If you love Obama you will vote for the closer.
tobe...@gmail.com
hell, Hillary !
tobetbaa
long way to go. Start with a woman, put Obama on the ticket and make
him electable for 2016.
The alternative will be a winfall for McCain and Clinton, because he
will beat Obama in 2008 and she will destroy McCain in 2012.
Read this by Bill Moyers, to clearly understand the simple fact that
Obama's only path to the White House is through an alliance with
Hillary Clinton.
RichL
Moyers' article has *nothing* to do with Obama and Clinton teaming up.
Frank from Deeetroit
"tobetbaa" <tobe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:96205585-ed5f-43af...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Obama's wife vetoed the two-headed monster of Hill-Billary as VP choice.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/michelle_vetoes_hillary.html
RichL
I don't trust Novak as a source for this. But I think it's extremely
unlikely that Obama would pick Hillary, if for no other reason than that
he wouldn't want Bill looking over his shoulder.
firefly
and go back into the jungle.
---firefly
"Frank from Deeetroit" <dadur...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:joqdncsVjrJ0crjV...@comcast.com...
fatt...@yahoo.com
According to an article in the NY Post, Obama has received the ringing
endorsement of some "official" from Hamas.
How comforting.
I wonder what Hamas believes Obama would have to offer them.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> Frank from Deeetroit <dadurwe...@voyager.net> wrote:> "tobetbaa" <tobet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:96205585-ed5f-43af...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> America is still too racist to elect a Black President. �We have a
> >> long way to go. Start with a woman, put Obama on the ticket and make
> >> him electable for 2016.
>
> >> The alternative will be a winfall for McCain and Clinton, because he
> >> will beat Obama in 2008 and she will destroy McCain in 2012.
>
> >> Read this by Bill Moyers, to clearly understand the simple fact that
> >> Obama's only path to the White House is through an alliance with
> >> Hillary Clinton.
>
> >>http://surftofind.com/moyers
>
> > Obama's wife vetoed the two-headed monster of Hill-Billary as VP
> > choice.
>
>
> I don't trust Novak as a source for this. �But I think it's extremely
> unlikely that Obama would pick Hillary, if for no other reason than that
I don't think they would get along. And Ted Kennedy for some reason
has already issued a statement against it.
RichL
M C hammered
Well fokes....looks like we gonna git a Islam presdent....
I dunno...I aint racist...
But dont the Islams own all the oil??
And I fer one am gonna feel real funny havin a presdent who rides down
main street on a frikkin cammel...
fatt...@yahoo.com
appe...@yahoo.com
rec.music.beatles Description: Postings about the Fab Four & their
music.
When you guys finish with junior high school, maybe you can take up
reading the header of this NG
RichL
You'd rather continue the present situation? Innocent children being
killed on *both* sides? You might wish Hamas would go away, but they
won't just because you want them to. And completely obliterating them
is a wishful fantasy. It's not going to happen.
What other realistic choices are there?
fatt...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course peace in the Middle East is the goal. But IMO it does not
mean that Hamas must be part of the process or must exist. It's like
saying, "Let's end WW II by making peace with the Nazis." WW II
ended, in part, because Germany was brought to its knees and the Nazis
were obliterated.
Hamas is not only a terrorist organization vis a vie Israel, but it is
oppressive and fascist in the Gaza and elsewhere. I'm sure you've seen
on the news or read in the press how there has been a virtual civil
war between different Palestinian groups struggling for power. I
don't see why any American President or member of Congress would even
consider Hamas as legitimate.
MC Hammered
A friggin men sista. A friggin men. When will these punks, these
childern, these idjits, these thingamajigs, these jigamaboos, the
fornicaters of old grandmas, these haters...when will they FREAKIN
GRADUATE FORM HIGH SCHOOL???
The fact is, I dropped out. Thats rite, I ferkin dropped out....in
forth grade. Sure I was stoned. On reefer, cough sirrips, Nyquil,
anything I could steel from my dads cupboard...I was stoned and never
did no homework...never read no freakibn books. I was stoned and sat
at the back of my class, sneakin off to the infirmery fer cigarettes
and PBR...mebbe some more reefer...I was stoned, never did my homework
and never read no books and I aint shamed!!! The fact is I'm
PROUD!!! AINT I DONT CARE HOW MANY BOOKS NO ONE READS OR MANY MANY
GRADES UP TH FREAKIN LATTER YOU GOT, I AINT SHAMED, IM STONED, I POST
MORE THEN ANYONE AND I MET THE YOKE AND YOU DINT!!!
Nuff sakid
"Picture yourself on a boat in the river":
Martin Hofner
>
*********************************************
*********************************************
Picture yourself on the bottom of a river....
MC Hammered
Close but no cigar...or joint!!! It goes "Picture Yerself In a Boat
on the river"...genius ainnit??
Dale Houstman
It is odd that you would rather have perpetual war with Hamas, although
understandable when you consider that it isn't your body on the line.
The fact is - despite all the cowboy toughtalk about not negotiating
with terrorists - eventually "terrorists" have to be negotiated with, or
we risk endless slaughter. Ask the IRA.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Hamas isn't a country, and they're not Nazis, and this isn't World War
II, and we're not defending ourselves against an invasion. In fact, we
ARE the invaders. The two situations are not parallels, and to suggest
so is pure hysteria. Arabs in the Middle East have legitimate complaints
about US hegemony, and we are eventually going to have to recognize
those complaints as legitimate, and attempt to address them via
diplomacy and the giving of some sort of political power to them, if we
expect to ever have a Middle East that doesn't erupt into warfare every
few months. Just as the IRA put down their guns when a certain political
recognition was granted to their grievances (in which England was - like
us - the occupying force) much of what now passes as "terrorism" will
turn to political discourse (albeit a raucous one) when the same is done
there. We have no cohice, particularly now that the US and Israel have
both been proven to be militarily insufficient in the region.
dmh
RichL
> Of course peace in the Middle East is the goal. But IMO it does not
> mean that Hamas must be part of the process or must exist. It's like
> saying, "Let's end WW II by making peace with the Nazis." WW II
> ended, in part, because Germany was brought to its knees and the Nazis
> were obliterated.
>
> Hamas is not only a terrorist organization vis a vie Israel, but it is
> oppressive and fascist in the Gaza and elsewhere. I'm sure you've seen
> on the news or read in the press how there has been a virtual civil
> war between different Palestinian groups struggling for power. I
> don't see why any American President or member of Congress would even
> consider Hamas as legitimate.
Hamas won the parliamentary election. They are legitimate by virtue of
power that they were handed by the people.
We claim to want democracy in the middle east, but when we get it things
don't always go our way. You can't always have both people being free
to choose their leaders and leaders who are allied with the US and
Israel.
RichL
> When you guys finish with junior high school, maybe you can take up
> reading the header of this NG
Read the title of this thread. No likee, no clickee.
Frank from Deeetroit
"M C hammered" <smoke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dae165b3-c7bd-41a5...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 1:06 pm, tobet...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Republicans are funding Obama because they are afraid of Give' em
>> hell, Hillary !
>>
>> http://surftofind.com/tricky
>
>
> Well fokes....looks like we gonna git a Islam presdent....
Me thinks McCain will get the job. Way too much infighting in the Democratic
Party. The good thing is when Hillbillary, the two headed monster, steps
down, her presidental career will be over for good. Obama is the rising
star and will build momentium for the 2012 race and most likely, the White
House.
>
> I dunno...I aint racist...
>
> But dont the Islams own all the oil??
No, but they run OPEC.
UsurperTom
> Maybe peace?
Hamas doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist.
UsurperTom
wrote:
> Obama is the rising star and will build momentium for the 2012 race
If Obama gets the nomination (and I think it's too late for Hillary to
beat him) but loses the general election, I don't think the Democrats
will want him to be their nominee in 2012. Obama must either beat
McCain or not get the nomination and watch Hillary lose to McCain in
order to have a chance in 2012.
RichL
> On May 11, 10:20?am, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe peace?
>
> Hamas doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist.
That's what negotiations are for. Do you have a workable alternative?
O'Leary III
M C hammered
Well my friend you sound like a shrewd observer of politics and your
prolly rite about McCain...buthe looks so old in contrast To Hussein
who is young and slim and dapper....he mighjt be an islam but he looks
likea nice fe,lla...but I dont pay mucgh attention to politics,
anytime I got the TV on I got the record player on at thre time,
crankin out the beatles....with reefer in my hand..
O'Leary III
> Of course peace in the Middle East is the goal. But IMO it does not
> mean that Hamas must be part of the process or must exist.
It exists now.
> It's like
> saying, "Let's end WW II by making peace with the Nazis." WW II
> ended, in part, because Germany was brought to its knees and the Nazis
> were obliterated.
It exists now.
M C hammered
Sounds like time to call the Yoke in! The womans just like
Kissinger!!! Super genius secritary of state...
Dale Houstman
Neither did Egypt once. It does now. Why? Negotiations and pure talk.
dmh
Dale Houstman
He doesn't recognize the right of Hamas to exist.
1. Hamas must recognize the right of Israel to exist.
2. The US does not recognize the right of Hamas to exist.
3. Israel has no more right to exist than any other political entity.
4. Oil must recognize the US's right to own it.
5. The US does not recognize oil's right to be owned by anyone else.
6. Oil is a terrorist.
7. The US does not negotiate with terrorists.
8. Kuwait's existence is recognized most clearly by those who created it
to retain control of its oil supply.
9. Corporate culture only recognizes the right of its profits to exist.
10. Hamas was democratically elected.
11. Democracy is a fading delusion.
12. Hamas is no more or less a delusion than the US.
13. Delusions don't recognize the right of other delusions to exist.
14. Nuclear capability belongs to the US and a few chosen friends and/or
special enemies.
15. Hamas is not a special friend.
16. Money likes the company of money.
17. Misery loves company.
18. Money generates misery.
19. Israel is the beneficiary of a compelling myth.
20. Compelling myths don't always win wars in Lebanon.
21. Lebanon is a reminder of defeat.
22. The US does not recognize the right of misery to exist.
23. Misery exists despite the US's non-recognition treaty.
24. Misery is a terrorist.
25. High gas prices cause misery.
26. Oil companies are terrorists.
27. We do not negotiate with terrorists.
28. We do not negotiate with bandits.
29. We do not negotiate with our masters.
30. We do not negotiate.
31. We do not.
32. We do.
dmh
fatt...@yahoo.com
Let's say I agree with you. It still troubles me that Obama seems to
attract or surround himself with these "types" . . . . people from
Hamas apparently like him, his involvement with Rev. Wright, his
friendship with that fellow (can't remember the name) who was a member
of the Weathermen, etc.
As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, hangs
out with other ducks, etc.
fatt...@yahoo.com
Then why deal with them at all?
fatt...@yahoo.com
Hamas was elected, but was it a fair election or a corrupt one?
Did people truly vote their will, or was there bribery, extortion,
threats, etc.?
Putting that aside, yes, Hamas was elected, just like Hitler was
elected. But it doesn't mean the U.S, Europe or Israel should
"negotiate" with them.
And even if all you say is true, it troubles me that officials of
Hamas should support Obama Barack. He claims to be a friend of
Israel . . . but some within the Hamas organization see Barack as
their friend. That combined with his friendship with Rev. Wright, his
friendship with that radical from the Weathermen (or whatever that
1960's terrorist group was) and other people surrounding him, just
does not sit right with me.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> On May 11, 10:20?am, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe peace?
>
> Hamas doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist.
Shudder. And some of them like Obama? Shudder.
On a slightly, different note, people are talking about who his VP
should be . . . . I'm starting to think of Jimmy Carter.
fatt...@yahoo.com
I can think of some . . . .build a huge guarded, electrified fence
separating Israel and Gaza to start. And tell Hamas, "You wanted an
independent piece of land? Here it is. You got it. Good luck. Oh,
and by the way, stay away from us. Don't come to us for jobs, food,
electricity, water, trade, etc."
I would also say, "BTW, if the Arab government in Gaza ever changes
and is friendlier and more reasonable, then perhaps we can have
negotiations about trade, water, electricity, etc. But until that
time, no Arabs from Gaza will be welcomed here. You are an enemy
state and will be treated as such. "
fatt...@yahoo.com
The Nazis existed and were in power at one time too. But people took
action so the Nazis are no longer in power, even though there may be a
Nazi floating around here and there.
The Japanese emperor was in power at one time in Japan, and Japan
bombed Pearl Harbor. But the US took steps to strip him of most of
his power.
fatt...@yahoo.com
>
> >>Maybe peace?
>
> > Hamas doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist.
>
> Neither did Egypt once. It does now. Why? Negotiations and pure talk.
>
> dmh
Yeah, and the US agreeing to give Egypt over $1 billion a year. Plus
Israel surrendering the Sinai . . . a piece of land which has small
amouts of oil and which was several times the size of Israel proper.
It wasn't pure talk, Dale.
I wish it were so simple.
Here's another point which, perhaps you did not know: in 1973 it was
Sadat who declared war on Israel (the Yom Kippor War) which almost
brought Israel to its knees. Thanks to the help of the US, Israel
survived and war was ended.
But Egypt paid a very, very dear price for that war. Perhaps you did
not know this, but Anwar Sadat lost his beloved son. It was reported
that he was deeply upset (who wouldn't be!) and this was one of the
motivations for Egypt to finally sign a peace treaty with Israel.
fatt...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm tired. I meant Barack Obama, obviously.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> fattuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Let's say I agree with you. It still troubles me that Obama seems to
> > attract or surround himself with these "types" . . . . people from
> > Hamas apparently like him, his involvement with Rev. Wright, his
> > friendship with that fellow (can't remember the name) who was a member
> > of the Weathermen, etc.
>
> > As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, hangs
> > out with other ducks, etc.
>
> selectively focusing on evidence which supports the conclusion you wish
> to reach.
If I had made up my mind as you suggest, I would have formed a strong
opinion a few weeks ago just reading about and hearing about Rev.
Wright. My opinion in this case is gradually forming, but I must say
the more I learn regarding Obama, the more alarmed I am.
There was a little article in Saturday's NY Post, page 7, that Obama
dumped one of his advisers for meeting with "the Palestinian terrorist
group Hamas". His name is Robert Malley and he supposedly acted as an
informal adviser to Obama on Middle East policy. The NY Post reports
that Malley told the Times of London that he was in regular contact
with Hamas as part of his work for a "think tank" called "The
International Crisis Group."
It deeply troubles me that Obama and/or his camp would even have
someone like this as part of his "team." What advice could Malley be
giving Obama?
I'm grateful that Malley was fired, but c'mon . . . .
fatt...@yahoo.com
> > friendship with that radical from the Weathermen (or whatever that
> > 1960's terrorist group was) and other people surrounding him, just
> > does not sit right with me.
>
This is a thread about politics. Of course people will have
opinions. It's a healthy part of the wonderful democratic process
that Americans enjoy. Unless you would want to live in a totalitarian
regime, most people believe such debate is a blessing.
Do you have anything substantive to contribute?
fatt...@yahoo.com
> deceitfully chop everything down to some fundamental issue of human
> decency, and pretend the objections aren't any more complex than that.
>
> Nincompoops like you who reduce politics into nothing but an issue of
> politicians' "personal morals" are a big reason why our elected
> government is such a mess.
My interest with regard to Obama is not his "personal morals" but,
rather, his foreign policy stance. He is a young Senator, does not
have much of a track record as far as I know, and has "affiliations"
with people who align themselves with Arab radicals.
If Obama had 20 years of experience and was frequently a strong
supporter of Israel, I would not care about Wright or his other
associates.
Dale Houstman
poisoned rose wrote:
> fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>>>That combined with his friendship with Rev. Wright, his
>>>>friendship with that radical from the Weathermen (or whatever that
>>>>1960's terrorist group was) and other people surrounding him, just
>>>>does not sit right with me.
>>>
>>>Wag, wag, wag....
>>
>>This is a thread about politics. Of course people will have
>>opinions. It's a healthy part of the wonderful democratic process
>>that Americans enjoy. Unless you would want to live in a totalitarian
>>regime, most people believe such debate is a blessing.
>
>
> These are the same straw-man games you pulled with the Derby filly. You
> deceitfully chop everything down to some fundamental issue of human
> decency, and pretend the objections aren't any more complex than that.
>
> Nincompoops like you who reduce politics into nothing but an issue of
> politicians' "personal morals" are a big reason why our elected
> government is such a mess.
>
> What have you turned up in digging through McCain's garbage cans?
> Oh...you haven't checked? Naturally.
Here's a nugget about McCain - there is some good info that far from
being a hero in Vietnam, he was a collaborator, and was given special
treatment because of it. At any rate, he was one of the "glory boys" who
could with disdain bomb men, women, and children from the comparative
safety of the sky. And even though it was Vietnamese civilians who saved
his life after his crash, he refers - to this day - to all Vietnamese as
"gooks". In a 90s interview he claimed that he was a "war criminal"
because he had killed innocent men, women, and children. This is a
fellow who is ripe for a "swift boating". And his voting record? A long
parade of half-baked reforms (which he personally ignores) and one vote
after another which favor the rich and powerful over the disadvantaged
and disenfranchised. His character is besmirched by the Bush faction in
an election, and what does he do (in the - incorrect - assumption that
it was expedient)? He crawls so far up Bush's ass that he becomes a polyp.
A real hollow turd...
dmh
fatt...@yahoo.com
> poisoned rose wrote:
I appreciate the information.
As I said weeks ago, I am not impressed with our choices for President
this year. The more I learn, the more unimpressed I am.
Dale Houstman
I'm always unimpressed by our "choices" (mainly because they aren't OUR
choices, only the remainders of a somewhat less public process), but...
that said... I must say Obama impresses me MORE than McCain. You (and
others - notably Hillary) keep citing "experience" but that can just as
well be stated as "longtime corruption". Truth is one of our least
experienced Presidents was Lincoln, and the most experienced was
Buchanan. Experience is mostly just entrenchment. Lincoln also was
"tainted" by his acquaintance with "radical" elements. It might only
mean that Obama is fated to drag us into a Civil War, have his wife go
mad, and be shot while watching a forgettable play, but his experience
as a community organizer impresses me infinitely more than McCain's
history of bombing civilians. Some may ascribe McCain's fabled anger
management issues to his POW experience, but his nickname in high school
was "McNasty". Seems he's been a prick for a long time now.
As for Obama's Muslimism: it is non-existent, but even if he were Muslim
it wouldn't be a factor in my vote (or non-vote): the vast majority of
Muslims aren't very impressed by the tactics of "terrorists" either.
If you are waiting around for a shining example to vote for, I suggest
you might as well grow used to forgoing the electoral process all together.
dmh
fatt...@yahoo.com
I happen to be a strong supporter of Israel, so a candidate's views
and record regarding the Middle East is something that interests me.
And it is more complicated than just the terrorism issue.
Dale Houstman
Fine. Although I don't see what this has to do with Obama: he has
expressed pretty much the same views on Israel's existence that every
other US candidate is forced to express. If a candidate were REALLY (as
opposed to merely artfully) concerned with the security of Israel, they
would be pursuing diplomatic results such as the Camp David Accords,
rather than the utterly ruinous military toughguy tactics of the last
few decades, which have resulted in the devasation of Lebanon, the
continued violence on several sides of Istael, and (finally) a war in
Lebanon that wasn't exactly one of Israel's finest moments.
Personally, I think the existence of Israel is just another disaster in
a long line of such disasters engineered by the British in the Mid-East:
a clumsy and brutal act which (like so many of these imperial
"enhancements") has led to a permanent state of warfare. And all because
Europe didn't want the Jews in their own backyard...
dmh
fatt...@yahoo.com
It seems many governments don't want the Jews "in their own backyard,"
not just Europe. So what should Jewish people do? I know . . . .
stake out Antartica. Or the moon.
BTW, I appreciate your opinion which seems to suggest that the
creation of Israel was one of several "disasters" engineered by the
British, but people tend to forget that many countries in the Middle
East were carved out around the same time. Israel was just one of
several, and it happens to be one of the smallest, and oil poor.
Further substantial parts were malaria ridden swamp before the
idealistic Jews came along.
Who knows . . . maybe the predecessors to the current Saudi government
should have been given "Palestine" and the Jews should have been given
Saudi Arabia and the world would be a better place. :-)
abe slaney
>>and record regarding the Middle East is something that interests me.
>>And it is more complicated than just the terrorism issue.
>
>
I have heard of Egypt from the Indiana Jones movies. Are they connected?
Sean Carroll
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Maybe peace?
> Hamas doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist.
And so the imperialists in Washington and Israel shouldn't recognise *its*
right to exist.
'I am not talking to you! You don't exist!' 'Oh, yeah? Well, *you* don't
exist!' Yeah, that's a greatly fruitful response to make in a diplomatic
situation.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com
Kutner: But why did he test positive for syphilis?
House: Oh, wait, I know this one!
Kutner: Either one, he has syphilis ...
House: I was gonna say that!
Sean Carroll
>>> Maybe peace?
>> Peace with Hamas? GRrrrrrrrrr.
> Throw her some meat!
<RMB does a 'Family Guy'-type cut to the scene in 'Jurassic Park' where they
feed the raptors, only the raptors are actually fattuchus>
Damn, it's hard to make a visual joke in a verbal medium.
Sean Carroll
what Kyra Sedgwick has to do with Obama.
RichL
> who is portrayed by Harrison Ford.
>
> Some people consider Ford a sex symbol. Hee hee. <blush>
I thought that was Glenn Ford.
Lookingglass
"abe slaney" <abesl...@itagain.com> wrote
>
> I have heard of Egypt from the Indiana Jones movies. Are they connected?
Only by way of JOSEPH AND THE AMAZING TECHNICOLOR DREAMCOAT.
Lookingglass
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Some people consider Ford a sex symbol. Hee hee. <blush>
>
> I thought that was Glenn Ford.
John Ford...?
Sean Carroll
I might look like Robert Ford, but I feel just like Jesse James.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com
Kutner: But why did he test positive for syphilis?
House: Oh, wait, I know this!
fatt...@yahoo.com
> "UsurperTom" <Usurper...@aol.com> wrote
>
> > "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Maybe peace?
> > Hamas doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist.
>
> And so the imperialists in Washington and Israel shouldn't recognise *its*
> right to exist.
Civilized people can recognize them for what they are . . . . .
terrorists, fascists, bigots, etc.
>
> 'I am not talking to you! You don't exist!' 'Oh, yeah? Well, *you* don't
> exist!' Yeah, that's a greatly fruitful response to make in a diplomatic
> situation.
>
> --
> --Seanhttp://spclsd223.livejournal.com
fatt...@yahoo.com
> "O'Leary III" <mo...@mogjo1.com> wrote
>
> >>> Maybe peace?
> >> Peace with Hamas? GRrrrrrrrrr.
> > Throw her some meat!
>
> <RMB does a 'Family Guy'-type cut to the scene in 'Jurassic Park' where they
> feed the raptors, only the raptors are actually fattuchus>
>
> Damn, it's hard to make a visual joke in a verbal medium.
>
> --
> --Sean
Thank goodness I'm not the meat. :-0
Sean Carroll
>> > Hamas doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist.
>> And so the imperialists in Washington and Israel shouldn't recognise
>> *its*
>> right to exist.
> Civilized people can recognize them for what they are . . . . .
> terrorists, fascists, bigots, etc.
Oh, *civilised* people. Those are the people you're a member of, right?
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com
Kutner: But why did he test positive for syphilis?
House: Oh, wait, I know this!
fatt...@yahoo.com
> <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > "Sean Carroll" <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "UsurperTom" <Usurper...@aol.com> wrote
> >> > Hamas doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist.
> >> And so the imperialists in Washington and Israel shouldn't recognise
> >> *its*
> >> right to exist.
> > Civilized people can recognize them for what they are . . . . .
> > terrorists, fascists, bigots, etc.
>
> Oh, *civilised* people. Those are the people you're a member of, right?
>
> --
> --Sean
I don't understand where you are going with this . . . .
Bernie Woodham
"firefly" <firef...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:QyxVj.3399$3O7....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> Obama sounds like something you shout at animals to make them turn around
> and go back into the jungle.
>
> ---firefly
>
Hey firefly:
OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA
(now, let's see it that really works)
Bernie Woodham
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d9024f47-0601-416d...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Of course peace in the Middle East is the goal. But IMO it does not
mean that Hamas must be part of the process or must exist. It's like
saying, "Let's end WW II by making peace with the Nazis." WW II
ended, in part, because Germany was brought to its knees and the Nazis
were obliterated.
=========================
Huh? The Nazis were used by the American Government, (or should I say the
used the US)
"The real winners of the Cold War were Nazi war criminals, many of whom were
able to escape justice because the East and West became so rapidly focused
after the war on challenging each other,"
"Ironically, some of the" Nazis "would go on to play leading roles in
European neofascist organizations that despise the United States."
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0508-05.htm
fatt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Not every Nazi was eliminated;; but the Nazi government was removed
from power. Similarly, not every terrorist will be brought to
justice . . . .but terrorist organizations can be removed from power.
Bernie Woodham
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f00c417f-53eb-41dc...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
=============================
I don't think you read that link. The remaining Nazis were very much given
power positions.
fatt...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry. OK, let me read the link.
RichL
I was tempted, but you beat me to it.
UsurperTom
> let me read the link.
Commondreams is a radical left wing website.
RichL
How? More violence? Start WWIII? Obliterate all the Arabs and
Muslims?
Seems to me that that approach is getting us nowhere. There has been
absolutely no progress. Both sides are just becoming more resolute in
their intrasigence. Besides, most of the civilized world isn't buying
into it, as they did in the effort to defeat the Nazis.
Time for "Something New".
Bernie Woodham
"UsurperTom" <Usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f0fc6906-e3a8-414b...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 14, 4:10 pm, fattuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> let me read the link.
Commondreams is a radical left wing website.
===============================
Are you saying that what they are reporting is not true?
If it's true, what does it matter what political persuasion they are?
UsurperTom
wrote:
> If it's true, what does it matter what political persuasion they are?
Yes, there were Nazis (mostly lower ranking ones) who slipped through
the cracks and weren't prosecuted. However, they were defeated in
battle, lost their power and their leadership either committed suicide
or were imprisoned, executed or exiled.
Bernie Woodham
======+++++++=========++++++++++++=========++++++++
I don't think you read that article either.
UsurperTom
wrote:
> I don't think you read that article either.
What atrocities did Reinhard Gehlen commit?
Bernie Woodham
I don't think I understand your question. Are you trying to defend his use
by the U.S. by saying that he didn't "personally" commit any atrocities?
My man, my man. How you do rationalize.
"Gehlen proceeded to enlist thousands of Gestapo, Wehrmacht, and SS
veterans. Even the vilest of the vile - the senior bureaucrats who ran the
central administrative apparatus of the Holocaust - were welcome in the
"Gehlen Org," as it was called, including Alois Brunner, Adolf Eichmann's
chief deputy. SS major Emil Augsburg and gestapo captain Klaus Barbie,
otherwise known as the "Butcher of Lyon," were among those who did double
duty for Gehlen and U.S. intelligence. "It seems that in the Gehlen
headquarters one SS man paved the way for the next and Himmler's elite were
having happy reunion ceremonies," the Frankfurter Rundschau reported in the
early 1950s."
A man of your position, I'd think you consider employing these people an
atrocity in and of itself.
But my point in bringing this all up was to dispel the notion that the Nazis
were "obliterated". I think it is more accurate to say that they "mutated"
under a different leadership. It is said the european Neo-Nazi movement of
today can trace it's roots back to Gehlen's organization.
Sean Carroll
> "Sean Carroll" <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > Civilized people can recognize them for what they are . . . . .
>> > terrorists, fascists, bigots, etc.
>> Oh, *civilised* people. Those are the people you're a member of, right?
> I don't understand where you are going with this . . . .
No, you clearly don't. And sadly, you probably never will. Your
ethnocentrism is so fundamental to your worldview you don't even know it's
there.
Sean Carroll
> "UsurperTom" <Usurp...@aol.com> wrote
>> Commondreams is a radical left wing website.
> Are you saying that what they are reporting is not true?
>
> If it's true, what does it matter what political persuasion they are?
Don't confuse UTom with *logic* when he's busy preening and showing off how
much of a good 'I don't know nothin' about those durn godless left-wingers,
and I don't want to!' conservative towel boy he is.
Sean Carroll
> Yes, there were Nazis (mostly lower ranking ones) who slipped through
> the cracks and weren't prosecuted. However, they were defeated in
> battle, lost their power and their leadership either committed suicide
> or were imprisoned, executed or exiled.
Yeah ... all except for the ones who weren't. Like the ones who came over to
work for the US military after the war.
Sean Carroll
>> Yes, there were Nazis (mostly lower ranking ones) who slipped through
>> the cracks and weren't prosecuted. However, they were defeated in
>> battle, lost their power and their leadership either committed suicide
>> or were imprisoned, executed or exiled.
> I don't think you read that article either.
Of course he didn't. Commondreams is a radical left wing website!
Dale Houstman
Just as was done in Ireland, we are going to have to separate the
legitimate complaints and demands of so-called "terrorists" from the
violence that is prompted and maintained by abuse and political
disenfrachisement, and address those legitimate elements in the context
of politics, rather than automatically responding to them with military
violence of our own. Trust me, the vast majority of people (even amongst
those we classify as "terrorists") do not choose a life of violence and
danger with ease, and will - once given real political clout and an
audience that doesn't automatically dismiss them - turn increasingly to
political means to achieve their ends. They will - like most of us -
fail to achieve much of what they want, but they will become victims of
hope, which tends to make one less volatile, stunned as they are by the
ever visible albeit ever regressing potential for their "utopia". This
will - in the Mideast - obviously involve cutting the steel umbilical
cord that connects American policy automatically with Israel, and
expecting more of Israel than we do now. But that is the only way this
cycle of vindictiveness and death will ever be ended. It is entirely
futile to suppose (and the US adventurism in the Mideast has revealed
this very clearly) that we can end the violence merely by force of arms
and our own variety of terror against a people who - in these conditions
- have nothing to lose by choosing martyrdom. We have to extend to them
the same sustainable futility most of us in the West experience as a
matter of course.
dmh
Lookingglass
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote
>
> Just as was done in Ireland, we are going to have to separate the
> legitimate complaints and demands of so-called "terrorists" from the
> violence that is prompted and maintained by abuse and political
> disenfrachisement, and address those legitimate elements in the context of
> politics, rather than automatically responding to them with military
> violence of our own. Trust me, the vast majority of people (even amongst
> those we classify as "terrorists") do not choose a life of violence and
> danger with ease, and will - once given real political clout and an
> audience that doesn't automatically dismiss them - turn increasingly to
> political means to achieve their ends. They will - like most of us - fail
> to achieve much of what they want, but they will become victims of hope,
> which tends to make one less volatile, stunned as they are by the ever
> visible albeit ever regressing potential for their "utopia". This will -
> in the Mideast - obviously involve cutting the steel umbilical cord that
> connects American policy automatically with Israel, and expecting more of
> Israel than we do now. But that is the only way this cycle of
> vindictiveness and death will ever be ended. It is entirely futile to
> suppose (and the US adventurism in the Mideast has revealed this very
> clearly) that we can end the violence merely by force of arms and our own
> variety of terror against a people who - in these conditions - have
> nothing to lose by choosing martyrdom. We have to extend to them the same
> sustainable futility most of us in the West experience as a matter of
> course.
>
> dmh
Stop being a *wiseguy*, wiseguy!
Dale Houstman
Whys?
dmh
Lookingglass
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote
>
> Whys?
>
> dmh
A penny for your "whys?"...and pound the foolish.
UsurperTom
wrote:
> the european Neo-Nazi movement of today can trace it's roots back to Gehlen's organization.
European neo-Nazis have never risen to power in any country.
UsurperTom
> Like the ones who came over to work for the US military after the war.
The most important ones, such as Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels,
Hess, Bormann, Heydrich and Eichmann, never worked for the US military
after the war.
Bernie Woodham
On May 14, 5:21?pm, "Bernie Woodham" <birnhamw...@insightbb.com>
wrote:
===========================
There is still the legacy.
Bernie Woodham
-------------------------
No, but Prescott Bush worked for them before the war, and that dynasty is
still pretty active.
fatt...@yahoo.com
Oh . . . . . . .
fatt...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Like what? Any suggestions?
Israel withdrew from Gaza . . . .there have still been some terrorist
attacks and rocket attacks against Israel.
fatt...@yahoo.com
I was trying to say the same thing about Arab terrorists but you said
it better.
fatt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "UsurperTom" <Usurper...@aol.com> wrote in message
Would you agree that Nazis were "emasculated"? They did lose most of
their power, right?
fatt...@yahoo.com
> <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > "Sean Carroll" <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> > Civilized people can recognize them for what they are . . . . .
> >> > terrorists, fascists, bigots, etc.
> >> Oh, *civilised* people. Those are the people you're a member of, right?
> > I don't understand where you are going with this . . . .
>
> No, you clearly don't. And sadly, you probably never will. Your
> ethnocentrism is so fundamental to your worldview you don't even know it's
> there.
>
> --
> --Sean
Are you saying ethnocentrism is a bad thing? You seem to be
suggesting that.
Either that or I surmise you don't think Americans or Israelis are
amongst the "civilized" people.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> RichL wrote:
I admire your idealism, but didn't the US attempt to "impose" a
democracy in Iraq? You write "We have to extend to them the same
sustainable futility most of us in the West experience . . . . ." but
it seems Iraq (and Lebanon) have taught us democracy does not always
work in the Arab Middle East.
In a sense, that is the problem in a nutshell. I would like to
separate the vicious group Hamas from the people it represents, but
that may not be possible. Hamas with its fascist methods and calls
for Israel's removal may really represent the so called Palestinian
people. If that is indeed the case, then it seems to me the choices
are either totally isolating "Palestinians" from Israelis or one side
bringing the other to its knees.
Bernie Woodham
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12d16fac-0c60-4032...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> I don't trust Novak as a source for this. ?But I think it's extremely
> unlikely that Obama would pick Hillary, if for no other reason than that
> he wouldn't want Bill looking over his shoulder.-
> I don't think they would get along. And Ted Kennedy for some reason
> has already issued a statement against it.
Kennedy's comments have caused a riff within the party. I don't believe
you'll hear him comment on the issue again. And I can't believe Obama would
make a VP decision based on who his wife likes anymore than on who Kennedy
likes.
This is hard to say. If it were offered to Hillary would she accept it? If
so, I think it would be a good idea to give it to her.
Who knows, maybe Rush Limbaugh would get all the Republicans to feel good
about it because she might do a Vince Foster job on Barack.
fatt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:12d16fac-0c60-4032...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I don't trust Novak as a source for this. ?But I think it's extremely
> > unlikely that Obama would pick Hillary, if for no other reason than that
> > he wouldn't want Bill looking over his shoulder.-
> > I don't think they would get along. And Ted Kennedy for some reason
> > has already issued a statement against it.
>
> Kennedy's comments have caused a riff within the party. I don't believe
> you'll hear him comment on the issue again.
His comments surprised me; I thought they were divisive.
And I can't believe Obama would
> make a VP decision based on who his wife likes anymore than on who Kennedy
> likes.
Agreed.
>
> This is hard to say. If it were offered to Hillary would she accept it? If
> so, I think it would be a good idea to give it to her.
>
> Who knows, maybe Rush Limbaugh would get all the Republicans to feel good
> about it because she might do a Vince Foster job on Barack.
I don't know what you mean by "do a Vince Foster job."
Dale Houstman
Although it is difficult to say what will happenn in politics, I don't
think picking Hillary would be an efficacious (or at least an
aesthetically pleasing) idea for Obama, as it seriously undercuts his
plea for a new sort of leadership. Dragging in the presumptive dynast in
a subservient position seems the stuff of a Shakespearean historical
tragedy rather than a stab at metamorphosis. She takes up way too much
air in the room. I think - at any rate (and if he is thinking in this
political manner) - he could go a long way (and he doesn't need to go
all that far) towards mending the "gender/race" gap he supposedly has by
simply choosing another well-thought of woman VP with less of the
racially tainted emoto-garbage Hillary (and Bill) have picked up in this
campaign. Personally, I think she has been ugly, and I want her to go
away and die in an Elephants' Graveyard for worn-out notions.
dmh
dmh