, not negotiating with them has to be the policy, even if it means the hostages will die. There really isn't any other way to do it. Like a kid throwing temper tantrums, if he finds out it works he keeps doing it. If terrorists find out their demands are met, they will keep taking hostages.

 

Refusing to communicate with terrorists is a foolish idea, it means the status quo will continue. They will continue to feel justified.

 

As for the difference between a national enemy as you describe it (and isn't it sad that there is such a thing?) and a terrorist organization, the difference is negligible when it comes to dealing with them. Aren't we supposed to be fighting terrorists in Iraq? Thats not a nation's army we're fighting, we're fighting terrorists. Looks like any other war doesn't it? Killing people to stop people from killing looks the same no matter how you do it.

[Parabola]

JIP, I'm actually very glad to read that some middle east nations are stepping up to the plate and dealing with some of the problems in that area. I like that they are showing independence, even if they didn't want to.

Right now, US involvement over there may actually even be detrimental because we don't seem to be willing to help them find peace unless they meet some of our priorities in doing so (ie sinora).

[astrid]

Still wondering about your comment.......could you clarify, please?

 

Thanks so much!

Astrid

[Jumping In Puddles]

JIP, I'm actually very glad to read that some middle east nations are stepping up to the plate and dealing with some of the problems in that area. I like that they are showing independence, even if they didn't want to.

Right now, US involvement over there may actually even be detrimental because we don't seem to be willing to help them find peace unless they meet some of our priorities in doing so (ie sinora).

 

McCain has made it his position that you do not talk to enemies. Like AmyinPA said, the US has a longheld policy to not talk with terrorists. Like Parabola said: "The thing is, terrorists organizations have "legitimacy" whether we recognize it or not" and I think Turkey, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Quatar and Hezbollah have shown that sometimes you do talk to your enemies including terrorists.

 

As far as Obama goes - Hillary thinks he's wrong, but people like Howard Baker III, Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell think Bush and McCain are wrong.

 

And please remember that the U.S. has a long history of meeting with our then-biggest enemy, the Soviets.

 

Actually, I think Bush's recklessness and intractability has probably convinced a lot of Middle East nations that they'd rather work things out themselves than deal with the bullying of the Bush administration.

 

One last point, and I think this agrees with what Parabola was saying that those countries are showing independence even if they didn't want to: I think we should remove our military from Iraq and remove any remaining sanctions, and let them work things out for themselves. The Bush administration is completely out of depth in understanding the people of Iraq, their culture, religion and history. Bush should be negotiating with them with our best interests in mind, not trying to reshape a country with a longer history than we have. Call me cynical, but I think this gives the current administration a reason to continue paying $750,000,000,000/year for our military

 

But that does not mean that I think the US should be sitting on the sidelines. I just don't think we have to be the mediator or the military force.

Whether we like it or not, we have interests in the middle east that need to be met so I think the answer is NOT to sit out of negotiations but to participate. I think Obama can do this and that's one reason he is getting my vote.

 

Since the quotes don't seem to be working in the forum today, I tried to quote by going through the thread... if I've misquoted - please let me know!

[astrid]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Yet again, JIP, I agree wholeheartedly!

[Jumping In Puddles]

OTOH, the Clinton campaign thanked Fox for their fair and balanced reporting of the 2008 presidential campaigns.

 

I don't know how I missed this one!

 

Actually, Clinton's campaign manager thanked fox news for being the first in declaring Hillary the winner (transcript) in PA. The quote from Terry McAuliffe "And let me congratulate FOX because you were the first ones to call it for Hillary Clinton. Fair and balanced FOX. You beat them all."

 

This is actually one of the things I haven't liked about Hillary's whole campaign and one of the reasons she didn't get my vote: She is a typical politician who will say anything when things are going her way, but when they are not, she blames the press, the party, advisors and yet never takes the blame but always takes the credit.

 

You can agree with fox, and of course sometimes they will actually be fair and balanced, but for the most part, they slant their news in a very unfair way. Now, you can like their slant because, perhaps, you have the same ideas and conclusions but I don't see how it could be fair :confused:

 

Lets take Huckabee and the other conservatives running in the race such as Thompson, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo all were snubbed by Fox News. Huckabee couldn't even buy advertising on Fox and when they referred to him, it was as "Baptist Minister" Mike Huckabee and not Governor or Former Governor.

 

I would say the one true network with absolutely no political slant (because there are NO PUNDITS!) is C-Span. Yeah, its dry as dirt but its as close to fair and balanced as it gets because its unedited, straight from their mouths to your ears.

 

I can see how people enjoy Fox or CNN, but to call them fair and balanced is wrong - actually, they don't use that tag line anymore do they? I'm not 100% sure but I think they use "We Report, You Decide" now.