BUSH IN ISREAL
K9way
to the fact that he was lied to by government agencies, that lead to the
war in Iraq!!
isnt that exactly what some people on the left have done over the last few
years.. only to met with cries of UNPATRIOTIC, by the right ??
You gotta love this fuckin idiot!!
_______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Schmedley
"K9way" <poolpl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:v9urf5x...@recgroups.com...
> Today , Bush said that he was given bad information , and actually eluded
> to the fact that he was lied to by government agencies, that lead to the
> war in Iraq!!
>
> isnt that exactly what some people on the left have done over the last few
> years.. only to met with cries of UNPATRIOTIC, by the right ??
>
> You gotta love this fuckin idiot!!
>
>
He is totally tone deaf. And allowing Obama to run against him for a couple
of days is a gift that keeps on giving.
Irish Mike
"Schmedley" <schme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TeKdnR7NzcYx7LHV...@ptd.net...
When addressing the Israeli parliment President Bush also said that Obama's
[although he didn't use his name] plan to personally meet with Iran and
Syria with out any pre-conditions was apeasment. And that it was naieve,
wishful thinking to believe that the terrorists who have repeatedly sworn to
destroy Israel will suddendly change their ways if Obama just talks with
them.
Apparently Obama has islamic terrorists confused with the idiots who faint
at this feet when he does his stage show.
You've got Obama who, according to his own statements, wasn't percecptive
enough to figure out Jeremiah Wright's anti-American feelings after
listening to him for 20 years. Now he's going to sit down with islamic
terrorist leaders and know their real aganda? LOL.
Irish Mike
OrangeSFO
> I will hound this nigger Obama to the gates of hell for his choice of church. He
> wasn't percecptive
> enough to figure out Jeremiah Wright's anti-American feelings after
> listening to him for 20 years.
Did you get the memo Mike? Nobody but the dead-enders on the extreme
Right Wing give a shit about Rev Wright.
JerseyRudy
Once again you are unable to get Obama's actual position correct. He is no
plan to personally meet with the leaders of Iran or Syria without any
pre-conditions. He favors low-level talks with both countries, and he is
willing to meet with them persoanlly only if the actual talks lead to them
agreeing to conditions that indicate that higher-level talks would be
fruitful. This is far from appeasement; this is the recognition that we
can only make peace with our enemies if we are willing to talk with them,
and that refusing to talk with them over the last eight years has not
proven to be successful.
I would also add that Bush is being a hypocrite when he criticizes those
who advocate opening a dialogue with Iran. We have had low-level talks
with Iran during the course of the last two years regarding the situation
in Iraq.
I think the comments today of Joe Biden are also on-target:
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joe Biden,
D-Delaware, called President Bush’s comments accusing Sen. Barack Obama
and other Democrats of wanting to appease terrorists "bulls**t” and said
if the president disagrees so strongly with the idea of talking to Iran
then he needs to fire his secretaries of State and Defense, both of whom
Biden said have pushed to sit down with the Iranians.
“This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for
the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the
Knesset…and make this kind of ridiculous statement,” Biden said angrily in
a brief interview just off the Senate floor.
“He’s the guy who’s weakened us. He’s the guy that’s increased the number
of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability
the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out not me.
The NIE has pointed that out and what are you talking about, is he going
to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down. So
his first two appeasers are Rice and Gates. I hope he comes home and does
something.”
He quoted Gates saying Wednesday that we “need to figure out a way to
develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them.”
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
K9way
yeah Obama aint near as bright as this lame motherfucker who let em sneak
a war in on him, is he ??
Yeah , Bush is a fuckin "master Strategist".. or is it 'strategerist"?
>
> Irish Mike
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
FL Turbo
Yes, that is his position now that his advisors have had a few talks
with him telling him what to say.
Unfortunately for Obama, the Internet never forgets.
Obama was in full view at an earlier debate.
He was asked point blank if he would personally go and negotiate,
without any preconditions, with the leaders of Iran, Syria and North
Korea.
His answer was an enthusiastic, Hell, yes I would!!
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Can't I just eat my waffle?"
B.H. Obama
Irish Mike
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:i5tq24t4h7jgs28h1...@4ax.com...
I was going to post the same response. Obama fucked up when he originally
made the statement that he would personally, as President, meet with states
that sponsor terrorism with no pre-conditions. It was an incredibly stupid
thing to say and shows you just how naive and inexperienced he really is.
Then Obama compounded the mistake by repeating it multiple times. Now it's
a permanent part of his political record and was even posted on his web
site. Although I'm sure his handlers have deleted it by now.
Seriously, think about this for a minute. Obama wasn't percecptive enough
to figure out Jeremiah Wright's anti-American feelings after listening to
him for 20 years. Now he's going to sit down with islamic terrorist leaders
and know their real aganda?
Irish Mike
Joe Long
> Once again you are unable to get Obama's actual position correct. He is no
> plan to personally meet with the leaders of Iran or Syria without any
> pre-conditions. He favors low-level talks with both countries, and he is
> willing to meet with them persoanlly only if the actual talks lead to them
> agreeing to conditions that indicate that higher-level talks would be
> fruitful.
Then somebody better tell Obama, because that's not what he said. I
watched the debates where he said he would talk with any foreign leader,
any time, without preconditions. During followups he emphasized that.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
Susan
"Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:xMednV0T59NAnbPV...@giganews.com...
not only that, but he is puzzled why it is wrong.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/16/obama_puzzled_by_controversy_o.html
A Man Beaten by Jacks
>JerseyRudy wrote:
Unless you're so stupid that talking with you gives away more about
you than you get in return, talking with enemies is almost always
proper.
I could see if you were a moron like Bush that it wouldn't be in your
favor, but then, even if you were Bush you'd have someone capable of
speaking in adult sentences somewhere in your government. Well, maybe
not Bush, but pretty much anyone else.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
[Usual poor dumb Susan stuff snipped]
Another thing. It's ISRAEL.
I.e. if you say the sentence: "Israel is real" they
ARE NOT SPELLED THE SAME.
Susan
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in message
news:6hds24h99ear9seek...@4ax.com...
Irish Mike
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in message
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:47:08 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>JerseyRudy wrote:
>
>>> Once again you are unable to get Obama's actual position correct. He is
>>> no
>>> plan to personally meet with the leaders of Iran or Syria without any
>>> pre-conditions. He favors low-level talks with both countries, and he
>>> is
>>> willing to meet with them persoanlly only if the actual talks lead to
>>> them
>>> agreeing to conditions that indicate that higher-level talks would be
>>> fruitful.
>>Then somebody better tell Obama, because that's not what he said. I
>>watched the debates where he said he would talk with any foreign leader,
>>any time, without preconditions. During followups he emphasized that.
>
> Unless you're so stupid that talking with you gives away more about
> you than you get in return, talking with enemies is almost always
> proper.
It is never proper for the President of the United States to talk directly
with terrorist with out pre-conditions. It accomplishes nothing for America
but gives huge stature and credibility to the terrorist leaters. Stature
that they then use to show their followers how strong and important they
are. This is obvious to evey one but liberal morons like you.
Irish Mike
Joe Long
> Unless you're so stupid that talking with you gives away more about
> you than you get in return, talking with enemies is almost always
> proper.
Sure it is. And "why can't we all just get along?"
Let's all sing a couple of choruses of "Kumbaya" now.
(BTW, Winston Churchill said "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war," but he
didn't meet with Hitler.)
FL Turbo
>A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
>> Unless you're so stupid that talking with you gives away more about
>> you than you get in return, talking with enemies is almost always
>> proper.
>
>Sure it is. And "why can't we all just get along?"
>
>Let's all sing a couple of choruses of "Kumbaya" now.
>
>(BTW, Winston Churchill said "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war," but he
>didn't meet with Hitler.)
Bill Clinton said that he tried as hard as he could to get Arafat and
the Israelis to come to an agreement to end their conflict.
I'm not just saying that to be snarky about Clinton.
He did indeed do everything he could possibly do to get Arafat to
agree to make peace with Israel.
Supposedly, Arafat was the most frequent visitor in the White House
during that time.
Clinton could not close the deal.
Arafat ran away as fast as he could, even he was offered 90% of what
he asked for.
Again, this is no knock on Clinton.
Probably, every President in the modern era tried to do the same
thing.
They all had the one thing in common, namely failure.
Fast forward to today.
The Bush administration has also kept on trying, trying, and then
trying again.
We come again to the predictable end result.
Charlie Brown
Lucy
Football
ARGHH !!
We now have Barack Obama.
We have new HOPE.
As the old saying goes, hope in one hand and shit in the other one,
and see which one fills up first.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
>A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
>> Unless you're so stupid that talking with you gives away more about
>> you than you get in return, talking with enemies is almost always
>> proper.
>Sure it is. And "why can't we all just get along?"
>Let's all sing a couple of choruses of "Kumbaya" now.
If you're so fucking stupid you missed my point, don't emphasize it
by responding. Just STFU and save yourself the embarrassment. It was
a trivially easy point to understand.
Joe Long
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 20:54:21 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>>
>>> Unless you're so stupid that talking with you gives away more about
>>> you than you get in return, talking with enemies is almost always
>>> proper.
>
>> Sure it is. And "why can't we all just get along?"
>
>> Let's all sing a couple of choruses of "Kumbaya" now.
>
> If you're so fucking stupid you missed my point, don't emphasize it
> by responding. Just STFU and save yourself the embarrassment. It was
> a trivially easy point to understand.
Sure, your Bush-hatred comes through all the time.
So you really think that Obama is smart enough that he can go and meet
with Aminnejad or Hamas on their terms and not have them get far more
out of it than we would? Amazing.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
>A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 20:54:21 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unless you're so stupid that talking with you gives away more about
>>>> you than you get in return, talking with enemies is almost always
>>>> proper.
>>
>>> Sure it is. And "why can't we all just get along?"
>>
>>> Let's all sing a couple of choruses of "Kumbaya" now.
>>
>> If you're so fucking stupid you missed my point, don't emphasize it
>> by responding. Just STFU and save yourself the embarrassment. It was
>> a trivially easy point to understand.
>
>Sure, your Bush-hatred comes through all the time.
>So you really think that Obama is smart enough that he can go and meet
>with Aminnejad or Hamas on their terms and not have them get far more
>out of it than we would? Amazing.
And you honestly think these are some kind of preternatural fucking
geniuses? Obama was the President of Harvard Law Review. I think he
knows something about communication. If not he can hire someone who
does.
You have a pretty low opinion of Americans as compared to the leaders
of terrorist organizations and rathole barbaric satrapies.
Amazing.
Irish Mike
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 20:54:21 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>>
>>> Unless you're so stupid that talking with you gives away more about
>>> you than you get in return, talking with enemies is almost always
>>> proper.
>>
>>Sure it is. And "why can't we all just get along?"
>>
>>Let's all sing a couple of choruses of "Kumbaya" now.
>>
>>(BTW, Winston Churchill said "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war," but he
>>didn't meet with Hitler.)
>
>
> Bill Clinton said that he tried as hard as he could to get Arafat and
> the Israelis to come to an agreement to end their conflict.
>
> I'm not just saying that to be snarky about Clinton.
> He did indeed do everything he could possibly do to get Arafat to
> agree to make peace with Israel.
>
> Supposedly, Arafat was the most frequent visitor in the White House
> during that time.
>
> Clinton could not close the deal.
> Arafat ran away as fast as he could, even he was offered 90% of what
> he asked for.
Clinton actually offered Arafat more like 95% of what he was asking for.
But Arafat was afraid that if he accepted the peace treaty with Israel, he
would lose his strangle hold on the Palestinian people. For Arafat to stay
in power, he had to keep the muslims focused on hating the Israelis. So
instead of accepting the peace offer he went back and ordered the muslims to
start blowing up Israeli women and children.
Irish Mike
FL Turbo
A naive young President of Harvard Law Review would get absolutely
pwned by any old dictator of a rathole barbaric satrapy.
You think that the MessiahObama could persuade any Terrorist to give
up his only reason to exist?
You think that he could do any better than Bill Clinton?
Pfft.
If you do, then you are a Moron.
---------------------------------------------
Charley Brown
Lucy
Football
ARRGGH
Joe Long
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:22:49 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>> So you really think that Obama is smart enough that he can go and meet
>> with Aminnejad or Hamas on their terms and not have them get far more
>> out of it than we would? Amazing.
> And you honestly think these are some kind of preternatural fucking
> geniuses? Obama was the President of Harvard Law Review. I think he
> knows something about communication. If not he can hire someone who
> does.
He may have been President of the Harvard Law Review, but if he will
really go to their turf and meet with them on their terms, he's
incredibly naive.
> You have a pretty low opinion of Americans as compared to the leaders
> of terrorist organizations and rathole barbaric satrapies.
Not all Americans. Obama.
> Amazing.
Yes, isn't it?
JerseyRudy
The question in that debate was whether the candidates would be willing to
meet unconditionally with countries such as Iran and Syria. Obama
answered yes; his entire answer shows that he was answering yes in the
context of diplomatic discussions between the two countries, not a
discussion between him personally and the leader of the other country. The
remainder of his answer included the example of Ronald Reagan negotiating
with Soviet leaders privately while publically excoriating Soviet leaders.
Reagan did this by having his lowerlevel diplomats meet directly with
their Soviet counterparts. Reagan would talk to the Soviet leader (either
by phone or later in person) only after the initial meetings were
productive and showed a willingmess by the Soviets to compromise. This is
the example that Obama would follow.
Even if you want to just focus on the part of the Obama answer in which he
stated that yes he would be willing to meet with Syria and Iran
unconditionally, it shows a double standard by ignoring the fact that his
position has now clearly evolved form that basic "yes" answer. John
McCain initially expressed a willingness to meet with the leader of Hamas
after Hamas won the elections in Gaza, but his position has now clearly
evolved from that. Why are you not holding McCain to his initial answer?
This was McCain two years ago regarding Hamas:
‘They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with
them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and
previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their
dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but
practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the
lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that
they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.’”
"Can't I just eat my waffle?"
> J. McCain
______________________________________________________________________
JerseyRudy
That is what he has said, every time he has explained his policy,
including today:
Mr. Obama drew a distinction between his administration beginning
negotiations with Iran “without preconditions” and getting directly
involved himself. For that to take place, he said, Iran would have to meet
certain benchmarks or conditions. That was a reiteration of remarks that
he has made numerous times in the past year, though not in a YouTube
debate last July that the McCain camp has repeatedly cited.
Agreeing to begin talks without preconditions “does not mean we would not
have preparations,” Mr. Obama said. “Those preparations would involve
starting with low-level diplomatic contacts,” such as National Security
Council or State Department emissaries.
In addition to defending his own conception of diplomatic engagement, Mr.
Obama argued that it is Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain who have strayed from what
he described as a robust tradition of bilateral support for resolving
conflicts through direct negotiations — a tradition that ran from John F.
Kennedy to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. “What’s puzzling is that this
in any way would be controversial,” he said. “This has been the history of
U.S. diplomacy until very recently.”
Now this one YouTube debate last July that all the Republicans keep
emphasizing was a situation where Obama did answer "yes" to the question
of whether he would meet unconditionally with leaders of nations that are
our enemies; however he went on to say in the course of that same answer
that his model was the method President Reagan used when he met with the
Soviet Union in the mid-1980s (which Reagan was excoriated for at the time
by the Right Wing) - Reagan had low-level diplomats lay the groundwork
with their Soviet counterparts while at the same time he personally
conducted phone conversations with the Soviet leader and then when the
time was right for serious negotiations he met with them, with great
results.
I also would like to get an answer from the Obama critics about why they
keep emphasizing one part of one answer that Obama gave in one dabate last
July, rather than believing that all the other answers Obama has given on
this topic is actually his position; and yet they ignore the fact that
McCain gave a long detailed answer two years ago as to why the US needed
to consider directly talking with Hamas (something that Obama has never
agreed with). I believe McCain when he says that this one answer was not
an accurate indication of his position regarding negotiating with Hamas,
but how come all of these people who refuse to believe Obama's position
even though he keeps explaining it over and over again do not apply that
same standard to McCain? I would hate to think that Republicans are
actually being hypocrites and applying a double-standard
JerseyRudy
Who exactly is Hitler in your analogy? Is it the President of Iran?
Because if it is, then why is the Bush administration talking to Iran via
our Ambassador to Iraq? These are exactly the kind of lower-level
discussions that Obama is proposing. The only difference is that Obama is
upfront about engaging in this kind of necessary diplomacy, whereas the
Bush administration does it while at the same talking their tough macho
talk to the public. Why is it ok for the Bush adminsitration to have
low-level talks with Iran but not Obama? and if your answer is that Obama
said ONE time in ONE of the 21 debates that he would talk directly with
Iran without preconditions (before quickly explaining further that he
wanted to do exactly what Reagan did with the Soviets), then why are you
not similarly holding McCain to his one comment two years ago in which he
stated that we needed to talk directly with Hamas?
These are the questions that hypocrites will have trouble answering.
______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Joe Long
> The question in that debate was whether the candidates would be willing to
> meet unconditionally with countries such as Iran and Syria. Obama
> answered yes; his entire answer shows that he was answering yes in the
> context of diplomatic discussions between the two countries, not a
> discussion between him personally and the leader of the other country.
Bullshit. He was pressed on this issue and made it clear, more than
once, that he was declaring his willingness to meet with any foreign
leader without conditions (which means, on their terms). And was
applauded by the Left for saying so, with such sophistries as "We should
always be willing to negotiate."
> Even if you want to just focus on the part of the Obama answer in which he
> stated that yes he would be willing to meet with Syria and Iran
> unconditionally, it shows a double standard by ignoring the fact that his
> position has now clearly evolved form that basic "yes" answer.
He has, fortunately, backpedaled on this ... but I don't trust the
backpedaling. I think he still believes what he said.
John
> McCain initially expressed a willingness to meet with the leader of Hamas
> after Hamas won the elections in Gaza, but his position has now clearly
> evolved from that. Why are you not holding McCain to his initial answer?
> This was McCain two years ago regarding Hamas:
> ‘They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with
> them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and
> previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their
> dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but
> practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the
> lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that
> they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.’”
Of course, you conveniently left out the rest of McCain's statements at
the time, where he said they would have to renounce terrorism and accept
the existence of Israel before he would meet with them.
Joe Long
> On May 16 2008 5:47 PM, Joe Long wrote:
>> Then somebody better tell Obama, because that's not what he said. I
>> watched the debates where he said he would talk with any foreign leader,
>> any time, without preconditions. During followups he emphasized that.
> That is what he has said, every time he has explained his policy,
> including today:
>
> Mr. Obama drew a distinction between his administration beginning
> negotiations with Iran “without preconditions” and getting directly
> involved himself. For that to take place, he said, Iran would have to meet
> certain benchmarks or conditions. That was a reiteration of remarks that
> he has made numerous times in the past year, though not in a YouTube
> debate last July that the McCain camp has repeatedly cited.
>
> Agreeing to begin talks without preconditions “does not mean we would not
> have preparations,” Mr. Obama said. “Those preparations would involve
> starting with low-level diplomatic contacts,” such as National Security
> Council or State Department emissaries.
It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is?
"Ooooo, I love to do a little sidestep ..."
Joe Long
> On May 16 2008 10:54 PM, Joe Long wrote:
>> (BTW, Winston Churchill said "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war," but he
>> didn't meet with Hitler.)
> Who exactly is Hitler in your analogy? Is it the President of Iran?
No specific individual.
> Because if it is, then why is the Bush administration talking to Iran via
> our Ambassador to Iraq? These are exactly the kind of lower-level
> discussions that Obama is proposing. The only difference is that Obama is
> upfront about engaging in this kind of necessary diplomacy, whereas the
> Bush administration does it while at the same talking their tough macho
> talk to the public. Why is it ok for the Bush adminsitration to have
> low-level talks with Iran but not Obama? and if your answer is that Obama
> said ONE time in ONE of the 21 debates that he would talk directly with
> Iran without preconditions (before quickly explaining further that he
> wanted to do exactly what Reagan did with the Soviets), then why are you
> not similarly holding McCain to his one comment two years ago in which he
> stated that we needed to talk directly with Hamas?
Why are you comparing third-party passing of information with direct
head-of-state talks?
> These are the questions that hypocrites will have trouble answering.
Hypocrisy is using McCain's statement without including the part where
he said Hamas would have to renounce terrorism and accept the existence
of Israel before he would meet with them.
Yes, we have to "deal" with all kinds of repressive and violent regimes.
The British "dealt" with Germany during WWII, and we "dealt" with
Japan, through third parties. No one has suggested abandoning
diplomacy. The question is one of our head of State meeting with an
enemy head of State, on their terms. There are a great deal of symbolic
and propaganda considerations in such meetings, and they rarely
accomplish anything useful other than publicly sealing a deal that has
already been made.
I am happy to hear that Obama is modifying his position, if that is for
real. But that he proposed it at all tells us something about his
naivete in foreign affairs.
FL Turbo
<a44...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
Yeah, I see you got the memo from Obama Headquarters.
It looks like he now has Plan B.
Plan A has now officially been thrown under the bus.
Backpedaling worthy of an NFL quarterback.
>> Yes, that is his position now that his advisors have had a few talks
>> with him telling him what to say.
>>
>> Unfortunately for Obama, the Internet never forgets.
>>
>> Obama was in full view at an earlier debate.
>> He was asked point blank if he would personally go and negotiate,
>> without any preconditions, with the leaders of Iran, Syria and North
>> Korea.
>>
>> His answer was an enthusiastic, Hell, yes I would!!
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "Can't I just eat my waffle?"
>> B.H. Obama
>
>
>The question in that debate was whether the candidates would be willing to
>meet unconditionally with countries such as Iran and Syria. Obama
>answered yes; his entire answer shows that he was answering yes in the
>context of diplomatic discussions between the two countries, not a
>discussion between him personally and the leader of the other country. The
>remainder of his answer included the example of Ronald Reagan negotiating
>with Soviet leaders privately while publically excoriating Soviet leaders.
> Reagan did this by having his lowerlevel diplomats meet directly with
>their Soviet counterparts. Reagan would talk to the Soviet leader (either
>by phone or later in person) only after the initial meetings were
>productive and showed a willingmess by the Soviets to compromise. This is
>the example that Obama would follow.
>
Yes, Plan B.
>Even if you want to just focus on the part of the Obama answer in which he
>stated that yes he would be willing to meet with Syria and Iran
>unconditionally, it shows a double standard by ignoring the fact that his
>position has now clearly evolved form that basic "yes" answer. John
>McCain initially expressed a willingness to meet with the leader of Hamas
>after Hamas won the elections in Gaza, but his position has now clearly
>evolved from that. Why are you not holding McCain to his initial answer?
>This was McCain two years ago regarding Hamas:
>
Does Obama Headquarters now recommend the ButMcCain argument to
counter Obama's naivety?
That spinning is barely adequate.
Not nearly up to the standards for a World Class ballerina.
>禅hey're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with
>them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and
>previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their
>dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but
>practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the
>lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that
>they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.樗
>
The astute reader may discern that McCain was not making any promise
to negotiate with Hamas leadership without any pre-conditions.
Was he?
Sorry, Jersey, but your analogy here is not even apples to oranges.
It's more like apples to lampshades.
da pickle
> I am happy to hear that Obama is modifying his position, if that is for
> real. But that he proposed it at all tells us something about his naivete
> in foreign affairs.
Not going to be a good election this year ... one is going to be too young
and inexperienced (with some bad choices in advisers exhibited) and the
other is going to be too old and his experiences do not seem so great
either. Combine that with more conservative losses in the legislature that
seem probable (not that the "conservatives" there for the last eight years
acted like conservatives). Not going to be good for the next four years.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
>A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:22:49 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> So you really think that Obama is smart enough that he can go and meet
>>> with Aminnejad or Hamas on their terms and not have them get far more
>>> out of it than we would? Amazing.
>> And you honestly think these are some kind of preternatural fucking
>> geniuses? Obama was the President of Harvard Law Review. I think he
>> knows something about communication. If not he can hire someone who
>> does.
>He may have been President of the Harvard Law Review, but if he will
>really go to their turf and meet with them on their terms, he's
>incredibly naive.
Who said "meet with them on their terms?" Sounds to me like you're
twisting, hard. Not surprising from you, though, pretty much par for
the course.
da pickle
> Who said "meet with them on their terms?" Sounds to me like you're
> twisting, hard. Not surprising from you, though, pretty much par for
> the course.
Why not invite them to the White House? What does he have to say? What
does he expect to hear?
A Man Beaten by Jacks
Because inviting someone to the White House is itself a statement of
regard. While you might invite someone you don't "like" to the White
House, you certainly would not invite them there without good reason
for doing so.
In diplomacy, everything from where you meet to who you send to what
you eat is part of the message. Often these other details are more
important than what is actually said.
When playing poker, do you pay attention to someone's table patter
more than you pay attention to what they're looking at, what they're
doing with their hands, etc.?
You "talk to someone" in diplomacy just as much to get a read off them
as to actually communicate. Communication, you could do by letter.
Anyone who ever supported Bush pretty much loses that contest. If
they can't tell a slouching, smirking retard with the body language of
an unruly teenager was an unfit leader to communicate with the world,
they have nothing to say to me. I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that Obama
would be better than Bush at that. (Which isn't to say that McCain
wouldn't be fit; but in his case, I doubt the actual content of his
communication would be useful.)
da pickle
>>> Who said "meet with them on their terms?" Sounds to me like you're
>>> twisting, hard. Not surprising from you, though, pretty much par for
>>> the course.
>
>>Why not invite them to the White House? What does he have to say? What
>>does he expect to hear?
>
> Because inviting someone to the White House is itself a statement of
> regard. While you might invite someone you don't "like" to the White
> House, you certainly would not invite them there without good reason
> for doing so.
So, where was the Senator talking about meeting those thugs without
preconditions? Their house?
Dutch
news:9vudnaroda_...@giganews.com...
Huh? Huh?
Witnessing the death throes of the American Right is very entertaining, this
seems to be a good newsgroup to observe it. I can't recall a more
well-deserved fate in recent political history.
da pickle
Try to stay on subject, Dutch.
Dutch
> "Dutch"
>
> Try
Give me something to work with besides your confusion.
da pickle
>> Try to stay on subject, Dutch.
>
> Give me something to work with besides your confusion.
Are you still a racist?
A Man Beaten by Jacks
Obviously he was talking about meeting them at the Blue Moon with
Popinjay as moderator.
Try to keep up.
Dutch
Just keep pointing your finger, it'll all go away eventually...
This isn't really happening either
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/05/09/e-mails_show_racism_in_secret_service/7854/
da pickle
>> Are you still a racist?
No answer? You said you were a racist, I wondered if you still are.
da pickle
>>So, where was the Senator talking about meeting those thugs without
>>preconditions? Their house?
>>
>>What does he have to say?
>>
>>What does he expect to hear?
>
> Obviously he was talking about meeting them at the Blue Moon with
> Popinjay as moderator.
So, when asked a simple question, you guys just run for the beer. Sad.
Joe Long
Obama said it, of course. More than once. On camera, it's on the
record. "Without preconditions" means that you accept the other guy's
terms.
What I find amusing about this whole thing is that Bush didn't mention
anyone by name, but the Democrats start defending Obama -- not Hillary.
Making it obvious who the Democrats understand Bush to be referring
to. Or, "If the shoe fits ..."
A Man Beaten by Jacks
>A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:47:09 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> He may have been President of the Harvard Law Review, but if he will
>>> really go to their turf and meet with them on their terms, he's
>>> incredibly naive.
>> Who said "meet with them on their terms?" Sounds to me like you're
>> twisting, hard. Not surprising from you, though, pretty much par for
>> the course.
>Obama said it, of course. More than once. On camera, it's on the
>record. "Without preconditions" means that you accept the other guy's
>terms.
No it doesn't. Preconditions are conditions precedent. It clearly
means some political action prerequisite to talking at all. It has
nothing to do with accepting your opponent's terms concerning the
actual communication itself.
But whatever. Get ready to lose.
>What I find amusing about this whole thing is that Bush didn't mention
>anyone by name, but the Democrats start defending Obama -- not Hillary.
> Making it obvious who the Democrats understand Bush to be referring
>to. Or, "If the shoe fits ..."
He said exactly the same thing a few months ago, specifically
referring to Obama. Why would he mean anyone different this time?
Dutch
> "Dutch"
>
>>> Are you still a racist?
>
> No answer? You said you were a racist, I wondered if you still are.
You sure get all pissy when you hear points of view you can't process.
Irish Mike
"Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:QdqdnT1JDoJHYLPV...@giganews.com...
Absolutely! It's called pre-conditions, which is a concept Obama has yet to
grasp.
Irish Mike
Irish Mike
Bingo! It was an incredibly stupid thing for Obama to say and now the
Democrats are stuck with it.
Irish Mike
Irish Mike
The Republicans forgot their conservative values and started acting as
stupid as liberal Democrats. Republicans need to get back to being the
party of smaller government, lower taxes, economic growth and strong
national defense.
Irish Mike
Clave
news:PqQXj.4339$7k7....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
You're funny.
Jim
Irish Mike
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in message
news:nj6u24lh4ku5rdc0r...@4ax.com...
When the president agrees to personally meet with terrorist countries, with
out pre-conditions, he is meeting them on their terms. Democrats need to
just admit that Obama made an incredibly stupid and naive statement and move
on from there. The longer Obama tries to spin, defend and justify this
foreign relations blunder, the weaker and dumber it makes him look.
Irish Mike
Clave
>
> "A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in message
> news:nj6u24lh4ku5rdc0r...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:47:09 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:22:49 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> So you really think that Obama is smart enough that he can go and meet
>>>>> with Aminnejad or Hamas on their terms and not have them get far more
>>>>> out of it than we would? Amazing.
>>
>>>> And you honestly think these are some kind of preternatural fucking
>>>> geniuses? Obama was the President of Harvard Law Review. I think he
>>>> knows something about communication. If not he can hire someone who
>>>> does.
>>
>>>He may have been President of the Harvard Law Review, but if he will
>>>really go to their turf and meet with them on their terms, he's
>>>incredibly naive.
>>
>> Who said "meet with them on their terms?" Sounds to me like you're
>> twisting, hard. Not surprising from you, though, pretty much par for
>> the course.
>
> When the president agrees to personally meet with terrorist countries,
> with out pre-conditions, he is meeting them on their terms.
Horseshit. You're grabbing at anything. Understandably so.
Jim
Irish Mike
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:J8HXj.145771$rd2.92629@pd7urf3no...
I wouldn't declare conservatives dead yet. Obama still has to win the
election and unless he can figure a way to get white working class Democrats
to vote for him, it my be his political death you'll be celebrating.
Irish Mike
>
>
Irish Mike
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:CJSdnar_i4S2SLLV...@cablespeedwa.com...
Obama, clearly understand.
Obama made a stupid, naive statement and now he's in full back-pedal. The
more he tries to spin, defend and justify his blunder the dumber it makes
him look.
Irish Mike
>
da pickle
>>>> Are you still a racist?
>>
>> No answer? You said you were a racist, I wondered if you still are.
>
> You sure get all pissy when you hear points of view you can't process.
Not pissy at all ... just want to know. If you are still a racist in your
own mind, one can understand where you comments come from and if you feel
you have conquered your racism, one can keep that in mind as well.
da pickle
> The Republicans forgot their conservative values and started acting as
> stupid as liberal Democrats. Republicans need to get back to being the
> party of smaller government, lower taxes, economic growth and strong
> national defense.
This is correct. Unfortunately, it will not be happening for at least four
or more years.
Clave
Are you as concerned with all of McCain's flipflops on virtually *every*
issue of any importance?
Of course not. You fixate on grammatical minutae, and even then only
Obama's. Which also makes your opinions about Obama worth less than a
bucket of warm spit.
So to speak.
Jim
Clave
HJARF!
Or never...
Jim
Irish Mike
Have you got something caught in your throat or are you attempting to
communicate an actual thougth?
Irish Mike
Clave
I answered that question in the part of my post you so childishly snipped.
Jim
Dutch
They'll vote for him once the party unites. The Clintons will tell them to.
Dutch
> "Dutch"
>
>>>>> Are you still a racist?
>>>
>>> No answer? You said you were a racist, I wondered if you still are.
>>
>> You sure get all pissy when you hear points of view you can't process.
>
> Not pissy at all ... just want to know.
You keep snipping my comments and repeating the same loaded question, that's
being pissy.
> If you are still a racist in your own mind, one can understand where you
> comments come from and if you feel you have conquered your racism, one can
> keep that in mind as well.
I've never been particularly inclined towards racism, sexism, classism, or
"looks-ism" or any of the many prejudices that dominate the collective
consciousness. Maybe I'm lucky but I've always been more inclined to look at
the essence of people as indivduals rather than identifying them with any
group. However, since I grew up in the culture, using the language of the
culture, watching and hearing racist and sexist stereotypes throughout my
life, those things form part of my worldview. The way I deal with them is
through being consciously aware of them, such as if I hear an offensive joke
that demeans women or blacks, I consciously try to judge that the humor
value is outweighed by the divisiveness and unfairness in it, and reject it.
Everyone should do this in my opinion. I fail to see why this makes you
defensive.
da pickle
> I've never been particularly inclined towards racism, sexism, classism, or
> "looks-ism" or any of the many prejudices that dominate the collective
> consciousness.
Good for you. You must not be very old. You must not live in ... say, New
York. You might be Canadian. But you missed the sort of "-ism" which you
do seem to have ... you seem inclined to stereotype people quite quickly and
seriously without knowing much of anything about them. You seem to believe
that you know what they believe and you feel superior and paternal toward
them ... this is a different sort of prejudice. You believe you are above
the rest of the inhabitants of the collective consciousness. That sort of
arrogance is something you might consider working on.
Irish Mike
Doesn't all that spinning ever made you dizzy?
Irish Mike
>
>
Irish Mike
Sure they will bucko. And if you believe that, then Hillary doesn't plan to
run in 2012 and I've got some prime ocean front property for sale in Kansas.
Irish Mike
>
Dutch
> "Dutch"
>
>> I've never been particularly inclined towards racism, sexism, classism,
>> or "looks-ism" or any of the many prejudices that dominate the collective
>> consciousness.
>
> Good for you. You must not be very old.
Why do you say that? I'm plenty old enough, probably older than you. What
difference does it make?
> You must not live in ... say, New York.
Why do you say that? Is it hard to live there and not be a racist?
> You might be Canadian.
So? Do you think Canadian culture isn't racist, sexist and all the rest?
America doesn't have a patent on prejudice.
> But you missed the sort of "-ism" which you do seem to have
I've heard you harp on this before, "seem" is the operative word here. This
is a hangup you have that has nothing to do with me.
>... you seem inclined to stereotype people quite quickly and seriously
>without knowing much of anything about them.
You mean like you're doing to me right now? Who have I stereotyped? Beldin
is a clown, but that's not a stereotype, it's an observation of an
indivdual.
> You seem to believe that you know what they believe and you feel superior
> and paternal toward them ... this is a different sort of prejudice. You
> believe you are above the rest of the inhabitants of the collective
> consciousness. That sort of arrogance is something you might consider
> working on.
I would, except it's some sort of weird fantasy you have about me, and I
have no control over those. If I sound confident about what I say, and if
that annoys you, that's an issue that you need to resolve. I'll tell you
without a doubt that I am extremely open to change my views by any rational
argument. What does not impress me however are insults and smart-ass
remarks.
Dutch
With respect Mike, it's already happening. Hillary is presenting herself
today in Kentucky as the better of two excellent candidates, she defended
Obama against attacks from Bush on foreign policy. Hillary's no fool, she
knows that this race is all but over and if she were to submarine the
Democratic chances in this election she would have NO chance to be the
candidate in 2012. Hillary will concede after June 3 and will continue to
fight on to get The Dems elected.
da pickle
>>> I've never been particularly inclined towards racism, sexism, classism,
>>> or "looks-ism" or any of the many prejudices that dominate the
>>> collective consciousness.
>>
>> Good for you. You must not be very old.
>
> Why do you say that? I'm plenty old enough, probably older than you. What
> difference does it make?
I am 63 next week. You? You don't write with much maturity. For some,
there is something to be gained over the years.
>> You must not live in ... say, New York.
>
> Why do you say that? Is it hard to live there and not be a racist?
There is indeed a lot of racism in New York. Did you not know that? You
seem to proffer yourself as somewhat of an expert on the subject.
>> You might be Canadian.
>
> So? Do you think Canadian culture isn't racist, sexist and all the rest?
> America doesn't have a patent on prejudice.
Since I did not say that nor infer that, your jumping to conclusions rather
than asking questions again denotes a lack of maturity. Some Canadians seem
to believe they are smarter than folks in the lower part of North America
... perhaps you are Canadian.
>> But you missed the sort of "-ism" which you do seem to have
>
> I've heard you harp on this before, "seem" is the operative word here.
> This is a hangup you have that has nothing to do with me.
It has everything to do with you. You just do not SEEM to be able to
recognize it.
>>... you seem inclined to stereotype people quite quickly and seriously
>>without knowing much of anything about them.
>
> You mean like you're doing to me right now? Who have I stereotyped? Beldin
> is a clown, but that's not a stereotype, it's an observation of an
> indivdual.
Beldin is actually quite intelligent, but he often resorts to childish
vulgarity. He also has the same sort of arrogance as you exhibit, and
sometimes he is wrong and sometimes he is right. He seldom knows which is
which.
You have stereotyped everyone except yourself.
>> You seem to believe that you know what they believe and you feel superior
>> and paternal toward them ... this is a different sort of prejudice. You
>> believe you are above the rest of the inhabitants of the collective
>> consciousness. That sort of arrogance is something you might consider
>> working on.
>
> I would, except it's some sort of weird fantasy you have about me, and I
> have no control over those. If I sound confident about what I say, and if
> that annoys you, that's an issue that you need to resolve. I'll tell you
> without a doubt that I am extremely open to change my views by any
> rational argument. What does not impress me however are insults and
> smart-ass remarks.
You have said that you have lots of control of yourself. You can say that
you are open to change your views, but you express no reason to believe that
you are being truthful with yourself. The insults and smart-ass remarks
have been directed at you by Beldin, no me. You need to decide which are
actually correct and which are incorrect. Only you can find the errors you
make.
Clave
Don't flatter yourself. I've seen spin *lots* better than yours.
Jim
Irish Mike
Hillary doesn't have to "submarine" any thing. This campaign has
permanently knocked Obama off his rock star pedestal. He's made some major
blunders and there is serious doubt he will be able to get enough white
working class Democrats and independents to win. Hillary will go through
the motions of supporting Obama at her concession speech and she'll say she
encourages her supporters to support Obama. Then she'll sit back and
privately root for McCain. I believe you seriously under estimate the
amount of genuine dislike there is between Obama's camp and the Clintons.
Look for Hillary in 2012
Irish Mike
Irish Mike
I'm glad to hear that Dutch, because the following is definitely a view
you've never considered before:
"Bad schools, crime, drugs, high taxes, the Social Security mess, the health
care "crisis", unemployment, welfare state dependency, illegitimacy - and
race and racism. What do these issues have in common? So called black
leaders - aided and abetted by the mainstream media, and cheered on by the
Democratic party - lie to us about them. They lie about the cause. They lie
about the effect. They lie about the solutions. They make the most
outrageous statements - and get away with it. Why? Many people refuse to
challenge these outrageous statements for fear that they will be branded as
racist. Others say nothing because keeping blacks angry and unduly
concerned about racism advances the political agenda of the Democratic
Party. In reality, the formula for success is simple: work hard, make
sacrifices, focus on education, delay gratification, avoid bad moral
mistakes and maintain optimism." Larry Elder, "Stupid Black Men, How To
Play The Race Card - And Lose"
Irish Mike
>
>
>
Dutch
> "Dutch"
>
>>>> I've never been particularly inclined towards racism, sexism, classism,
>>>> or "looks-ism" or any of the many prejudices that dominate the
>>>> collective consciousness.
>>>
>>> Good for you. You must not be very old.
>>
>> Why do you say that? I'm plenty old enough, probably older than you. What
>> difference does it make?
>
>
> I am 63 next week. You?
63 last month
> You don't write with much maturity.
To quote John McCain, "Thanks, ya little jerk." ;>)
> For some, there is something to be gained over the years.
No doubt.
>>> You must not live in ... say, New York.
>>
>> Why do you say that? Is it hard to live there and not be a racist?
>
>
> There is indeed a lot of racism in New York. Did you not know that? You
> seem to proffer yourself as somewhat of an expert on the subject.
If you consider what you just said, you're illustrating my point. Why should
that matter? Racism like many ideas, is in the public consciousness, more or
less so in certain cultural and geographic regions. Whatever those
influences may be, our challenge as responsible individuals is to separate
those things we believe consciously and those things which we believe
because we haven't examined them. Until now you seemed to reject the notion
that we have these influences to deal with.
>>> You might be Canadian.
>>
>> So? Do you think Canadian culture isn't racist, sexist and all the rest?
>> America doesn't have a patent on prejudice.
>
>
> Since I did not say that nor infer that, your jumping to conclusions
> rather than asking questions again denotes a lack of maturity. Some
> Canadians seem to believe they are smarter than folks in the lower part of
> North America ... perhaps you are Canadian.
I am. Canadians do have a unique perspective on America, which is probably
why our comedians to so well down there. On your point, I'd say the
stereotype of the dumb southern redneck is also in the northern states. You
don't often see an intellectual portrayed in the flim or TV media with a
thick Arkansas accent.
>>> But you missed the sort of "-ism" which you do seem to have
>>
>> I've heard you harp on this before, "seem" is the operative word here.
>> This is a hangup you have that has nothing to do with me.
>
>
> It has everything to do with you. You just do not SEEM to be able to
> recognize it.
I've been posting to usenet regularly for at least 10 years, I've never
heard that criticism before.
Maybe it's you. I would suggest that the arrogance you perceive in my posts
may be a reflection of something about yourself that you don't wish to
acknowledge.
>>>... you seem inclined to stereotype people quite quickly and seriously
>>>without knowing much of anything about them.
>>
>> You mean like you're doing to me right now? Who have I stereotyped?
>> Beldin is a clown, but that's not a stereotype, it's an observation of an
>> indivdual.
>
>
> Beldin is actually quite intelligent,
I suppose you'd know, I haven't seen it. His observations seem very
superficial to me.
> but he often resorts to childish vulgarity.
Its not vulgarity, I don't mind that, its the constant use of ad hominem to
bolster his remarks.
> He also has the same sort of arrogance as you exhibit, and sometimes he is
> wrong and sometimes he is right. He seldom knows which is which.
How do you know if he's wrong or right? All you can say with any assurance
is whether or not you agree with him.
> You have stereotyped everyone except yourself.
I haven't stereotyped anyone that know of.
>>> You seem to believe that you know what they believe and you feel
>>> superior and paternal toward them ... this is a different sort of
>>> prejudice. You believe you are above the rest of the inhabitants of the
>>> collective consciousness. That sort of arrogance is something you might
>>> consider working on.
>>
>> I would, except it's some sort of weird fantasy you have about me, and I
>> have no control over those. If I sound confident about what I say, and if
>> that annoys you, that's an issue that you need to resolve. I'll tell you
>> without a doubt that I am extremely open to change my views by any
>> rational argument. What does not impress me however are insults and
>> smart-ass remarks.
>
>
> You have said that you have lots of control of yourself.
I don't recall saying that.
> You can say that you are open to change your views, but you express no
> reason to believe that you are being truthful with yourself.
The reason is that I have done so a lot, and that notwithstanding your
perception, I have a policy of not automatically believing in my own
opinions, even as I express them, any more than I automatically believe in
yours. I routinely question everything I think and say. Navel-gazing
somebody here called it.
> The insults and smart-ass remarks have been directed at you by Beldin, no
> me. You need to decide which are actually correct and which are
> incorrect. Only you can find the errors you make.
I think that if you are interested in a truly fruitful dialogue you should
concentrate on the substance of my comments and forget this idea that I am
too arrogant. Even if it were true, it isn't that relevant to the opinions I
present.
Dutch
I don't mind that, I like her a lot, I just like Obama better for the job
right now. I actually like McCain too, but he's handicapped by being a
Republican at the wrong time.
Dutch
I hear the same message delivered by Bill Cosby, speaking straight to black
males about the doing the right things in life and the formula for success.
As far as all the anti-Democratic party rhetoric, some of it may be true,
but since the guy obviously has an axe to grind I would take his statements
on that score with a couple of pounds of salt.
6ballman
Dutch wrote:
> "Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:6yQXj.4341$7k7....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Witnessing the death throes of the American Right is very
>>> entertaining, this seems to be a good newsgroup to observe it. I
>>> can't recall a more well-deserved fate in recent political history.
>>
>> I wouldn't declare conservatives dead yet. Obama still has to win
>> the election and unless he can figure a way to get white working
>> class Democrats to vote for him, it my be his political death you'll
>> be celebrating.
>
Could be, bucko, except, there are NO conservatives running for
president on the (R) or (D) tickets...
Who will you vote for to support you supposed conservative leanings?
Conservatism has no support in the major parties any more.
The Dems certainly have liberal tendencies, but are every bit as bought
as their opponents. Repubs have abandoned conservatism for reactionary
traits. They have been corrupted by the religious fanatics and corporate
wanks.
I do not believe you are a conservative for one moment. You are simply
someone who has been programmed to hate democrats. You bleed republican
red bucko, and no amount of McCain's liberal leanings and corporate
support will keep you from pulling the R lever on the presidential line
come November. Nothing short of McCain committing a capital crime will
keep you offa that lever. Even then, you would vote for him as your duty
to try to keep a democrat out of the white house, regardless of what
they say or do. That (D) next to a name on a ballot is the mark of the
devil for you and similar buckos, bucko!
What a joke!
--
The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice.
It is conformity.
-Rollo May in "Man's Search For Himself"
Irish Mike
Well Dutch, you should also watch a "doculog" called "What Black Men Think"
by Janks Morton. It is one of the most revealing, unbiased and insightful
views of current black culture in America that you will ever see. But not
to worry bucko. You and I both know that you'd no more watch it than you
would ever read Larry Elder's book. Much less mentally taxing to just sit
back and watch Al Sharpton play the next race card.
Irish Mike
>
>
da pickle
>>>> You must not live in ... say, New York.
>>>
>>> Why do you say that? Is it hard to live there and not be a racist?
>>
>> There is indeed a lot of racism in New York. Did you not know that? You
>> seem to proffer yourself as somewhat of an expert on the subject.
>
> If you consider what you just said, you're illustrating my point. Why
> should that matter? Racism like many ideas, is in the public
> consciousness, more or less so in certain cultural and geographic regions.
> Whatever those influences may be, our challenge as responsible individuals
> is to separate those things we believe consciously and those things which
> we believe because we haven't examined them. Until now you seemed to
> reject the notion that we have these influences to deal with.
Well, as much as you wish to deny it, you seem to have decided that you have
an ability to discern when someone (including yourself) has "examined"
"those things" and decide which are ... you haven't used a word so I will
substitute "good" for what you seem to be trying to say ... and by "good" is
meant, "these things" should be followed and if what you examine is "bad"
then it should be rejected.
Then you have the (arrogance) to pontificant that if someone has not
"examined those things" to your satisfaction, those poor folks are just in
denial. This is presented in a race relations context herein, but it is
also proffered in other areas as well.
You might (and I do not know what is going on in your head) be grappling
with the concept of "free will." You seem to have a high opinion of your
opinion and I have great respect for that. But often (perhaps like yours
truly) you are a little too positive in your interpretation of your world
view.
>>>> You might be Canadian.
>>>
>>> So? Do you think Canadian culture isn't racist, sexist and all the rest?
>>> America doesn't have a patent on prejudice.
>>
>> Since I did not say that nor infer that, your jumping to conclusions
>> rather than asking questions again denotes a lack of maturity. Some
>> Canadians seem to believe they are smarter than folks in the lower part
>> of North America ... perhaps you are Canadian.
>
> I am. Canadians do have a unique perspective on America, which is probably
> why our comedians to so well down there. On your point, I'd say the
> stereotype of the dumb southern redneck is also in the northern states.
> You don't often see an intellectual portrayed in the flim or TV media with
> a thick Arkansas accent.
By your own admission, your unique perspective on America is prejudiced. I
hope you examine "that thing" for the bias that you seem to fail to see in
your posts. (I have my own bias and prejudice received from my own local,
neighborhood, region, state, country and many other cultural inflences ...
those things are part of me. They are part of you, but they are all
different.) The stereotype is certainly not unique to the northern states
... you have plenty of stereotyping going on yourself. You seem to like
"grouping" folks ... you seem to dismiss the individual nature of everyone
and prefer to concentrate of group-think. This is not "bad" or "good" ...
it is just an observation.
>>>> But you missed the sort of "-ism" which you do seem to have
>>>
>>> I've heard you harp on this before, "seem" is the operative word here.
>>> This is a hangup you have that has nothing to do with me.
>>
>> It has everything to do with you. You just do not SEEM to be able to
>> recognize it.
>
> I've been posting to usenet regularly for at least 10 years, I've never
> heard that criticism before.
Maybe you were not listening. I have the opinion that you are quite an
interesting person who is quite well read and obviously well educated. You
appear to have the sort of personality that I self-ascribe to myself. (I
too have a high opinion of my opinion.)
> Maybe it's you. I would suggest that the arrogance you perceive in my
> posts may be a reflection of something about yourself that you don't wish
> to acknowledge.
Oh, I do acknowledge it ... it is you we are talking about. :-)
>>>>... you seem inclined to stereotype people quite quickly and seriously
>>>>without knowing much of anything about them.
>>>
>>> You mean like you're doing to me right now? Who have I stereotyped?
>>> Beldin is a clown, but that's not a stereotype, it's an observation of
>>> an indivdual.
>>
>> Beldin is actually quite intelligent,
>
> I suppose you'd know, I haven't seen it. His observations seem very
> superficial to me.
Well, you may be newer to this group than I realize. (At one time I
believed you to be a sockpuppet from an older poster to this goup. Either
that was a misplaced belief or you are even better than I thought.) Beldin
is very well read and quite articulate in many scientific areas. He is
terrible, however, in expressing his position, even when he know of what he
speaks. He thinks he is someone who "does not suffer fools gladly," but he
is no Paul preaching to the Corinthians. He also does not stop every now
and then and admit to himself (he need not admit it here) that he might be
wrong.
>> but he often resorts to childish vulgarity.
>
> Its not vulgarity, I don't mind that, its the constant use of ad hominem
> to bolster his remarks.
That too.
>> He also has the same sort of arrogance as you exhibit, and sometimes he
>> is wrong and sometimes he is right. He seldom knows which is which.
>
> How do you know if he's wrong or right? All you can say with any assurance
> is whether or not you agree with him.
Well, how can you say that you are wrong or right in saying that I cannot
say that he is wrong sometimes and right sometimes?
I just believe that "sometimes" (usually in a thread about "the law" in
which I have him out educated and experienced) I have the better grip on
what is right and I can be quite assured that he is wrong.
>> You have stereotyped everyone except yourself.
>
> I haven't stereotyped anyone that know of.
Perhaps you believe that your posts do not express any prejudice or bias in
the "grouping" you sometimes exhibit. You might be wrong.
>>>> You seem to believe that you know what they believe and you feel
>>>> superior and paternal toward them ... this is a different sort of
>>>> prejudice. You believe you are above the rest of the inhabitants of
>>>> the collective consciousness. That sort of arrogance is something you
>>>> might consider working on.
>>>
>>> I would, except it's some sort of weird fantasy you have about me, and I
>>> have no control over those. If I sound confident about what I say, and
>>> if that annoys you, that's an issue that you need to resolve. I'll tell
>>> you without a doubt that I am extremely open to change my views by any
>>> rational argument. What does not impress me however are insults and
>>> smart-ass remarks.
>>
>> You have said that you have lots of control of yourself.
>
> I don't recall saying that.
I guess we will have a little difficulty here in communicating ... you do
seem to have posted that everyone in the collective conscienceness has had
ingrained certain "things" that you have "examined" and continue to ignore
or overcome or something that makes you able to recognize that others are
"in denial" that they do not recognize ... or something complicated like
that. I infer from all the words spilt that you have control over "those
things" that you have "examined." Correct my interpretation.
>> You can say that you are open to change your views, but you express no
>> reason to believe that you are being truthful with yourself.
>
> The reason is that I have done so a lot, and that notwithstanding your
> perception, I have a policy of not automatically believing in my own
> opinions, even as I express them, any more than I automatically believe in
> yours. I routinely question everything I think and say. Navel-gazing
> somebody here called it.
Omphaloskepsis and other forms of meditation are interesting ... I doubt
that you mean it literally. I also presume that you do not sit and chant a
mantra. Nor do I think you spend a lot of time in the lotus position.
Everyone here thinks about their positions ... some more than others ...
some "better" than others. We all judge ourselves and others. In this one
post, you have revealed more about yourself than in any other post you have
made in this group ... in my opinion. I will take all this in and will
likely read future posts with more nuance and, perhaps, more respect. I
have enjoyed this post a lot.
>> The insults and smart-ass remarks have been directed at you by Beldin, no
>> me. You need to decide which are actually correct and which are
>> incorrect. Only you can find the errors you make.
>
> I think that if you are interested in a truly fruitful dialogue you should
> concentrate on the substance of my comments and forget this idea that I am
> too arrogant. Even if it were true, it isn't that relevant to the opinions
> I present.
You seem to have not been able to get past Beldin's insults and smart-assed
remarks to reach the substance of his posts. (I sometimes have the same
difficulty ... with Beldin and with some others.) The manner of
presentation can sometimes (eventually) completely obliterate any possible
"fruitful dialogue" and sometimes all you want to do is say STFD and STFU.
It is a sad fact that no matter how good we might try to be, some folks just
get on our nerves. It is our failure and their success when we resort of ad
hominem.
Thank you for your responses and comments in your post.
da pickle
> I hear the same message delivered by Bill Cosby, speaking straight to
> black males about the doing the right things in life and the formula for
> success. As far as all the anti-Democratic party rhetoric, some of it may
> be true, but since the guy obviously has an axe to grind I would take his
> statements on that score with a couple of pounds of salt.
It is possible that the Democratic leadership is "using" black culture
resentment and anger for less than noble purposes.
(This is not to in any way mean that Republicans don't "use" parts of their
core for less than noble purposes.)
There is a political payoff for the Democratic Party in keeping "blacks" as
a group (and that group includes everyone that thinks that "corporate
america" or "the man" or whatever "king-substitute") angry and resentful.
Starting last Sunday, there was a four part article in the Dallas Morning
News ... a frank discussion of black culture.
If you or anyone is interested, you can start here:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/localnews/columnists/jragland/vitindex.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/3rwz5j
Dutch
Look, it's not difficult to discern, arrogance has nothing to do with it. I
state that racism exists in the collective consciousness and thereby it is
an issue that each of us should deal with in himself, however it manifests.
I offer this as a primary method of dealing with the problems of racism.
Incidentally, it is a template for dealing with any disfunctional
relationship. When people hear this and become defensive, abusive, think I
am calling them a bad person, then I know that they are not listening. When
you snip away my remarks and insert the question, "Are you a racist?" I can
see that you've completely missed the boat.
>
>
>>>>> You might be Canadian.
>>>>
>>>> So? Do you think Canadian culture isn't racist, sexist and all the
>>>> rest? America doesn't have a patent on prejudice.
>>>
>>> Since I did not say that nor infer that, your jumping to conclusions
>>> rather than asking questions again denotes a lack of maturity. Some
>>> Canadians seem to believe they are smarter than folks in the lower part
>>> of North America ... perhaps you are Canadian.
>>
>> I am. Canadians do have a unique perspective on America, which is
>> probably why our comedians to so well down there. On your point, I'd say
>> the stereotype of the dumb southern redneck is also in the northern
>> states. You don't often see an intellectual portrayed in the flim or TV
>> media with a thick Arkansas accent.
>
>
> By your own admission, your unique perspective on America is prejudiced.
> I hope you examine "that thing" for the bias that you seem to fail to see
> in your posts. (I have my own bias and prejudice received from my own
> local, neighborhood, region, state, country and many other cultural
> inflences ... those things are part of me. They are part of you, but they
> are all different.) The stereotype is certainly not unique to the
> northern states ... you have plenty of stereotyping going on yourself.
> You seem to like "grouping" folks ... you seem to dismiss the individual
> nature of everyone and prefer to concentrate of group-think. This is not
> "bad" or "good" ... it is just an observation.
I'm not denying people's individuality, but the point I am making is that
racism, as with other aspects of culture, stems out of a collective
consciousness, from our history. Many people examine racist ideas and
embrace them, they become, individually, racists, to some degree. Many
people examine and reject racist ideas, they become, individually, free from
racism, to some degree. The possibility for individual variation is
limitless, but the underlying process is the same. This isn't sterotyping, I
am simply offering a paradigm to try to understand the process we undergo.
>>>>> But you missed the sort of "-ism" which you do seem to have
>>>>
>>>> I've heard you harp on this before, "seem" is the operative word here.
>>>> This is a hangup you have that has nothing to do with me.
>>>
>>> It has everything to do with you. You just do not SEEM to be able to
>>> recognize it.
>>
>> I've been posting to usenet regularly for at least 10 years, I've never
>> heard that criticism before.
>
>
> Maybe you were not listening. I have the opinion that you are quite an
> interesting person who is quite well read and obviously well educated.
> You appear to have the sort of personality that I self-ascribe to myself.
> (I too have a high opinion of my opinion.)
There's nothing wrong with it. I have come to understand some things, at my
age, I try to express them, it doesn't always work out. It can get
frustrating, I keep trying.
>
>
>> Maybe it's you. I would suggest that the arrogance you perceive in my
>> posts may be a reflection of something about yourself that you don't wish
>> to acknowledge.
>
>
> Oh, I do acknowledge it ... it is you we are talking about. :-)
OK, well I won't apologize for having confidence in my opinions. I do listen
to others though, and I change my ideas when I feel it is warranted. I do
hear what you're saying though, and I will watch for the possibility of it
being a problem.
>>>>>... you seem inclined to stereotype people quite quickly and seriously
>>>>>without knowing much of anything about them.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like you're doing to me right now? Who have I stereotyped?
>>>> Beldin is a clown, but that's not a stereotype, it's an observation of
>>>> an indivdual.
>>>
>>> Beldin is actually quite intelligent,
>>
>> I suppose you'd know, I haven't seen it. His observations seem very
>> superficial to me.
>
>
> Well, you may be newer to this group than I realize. (At one time I
> believed you to be a sockpuppet from an older poster to this goup. Either
> that was a misplaced belief or you are even better than I thought.)
> Beldin is very well read and quite articulate in many scientific areas.
> He is terrible, however, in expressing his position, even when he know of
> what he speaks. He thinks he is someone who "does not suffer fools
> gladly," but he is no Paul preaching to the Corinthians. He also does not
> stop every now and then and admit to himself (he need not admit it here)
> that he might be wrong.
I've encountered a few people who were experts in hard science or math and
they assumed that were automatically experts in social science. Their
commentary showed the reverse.
>
>
>>> but he often resorts to childish vulgarity.
>>
>> Its not vulgarity, I don't mind that, its the constant use of ad hominem
>> to bolster his remarks.
>
>
> That too.
>
>
>>> He also has the same sort of arrogance as you exhibit, and sometimes he
>>> is wrong and sometimes he is right. He seldom knows which is which.
>>
>> How do you know if he's wrong or right? All you can say with any
>> assurance is whether or not you agree with him.
>
>
> Well, how can you say that you are wrong or right in saying that I cannot
> say that he is wrong sometimes and right sometimes?
>
> I just believe that "sometimes" (usually in a thread about "the law" in
> which I have him out educated and experienced) I have the better grip on
> what is right and I can be quite assured that he is wrong.
Fair enough, I was thinking in terms of the "soft" topics like social
science, morality, etc. matters of more opinion than fact.
>>> You have stereotyped everyone except yourself.
>>
>> I haven't stereotyped anyone that know of.
>
>
> Perhaps you believe that your posts do not express any prejudice or bias
> in the "grouping" you sometimes exhibit. You might be wrong.
I would be deluded to believe that I don't have prejudice or biases. Any
"grouping" I may have alluded to would reflect those biases, like the
average intellectual capacity of Arkansas rednecks may actually be quite
high, but that's not the stereotypical impression. I have no personal
knowledge of its accuracy.
>>>>> You seem to believe that you know what they believe and you feel
>>>>> superior and paternal toward them ... this is a different sort of
>>>>> prejudice. You believe you are above the rest of the inhabitants of
>>>>> the collective consciousness. That sort of arrogance is something you
>>>>> might consider working on.
>>>>
>>>> I would, except it's some sort of weird fantasy you have about me, and
>>>> I have no control over those. If I sound confident about what I say,
>>>> and if that annoys you, that's an issue that you need to resolve. I'll
>>>> tell you without a doubt that I am extremely open to change my views by
>>>> any rational argument. What does not impress me however are insults and
>>>> smart-ass remarks.
>>>
>>> You have said that you have lots of control of yourself.
>>
>> I don't recall saying that.
>
>
> I guess we will have a little difficulty here in communicating ... you do
> seem to have posted that everyone in the collective conscienceness has had
> ingrained certain "things" that you have "examined" and continue to ignore
> or overcome or something that makes you able to recognize that others are
> "in denial" that they do not recognize ... or something complicated like
> that. I infer from all the words spilt that you have control over "those
> things" that you have "examined." Correct my interpretation.
This is how I perceive it.
The collective consciousness of the world, our culture, etc.. is something
that forms a large component of who we all are. Racism, along with a
multitude of other ideas, good and bad, lives there. If we bring the bright
light of our own awareness onto any part of that collective consciousness
then we have the ability to diminish its influence on us, to own it, or to
destroy it. If we do NOT shine the light of awareness on it, then will
continue to live it unconsciously. Our reactions to the world, who we are in
the world will embody it.
>
>
>>> You can say that you are open to change your views, but you express no
>>> reason to believe that you are being truthful with yourself.
>>
>> The reason is that I have done so a lot, and that notwithstanding your
>> perception, I have a policy of not automatically believing in my own
>> opinions, even as I express them, any more than I automatically believe
>> in yours. I routinely question everything I think and say. Navel-gazing
>> somebody here called it.
>
>
> Omphaloskepsis and other forms of meditation are interesting ... I doubt
> that you mean it literally. I also presume that you do not sit and chant
> a mantra. Nor do I think you spend a lot of time in the lotus position.
I wish I were that flexible :>)
> Everyone here thinks about their positions ... some more than others ...
> some "better" than others. We all judge ourselves and others. In this
> one post, you have revealed more about yourself than in any other post you
> have made in this group ... in my opinion. I will take all this in and
> will likely read future posts with more nuance and, perhaps, more respect.
> I have enjoyed this post a lot.
That's very cool, I am enjoying our interaction also.
What I was referring to is a practice of "being the observer". It means that
I don't identify myself as being or attach myself to my thoughts, emotions,
opinions, reactions, car, house, job, education or other forms or
manifestations. I am that which is aware as those things are occuring. The
real being is the formless awareness, the presence which underlies it all in
the ever-present now. From that deeper awareness level an understanding can
emanate which is more profound than the react-and-defend state that people
like Beldin seem to be in.
The above describes very briefly what I understand to be the message of
spirituality, a way of being.
>>> The insults and smart-ass remarks have been directed at you by Beldin,
>>> no me. You need to decide which are actually correct and which are
>>> incorrect. Only you can find the errors you make.
>>
>> I think that if you are interested in a truly fruitful dialogue you
>> should concentrate on the substance of my comments and forget this idea
>> that I am too arrogant. Even if it were true, it isn't that relevant to
>> the opinions I present.
>
>
> You seem to have not been able to get past Beldin's insults and
> smart-assed remarks to reach the substance of his posts. (I sometimes
> have the same difficulty ... with Beldin and with some others.) The
> manner of presentation can sometimes (eventually) completely obliterate
> any possible "fruitful dialogue" and sometimes all you want to do is say
> STFD and STFU. It is a sad fact that no matter how good we might try to
> be, some folks just get on our nerves. It is our failure and their
> success when we resort of ad hominem.
Beldin is irrelevant to me, until he proves otherwise.
> Thank you for your responses and comments in your post.
My pleasure, same to you.
Dutch
Why does Al Sharpton threaten you so much? I find him to be pretty
irrelevant. Why does it bother you so much when black people play the race
card when white people do it constantly? Don't you have better control over
your own racial perceptions than those of others?
Dutch
> "Dutch"
>
>> I hear the same message delivered by Bill Cosby, speaking straight to
>> black males about the doing the right things in life and the formula for
>> success. As far as all the anti-Democratic party rhetoric, some of it may
>> be true, but since the guy obviously has an axe to grind I would take his
>> statements on that score with a couple of pounds of salt.
>
> It is possible that the Democratic leadership is "using" black culture
> resentment and anger for less than noble purposes.
Possible, but I'm finding it hard to see how Jeremiah Wright's rants benefit
the Democratic Party.
> (This is not to in any way mean that Republicans don't "use" parts of
> their core for less than noble purposes.)
>
> There is a political payoff for the Democratic Party in keeping "blacks"
> as a group (and that group includes everyone that thinks that "corporate
> america" or "the man" or whatever "king-substitute") angry and resentful.
Can you summarize that view for me? I can see how political and other
leaders benefit by perpetuating feelings of desperation and powerlessness,
but how does that translate to one political party?
> Starting last Sunday, there was a four part article in the Dallas Morning
> News ... a frank discussion of black culture.
>
> If you or anyone is interested, you can start here:
> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/localnews/columnists/jragland/vitindex.html
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/3rwz5j
thanks
da pickle
> Look, it's not difficult to discern, arrogance has nothing to do with it.
> I state that racism exists in the collective consciousness and thereby it
> is an issue that each of us should deal with in himself, however it
> manifests. I offer this as a primary method of dealing with the problems
> of racism. Incidentally, it is a template for dealing with any
> disfunctional relationship. When people hear this and become defensive,
> abusive, think I am calling them a bad person, then I know that they are
> not listening. When you snip away my remarks and insert the question, "Are
> you a racist?" I can see that you've completely missed the boat.
I am going to try again. My question "Are you a racist" was intended to
cause you to have to address the substance of what you are saying ... that
"racism exists in the collective consciousness and thereby it is an issue
that each of us should deal with in himself" ... which seems to me to imply
that we all have this "racism" with in us ... you seem to be calling all of
us (including yourself) "a racist." That is my point ... I think you
calling all of us in the collective conscious "racists."
You seem to think I have become "defensive" or that I think you are calling
me a "bad person" ... I am simply asking if you think that you are a racist
if you think that everyone is a racist in the collective conscious.
I am listening. I am hearing (reading) every word. I am a pretty smart
guy. I think I have a pretty good grasp of spirituality and psychology and
theology and a lot of other ologies ... however, I am not an expert in any
of those fields. I do believe that what you are talking about is a question
of "free will" ... do we really have a choice in what we think and what we
do ... or are we creatures of our nature and nurture. And we can argue
about the relative importance of the nature/nurture components as well.
I think that at this stage of my life, I have come to the belief that we are
greatly influenced by our genes, our friends, our experiences and our
"thoughts" ... how independent we are from our "culture" is a question I
have no answer for, but I have an opinion. I really don't know.
As far as "racism" is concerned, I am less interested in the past and more
interested in the future. As Will Rogers (I think) said, "Don't keep
looking back, we ain't agoing that way!"
I suppose I am more inclined toward behavioral psychology than clinical
psychology. I tend to want to adapt behavior without much concern for the
"deeper" meaning of what might have gone before. I am not sure we can
"think" our way out of everything but I know of no other way to "think"
about it.
I think "racism" has become such a political hot area that it has lost all
of its "truth." As far as "blacks" are concerned, I think that the sooner
they individually come to the conclusion that they are more different as
individuals than they are the same as a group, the better each will be able
to achieve what they individually want to achieve. Each person, no matter
their color or orientation, has opportunity and challenges ... it is better
to get on to with trying to be the best they can be than it is to worry
about blaming history for whatever is going on in their lives.
There is plenty of racism in the world ... getting on is more important than
dwelling on the past.
>> By your own admission, your unique perspective on America is prejudiced.
>> I hope you examine "that thing" for the bias that you seem to fail to see
>> in your posts. (I have my own bias and prejudice received from my own
>> local, neighborhood, region, state, country and many other cultural
>> inflences ... those things are part of me. They are part of you, but
>> they are all different.) The stereotype is certainly not unique to the
>> northern states ... you have plenty of stereotyping going on yourself.
>> You seem to like "grouping" folks ... you seem to dismiss the individual
>> nature of everyone and prefer to concentrate of group-think. This is not
>> "bad" or "good" ... it is just an observation.
>
> I'm not denying people's individuality, but the point I am making is that
> racism, as with other aspects of culture, stems out of a collective
> consciousness, from our history. Many people examine racist ideas and
> embrace them, they become, individually, racists, to some degree. Many
> people examine and reject racist ideas, they become, individually, free
> from racism, to some degree. The possibility for individual variation is
> limitless, but the underlying process is the same. This isn't sterotyping,
> I am simply offering a paradigm to try to understand the process we
> undergo.
I suppose I think that this is mostly psychological mumbo jumbo ... or
perhaps a statement of the obvious. The important thing to me is how
individuals react to individual situations and get on with their lives. If
one concentrates on externalities and "feels" they "cannot," then indeed
they cannot. If they stop thinking of perceived (or real) slights and
ignore these aggravations, they can move forward and upward.
There is no basis for the power of racism if those being stereotyped do not
"buy-in" to the stereotype. I lived though Jim Crow and thought nothing
much about it at the time because it did not affect me personally. Those
times are history ... today the same rules do not apply. I also say the
signs that said "No Gentiles allowed" in Miami Beach ... and "Restricted"
signs in other parts of Miami. I never really understood at the time, but I
know now. And I know that those signs (like "Irish need not apply") are no
longer posted. There are no "White" signs on the restrooms and blacks do
not have to go to the back door of the drive in to get a hamburger (if they
could get one at all).
Times have changed. There are a few dangling racists but they are
marginalized. There is still power in the stereotypes because many of those
who are stereotyped continue to support the very behaviors that cause the
stereotype in the first place. There are too many Mississippi folks that
look and act the part ... but the times have changed. Larry the Cable Guy
can make a lot of money playing the part. Chris Rock can make money and yet
too many folks do not listen to his wisdom.
>> Maybe you were not listening. I have the opinion that you are quite an
>> interesting person who is quite well read and obviously well educated.
>> You appear to have the sort of personality that I self-ascribe to myself.
>> (I too have a high opinion of my opinion.)
>
> There's nothing wrong with it. I have come to understand some things, at
> my age, I try to express them, it doesn't always work out. It can get
> frustrating, I keep trying.
Do keep trying.
>>> Maybe it's you. I would suggest that the arrogance you perceive in my
>>> posts may be a reflection of something about yourself that you don't
>>> wish to acknowledge.
>>
>> Oh, I do acknowledge it ... it is you we are talking about. :-)
>
> OK, well I won't apologize for having confidence in my opinions. I do
> listen to others though, and I change my ideas when I feel it is
> warranted. I do hear what you're saying though, and I will watch for the
> possibility of it being a problem.
I'm rubber; you're glue! :-)
>>>> Beldin is actually quite intelligent,
>>>
>>> I suppose you'd know, I haven't seen it. His observations seem very
>>> superficial to me.
>>
>> Well, you may be newer to this group than I realize. (At one time I
>> believed you to be a sockpuppet from an older poster to this goup.
>> Either that was a misplaced belief or you are even better than I
>> thought.) Beldin is very well read and quite articulate in many
>> scientific areas. He is terrible, however, in expressing his position,
>> even when he know of what he speaks. He thinks he is someone who "does
>> not suffer fools gladly," but he is no Paul preaching to the Corinthians.
>> He also does not stop every now and then and admit to himself (he need
>> not admit it here) that he might be wrong.
>
> I've encountered a few people who were experts in hard science or math and
> they assumed that were automatically experts in social science. Their
> commentary showed the reverse.
Beldin sometimes fits that profile. I enjoy speaking with him on some
subjects. He is difficult to take sometimes.
>> I just believe that "sometimes" (usually in a thread about "the law" in
>> which I have him out educated and experienced) I have the better grip on
>> what is right and I can be quite assured that he is wrong.
>
> Fair enough, I was thinking in terms of the "soft" topics like social
> science, morality, etc. matters of more opinion than fact.
Fair enough.
>>>> You have stereotyped everyone except yourself.
>>>
>>> I haven't stereotyped anyone that know of.
>>
>> Perhaps you believe that your posts do not express any prejudice or bias
>> in the "grouping" you sometimes exhibit. You might be wrong.
>
> I would be deluded to believe that I don't have prejudice or biases. Any
> "grouping" I may have alluded to would reflect those biases, like the
> average intellectual capacity of Arkansas rednecks may actually be quite
> high, but that's not the stereotypical impression. I have no personal
> knowledge of its accuracy.
There is always a bit (or more) of truth in stereotypes or they would have
no power at all. It is how those who feel they are the "victim" of
stereotyping feel and act that determines how much power the stereotype
might have. There have been many groups of people who are the subject of
stereotyping. How they react as individuals (and as a group) has the most,
I think, to do with making the stereotype less and less powerful.
>> I guess we will have a little difficulty here in communicating ... you do
>> seem to have posted that everyone in the collective conscienceness has
>> had ingrained certain "things" that you have "examined" and continue to
>> ignore or overcome or something that makes you able to recognize that
>> others are "in denial" that they do not recognize ... or something
>> complicated like that. I infer from all the words spilt that you have
>> control over "those things" that you have "examined." Correct my
>> interpretation.
>
> This is how I perceive it.
>
> The collective consciousness of the world, our culture, etc.. is something
> that forms a large component of who we all are. Racism, along with a
> multitude of other ideas, good and bad, lives there. If we bring the
> bright light of our own awareness onto any part of that collective
> consciousness then we have the ability to diminish its influence on us, to
> own it, or to destroy it. If we do NOT shine the light of awareness on it,
> then will continue to live it unconsciously. Our reactions to the world,
> who we are in the world will embody it.
The difficulty, to me, is what standard one might erect that independent of
that collective consciousness. How do you know what is "good or bad?" How
does one create an ethic that is independent of their nature/nurture? This
is the question of the ages. Is there a "good" and if so, how do we know?
How can we choose to believe or act in a certain way? This is what
theologians write about. Great teachers (rabbis?) like the Budda or Jesus
or Rumi or many others just put forth ideas ... sometimes we believe and
sometimes we don't. Very interesting.
>> Everyone here thinks about their positions ... some more than others ...
>> some "better" than others. We all judge ourselves and others. In this
>> one post, you have revealed more about yourself than in any other post
>> you have made in this group ... in my opinion. I will take all this in
>> and will likely read future posts with more nuance and, perhaps, more
>> respect. I have enjoyed this post a lot.
>
> That's very cool, I am enjoying our interaction also.
>
> What I was referring to is a practice of "being the observer". It means
> that I don't identify myself as being or attach myself to my thoughts,
> emotions, opinions, reactions, car, house, job, education or other forms
> or manifestations. I am that which is aware as those things are occuring.
> The real being is the formless awareness, the presence which underlies it
> all in the ever-present now. From that deeper awareness level an
> understanding can emanate which is more profound than the react-and-defend
> state that people like Beldin seem to be in.
>
> The above describes very briefly what I understand to be the message of
> spirituality, a way of being.
I am getting all excited, so I guess I will have to calm down and watch
another episode of Two and half Men to bring me back to the world I live in.
> You seem to have not been able to get past Beldin's insults and
>> smart-assed remarks to reach the substance of his posts. (I sometimes
>> have the same difficulty ... with Beldin and with some others.) The
>> manner of presentation can sometimes (eventually) completely obliterate
>> any possible "fruitful dialogue" and sometimes all you want to do is say
>> STFD and STFU. It is a sad fact that no matter how good we might try to
>> be, some folks just get on our nerves. It is our failure and their
>> success when we resort of ad hominem.
>
> Beldin is irrelevant to me, until he proves otherwise.
He need not prove anything. But he does sometimes make a point worth
noting. I wish he would do that more often.
>> Thank you for your responses and comments in your post.
>
> My pleasure, same to you.
I really enjoyed this yet again a time!
Kyle T. Jones
> "FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
> news:rsjs24l8e6sl9a065...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 20:54:21 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unless you're so stupid that talking with you gives away more about
>>>> you than you get in return, talking with enemies is almost always
>>>> proper.
>>> Sure it is. And "why can't we all just get along?"
>>>
>>> Let's all sing a couple of choruses of "Kumbaya" now.
>>>
>>> (BTW, Winston Churchill said "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war," but he
>>> didn't meet with Hitler.)
>>
>> Bill Clinton said that he tried as hard as he could to get Arafat and
>> the Israelis to come to an agreement to end their conflict.
>>
>> I'm not just saying that to be snarky about Clinton.
>> He did indeed do everything he could possibly do to get Arafat to
>> agree to make peace with Israel.
>>
>> Supposedly, Arafat was the most frequent visitor in the White House
>> during that time.
>>
>> Clinton could not close the deal.
>> Arafat ran away as fast as he could, even he was offered 90% of what
>> he asked for.
>
> Clinton actually offered Arafat more like 95% of what he was asking for.
> But Arafat was afraid that if he accepted the peace treaty with Israel, he
> would lose his strangle hold on the Palestinian people. For Arafat to stay
> in power, he had to keep the muslims focused on hating the Israelis. So
> instead of accepting the peace offer he went back and ordered the muslims to
> start blowing up Israeli women and children.
>
> Irish Mike
>
>
>
Absolutely amazing analysis. Now, turn that keen gaze inward, Irish.
Physician, heal thyself!!
Kyle T. Jones
> I am. Canadians do have a unique perspective on America, which is
> probably why our comedians to so well down there. On your point, I'd say
> the stereotype of the dumb southern redneck is also in the northern
> states. You don't often see an intellectual portrayed in the flim or TV
> media with a thick Arkansas accent.
>
What unsupported bullshit. No offense. Do you even *watch* "film or TV"?
That guy with the thick Arkansas accent... the one that the other
characters assume is a hick/rube... is *always* the only one that really
knows what's going on. And that *always* comes out by the end of the
show/film.
I mean, Great Ghost, it's a BS TV stereotype that's right up there with
the one where the husband is always a moron and the wife is always right.
Cheers.
Dutch
news:g0t3pu$14h$3...@registered.motzarella.org...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> I am. Canadians do have a unique perspective on America, which is
>> probably why our comedians to so well down there. On your point, I'd say
>> the stereotype of the dumb southern redneck is also in the northern
>> states. You don't often see an intellectual portrayed in the flim or TV
>> media with a thick Arkansas accent.
>>
>
> What unsupported bullshit. No offense. Do you even *watch* "film or TV"?
A bit.
> That guy with the thick Arkansas accent... the one that the other
> characters assume is a hick/rube... is *always* the only one that really
> knows what's going on. And that *always* comes out by the end of the
> show/film.
Really.. well that would just be a variation of the stereotype, no more
likely to be true than the one I gave as an example.
> I mean, Great Ghost, it's a BS TV stereotype that's right up there with
> the one where the husband is always a moron and the wife is always right.
>
> Cheers.
The point wasn't whether or not a particular sterotype is generally
accurate, but how and where they exist and how we deal with them.
da pickle
> The point wasn't whether or not a particular sterotype is generally
> accurate, but how and where they exist and how we deal with them.
Dutch, you will need to "read" the trout a little more before you begin to
"get" his schtick. He is a great guy and sometimes borders on brilliant.
Sometimes, not so much. :-)
You will really grow to like him. Trust me.
Dutch
> "Dutch"
>
>> Look, it's not difficult to discern, arrogance has nothing to do with it.
>> I state that racism exists in the collective consciousness and thereby it
>> is an issue that each of us should deal with in himself, however it
>> manifests. I offer this as a primary method of dealing with the problems
>> of racism. Incidentally, it is a template for dealing with any
>> disfunctional relationship. When people hear this and become defensive,
>> abusive, think I am calling them a bad person, then I know that they are
>> not listening. When you snip away my remarks and insert the question,
>> "Are you a racist?" I can see that you've completely missed the boat.
>
>
> I am going to try again. My question "Are you a racist" was intended to
> cause you to have to address the substance of what you are saying ... that
> "racism exists in the collective consciousness and thereby it is an issue
> that each of us should deal with in himself" ... which seems to me to
> imply that we all have this "racism" with in us ... you seem to be calling
> all of us (including yourself) "a racist." That is my point ... I think
> you calling all of us in the collective conscious "racists."
>
> You seem to think I have become "defensive" or that I think you are
> calling me a "bad person" ... I am simply asking if you think that you are
> a racist if you think that everyone is a racist in the collective
> conscious.
Racism is a component of our culture, of our collective consciousness, so
yes I am involved in that. Asking me "Are you a racist?" sounds like a
loaded question rather than a sincere request for information.
> I am listening. I am hearing (reading) every word. I am a pretty smart
> guy. I think I have a pretty good grasp of spirituality and psychology
> and theology and a lot of other ologies ... however, I am not an expert in
> any of those fields. I do believe that what you are talking about is a
> question of "free will" ... do we really have a choice in what we think
> and what we do ... or are we creatures of our nature and nurture. And we
> can argue about the relative importance of the nature/nurture components
> as well.
>
> I think that at this stage of my life, I have come to the belief that we
> are greatly influenced by our genes, our friends, our experiences and our
> "thoughts" ... how independent we are from our "culture" is a question I
> have no answer for, but I have an opinion. I really don't know.
I think the answer is that we're not independent from it, we're closely
linked to it by our language, our backgrounds and our daily lives as we
watch and read media and interact with people.
> As far as "racism" is concerned, I am less interested in the past and more
> interested in the future. As Will Rogers (I think) said, "Don't keep
> looking back, we ain't agoing that way!"
You may have overlooked the only part that really exists, the present. The
past is a just conglomeration of memories, the future doesn't exist, they're
just thoughts. Racism, like everything else, only really exists NOW.
>
> I suppose I am more inclined toward behavioral psychology than clinical
> psychology. I tend to want to adapt behavior without much concern for the
> "deeper" meaning of what might have gone before. I am not sure we can
> "think" our way out of everything but I know of no other way to "think"
> about it.
I don't believe we can think our way out of anything, but we can *be* what
we aspire to be.
> I think "racism" has become such a political hot area that it has lost all
> of its "truth." As far as "blacks" are concerned, I think that the sooner
> they individually come to the conclusion that they are more different as
> individuals than they are the same as a group, the better each will be
> able to achieve what they individually want to achieve. Each person, no
> matter their color or orientation, has opportunity and challenges ... it
> is better to get on to with trying to be the best they can be than it is
> to worry about blaming history for whatever is going on in their lives.
>
> There is plenty of racism in the world ... getting on is more important
> than dwelling on the past.
I agree, there are better ways for blacks to deal with the issue, I think
Bill Cosby and others express this very well. But that's their challenge,
not ours.
I agree, but again you're talking to blacks, as I have said from the
beginning here, fixing blacks should not be the primary job of a white
person in America, we can't do it anyway, they must do that for themselves.
We need to concentrate on fixing ourselves, and that means shining awareness
on prejudicial attitudes in ourselves.
I think we know intuitively, in our gut what is right and what is wrong
> How does one create an ethic that is independent of their nature/nurture?
> This is the question of the ages. Is there a "good" and if so, how do we
> know? How can we choose to believe or act in a certain way? This is what
> theologians write about. Great teachers (rabbis?) like the Budda or Jesus
> or Rumi or many others just put forth ideas ... sometimes we believe and
> sometimes we don't. Very interesting.
My answer is to try to be more fully conscious, to calmly observe the
thoughts as they pass in our minds and allow our true intuitive nature come
in and be the arbiter. We have more wisdom in ourselves than we give credit
for if we just let it be. Usually we get caught up in tit-for-tat, scoring
points, and all that. That never results in anything worth saving.
>>> Everyone here thinks about their positions ... some more than others ...
>>> some "better" than others. We all judge ourselves and others. In this
>>> one post, you have revealed more about yourself than in any other post
>>> you have made in this group ... in my opinion. I will take all this in
>>> and will likely read future posts with more nuance and, perhaps, more
>>> respect. I have enjoyed this post a lot.
>>
>> That's very cool, I am enjoying our interaction also.
>>
>> What I was referring to is a practice of "being the observer". It means
>> that I don't identify myself as being or attach myself to my thoughts,
>> emotions, opinions, reactions, car, house, job, education or other forms
>> or manifestations. I am that which is aware as those things are occuring.
>> The real being is the formless awareness, the presence which underlies it
>> all in the ever-present now. From that deeper awareness level an
>> understanding can emanate which is more profound than the
>> react-and-defend state that people like Beldin seem to be in.
>>
>> The above describes very briefly what I understand to be the message of
>> spirituality, a way of being.
>
>
> I am getting all excited, so I guess I will have to calm down and watch
> another episode of Two and half Men to bring me back to the world I live
> in.
Pretty good show... although I find most TV to be crap these days.
>
>
>> You seem to have not been able to get past Beldin's insults and
>>> smart-assed remarks to reach the substance of his posts. (I sometimes
>>> have the same difficulty ... with Beldin and with some others.) The
>>> manner of presentation can sometimes (eventually) completely obliterate
>>> any possible "fruitful dialogue" and sometimes all you want to do is say
>>> STFD and STFU. It is a sad fact that no matter how good we might try to
>>> be, some folks just get on our nerves. It is our failure and their
>>> success when we resort of ad hominem.
>>
>> Beldin is irrelevant to me, until he proves otherwise.
>
>
> He need not prove anything. But he does sometimes make a point worth
> noting. I wish he would do that more often.
>
>
>>> Thank you for your responses and comments in your post.
>>
>> My pleasure, same to you.
>
>
> I really enjoyed this yet again a time!
Ditto!
da pickle
>> As far as "racism" is concerned, I am less interested in the past and
>> more interested in the future. As Will Rogers (I think) said, "Don't
>> keep looking back, we ain't agoing that way!"
>
> You may have overlooked the only part that really exists, the present. The
> past is a just conglomeration of memories, the future doesn't exist,
> they're just thoughts. Racism, like everything else, only really exists
> NOW.
I guess I believe the past really exists and the future is potentially worth
the effort of predicting. I like living for now, but I am one who likes to
analyze the past and prepare for the future. It's the boy scout part of my
upbringing.
> I don't believe we can think our way out of anything, but we can *be* what
> we aspire to be.
I don't think I understand that thought.
> I agree, but again you're talking to blacks, as I have said from the
> beginning here, fixing blacks should not be the primary job of a white
> person in America, we can't do it anyway, they must do that for
> themselves. We need to concentrate on fixing ourselves, and that means
> shining awareness on prejudicial attitudes in ourselves.
Just because I am white does not mean I cannot have an opinion about black
culture. I think one of the biggest difficulties of black culture is the
idea that blacks are being kept down by whites. I have the opinion that
this stereotype is more important than the perceived stereotype that whites
should concentrte on fixing themselves. Whites, in my opinion, have come a
lot further along in fixing themselves than black culture is recognizing.
Of course, that is just my opinion. I have opinions about abortion too,
even though I cannot get pregnant.
>> The difficulty, to me, is what standard one might erect that independent
>> of that collective consciousness. How do you know what is "good or bad?"
>
> I think we know intuitively, in our gut what is right and what is wrong.
Genetic, huh? Jiminy Cricket? I can't buy into the "gut" theory of ethics.
It is certainly a very interesting subject. We should start a whole thread
on whether man is inheriently good or evil and whether he has free will to
choose to be good or bad.
>> How does one create an ethic that is independent of their nature/nurture?
>> This is the question of the ages. Is there a "good" and if so, how do we
>> know? How can we choose to believe or act in a certain way? This is what
>> theologians write about. Great teachers (rabbis?) like the Budda or
>> Jesus or Rumi or many others just put forth ideas ... sometimes we
>> believe and sometimes we don't. Very interesting.
>
> My answer is to try to be more fully conscious, to calmly observe the
> thoughts as they pass in our minds and allow our true intuitive nature
> come in and be the arbiter. We have more wisdom in ourselves than we give
> credit for if we just let it be. Usually we get caught up in tit-for-tat,
> scoring points, and all that. That never results in anything worth saving.
Interesting. Perhaps if we were taken in by apes as a small child, we would
have become fully human without any further contact with other humans.
>> I really enjoyed this yet again a time!
>
> Ditto!
Did you really mean "ditto!" (Sorry)
Dutch
> "Dutch"
>
>> The point wasn't whether or not a particular sterotype is generally
>> accurate, but how and where they exist and how we deal with them.
>
> Dutch, you will need to "read" the trout a little more before you begin to
> "get" his schtick. He is a great guy and sometimes borders on brilliant.
> Sometimes, not so much. :-)
That could describe a lot of us.. ;>)
Irish Mike
> "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:NMidndu7-Nh...@giganews.com...
>> "Dutch"
>>
>>> I hear the same message delivered by Bill Cosby, speaking straight to
>>> black males about the doing the right things in life and the formula for
>>> success. As far as all the anti-Democratic party rhetoric, some of it
>>> may be true, but since the guy obviously has an axe to grind I would
>>> take his statements on that score with a couple of pounds of salt.
>>
>> It is possible that the Democratic leadership is "using" black culture
>> resentment and anger for less than noble purposes.
>
> Possible, but I'm finding it hard to see how Jeremiah Wright's rants
> benefit the Democratic Party.
>
>> (This is not to in any way mean that Republicans don't "use" parts of
>> their core for less than noble purposes.)
>>
>> There is a political payoff for the Democratic Party in keeping "blacks"
>> as a group (and that group includes everyone that thinks that "corporate
>> america" or "the man" or whatever "king-substitute") angry and resentful.
>
> Can you summarize that view for me? I can see how political and other
> leaders benefit by perpetuating feelings of desperation and powerlessness,
> but how does that translate to one political party?
Well Dutch, how about the fact that blacks are the single most monolithic
voting block in the Democrat base and have been for forty years. That 90+%
of them vote Democrat in every single election. Or that 97% of all black
males voted for Obama in every primary. Does that give you a clue?
Irish Mike
Irish Mike
"Kyle T. Jones" <Em...@reallyrealdomain.net> wrote in message
news:g0t3pu$14h$3...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>> I am. Canadians do have a unique perspective on America, which is
>> probably why our comedians to so well down there. On your point, I'd say
>> the stereotype of the dumb southern redneck is also in the northern
>> states. You don't often see an intellectual portrayed in the flim or TV
>> media with a thick Arkansas accent.
Just wait until the made-for-TV movie of Slick Willie Clinton's life story
premiers.
Irish Mike
Irish Mike
I trust you bucko, but I'm still waitin'.
Irish Mike
Dutch
You must see a parallel here with poor, rural white voters and the GOP.
JerseyRudy
> JerseyRudy wrote:
>
> > The question in that debate was whether the candidates would be willing to
> > meet unconditionally with countries such as Iran and Syria. Obama
> > answered yes; his entire answer shows that he was answering yes in the
> > context of diplomatic discussions between the two countries, not a
> > discussion between him personally and the leader of the other country.
>
> Bullshit. He was pressed on this issue and made it clear, more than
> once, that he was declaring his willingness to meet with any foreign
> leader without conditions (which means, on their terms). And was
> applauded by the Left for saying so, with such sophistries as "We should
> always be willing to negotiate."
>
> > Even if you want to just focus on the part of the Obama answer in which he
> > stated that yes he would be willing to meet with Syria and Iran
> > unconditionally, it shows a double standard by ignoring the fact that his
> > position has now clearly evolved form that basic "yes" answer.
>
> He has, fortunately, backpedaled on this ... but I don't trust the
> backpedaling. I think he still believes what he said.
>
> John
> > McCain initially expressed a willingness to meet with the leader of Hamas
> > after Hamas won the elections in Gaza, but his position has now clearly
> > evolved from that. Why are you not holding McCain to his initial answer?
> > This was McCain two years ago regarding Hamas:
>
> > ‘They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal
with
> > them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and
> > previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their
> > dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but
> > practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the
> > lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that
> > they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.’”
>
> Of course, you conveniently left out the rest of McCain's statements at
> the time, where he said they would have to renounce terrorism and accept
> the existence of Israel before he would meet with them.
>
>
> --
> Joe Long aka ChipRider
> Somewhere on the Range
you are just so used to spewing out BS that you do it effortlessly at this
point. The McCain campaign realeased the entire interview with James Rubin
and he never said wht you are claiming he said. This was the ENTIRE
exchange:
Jamie Rubin: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the
way they have been in the past, in working with the Palestinian government
if Hamas is in now charge?"
McCain: "They're the government and sooner or later we're going to have to
deal with them in one way or another, and I understand why this
administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards
Hamas is because of their dedication to violence and the things they not
only espouse but practice, so, but it's a new reality in the Middle East.
And I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and a
decent future then they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
Rubin: "So should the United States be dealing with that new reality
through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United
States?"
McCain: "I think the United States should take a step back, see what they
do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see
the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren't any, there may
be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated
by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts."
Even if McCain had said wht you are falsely claiming he said, you would
still be a hypocrite. You allow McCain to expand his remarks and clarify
his initial answer, but you don't do the same thing with Obama. You ignore
the rest of Obama's answer in July 2007 (forget the fact that you ignore
the thousands of other times that Obama has answered the same question)
when he talked about Regan's diplomacy with the Soviets as an example of
how he would engage in diplomact with Iran and Syria.
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
JerseyRudy
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:00:47 -0700, "JerseyRudy"
> <a44...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On May 16 2008 7:55 AM, FL Turbo wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:52:17 -0700, "JerseyRudy"
> >> <a44...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On May 15 2008 4:07 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Schmedley" <schme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:TeKdnR7NzcYx7LHV...@ptd.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "K9way" <poolpl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:v9urf5x...@recgroups.com...
> >> >> >> Today , Bush said that he was given bad information , and actually
> >eluded
> >> >> >> to the fact that he was lied to by government agencies, that lead to
> >the
> >> >> >> war in Iraq!!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> isnt that exactly what some people on the left have done over the
last
> >> >> >> few
> >> >> >> years.. only to met with cries of UNPATRIOTIC, by the right ??
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You gotta love this fuckin idiot!!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > He is totally tone deaf. And allowing Obama to run against him for
a
> >> >> > couple of days is a gift that keeps on giving.
> >> >>
> >> >> When addressing the Israeli parliment President Bush also said that
> >Obama's
> >> >> [although he didn't use his name] plan to personally meet with Iran
and
> >> >> Syria with out any pre-conditions was apeasment. And that it was
naieve,
> >> >> wishful thinking to believe that the terrorists who have repeatedly
sworn
> >to
> >> >> destroy Israel will suddendly change their ways if Obama just talks
with
> >> >> them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Apparently Obama has islamic terrorists confused with the idiots who
> >faint
> >> >> at this feet when he does his stage show.
> >> >> You've got Obama who, according to his own statements, wasn't
percecptive
> >> >> enough to figure out Jeremiah Wright's anti-American feelings after
> >> >> listening to him for 20 years. Now he's going to sit down with
islamic
> >> >> terrorist leaders and know their real aganda? LOL.
> >> >>
> >> >> Irish Mike
> >> >
> >> >Once again you are unable to get Obama's actual position correct. He is
no
> >> >plan to personally meet with the leaders of Iran or Syria without any
> >> >pre-conditions. He favors low-level talks with both countries, and he is
> >> >willing to meet with them persoanlly only if the actual talks lead to
them
> >> >agreeing to conditions that indicate that higher-level talks would be
> >> >fruitful. This is far from appeasement; this is the recognition that we
> >> >can only make peace with our enemies if we are willing to talk with them,
> >> >and that refusing to talk with them over the last eight years has not
> >> >proven to be successful.
> >> >
> >>
>
> Yeah, I see you got the memo from Obama Headquarters.
>
> It looks like he now has Plan B.
> Plan A has now officially been thrown under the bus.
>
> Backpedaling worthy of an NFL quarterback.
>
> >> Yes, that is his position now that his advisors have had a few talks
> >> with him telling him what to say.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately for Obama, the Internet never forgets.
> >>
> >> Obama was in full view at an earlier debate.
> >> He was asked point blank if he would personally go and negotiate,
> >> without any preconditions, with the leaders of Iran, Syria and North
> >> Korea.
> >>
> >> His answer was an enthusiastic, Hell, yes I would!!
> >>
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> "Can't I just eat my waffle?"
> >> B.H. Obama
> >
> >
> >The question in that debate was whether the candidates would be willing to
> >meet unconditionally with countries such as Iran and Syria. Obama
> >answered yes; his entire answer shows that he was answering yes in the
> >context of diplomatic discussions between the two countries, not a
> >discussion between him personally and the leader of the other country. The
> >remainder of his answer included the example of Ronald Reagan negotiating
> >with Soviet leaders privately while publically excoriating Soviet leaders.
> > Reagan did this by having his lowerlevel diplomats meet directly with
> >their Soviet counterparts. Reagan would talk to the Soviet leader (either
> >by phone or later in person) only after the initial meetings were
> >productive and showed a willingmess by the Soviets to compromise. This is
> >the example that Obama would follow.
> >
>
> Yes, Plan B.
>
> >Even if you want to just focus on the part of the Obama answer in which he
> >stated that yes he would be willing to meet with Syria and Iran
> >unconditionally, it shows a double standard by ignoring the fact that his
> >position has now clearly evolved form that basic "yes" answer. John
> >McCain initially expressed a willingness to meet with the leader of Hamas
> >after Hamas won the elections in Gaza, but his position has now clearly
> >evolved from that. Why are you not holding McCain to his initial answer?
> >This was McCain two years ago regarding Hamas:
> >
>
> Does Obama Headquarters now recommend the ButMcCain argument to
> counter Obama's naivety?
>
> That spinning is barely adequate.
> Not nearly up to the standards for a World Class ballerina.
>
> >禅hey're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with
> >them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and
> >previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their
> >dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but
> >practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the
> >lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that
> >they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.樗
> >
>
> The astute reader may discern that McCain was not making any promise
> to negotiate with Hamas leadership without any pre-conditions.
>
> Was he?
>
> Sorry, Jersey, but your analogy here is not even apples to oranges.
> It's more like apples to lampshades.
That would be the "astute" right-wing reader who will spend the next 6
months giving McCain every benefit of the doubt while at the same time
searching through thousands of answers given by Obama over the course of
this campaign for the one time when he gave an answer without fully
explaining the nuances of his position. This is a tactic honed by Lee
Atwater and Karl Rove, and it works well for Republicans because their
postions never have nuances ("you are either with us or against us"
"mission accomplished" "we will capture Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive"),
but we see over the course of the last 8 years what the results of the
Bush-McCain foreign policy would be...actions and results do speak more
loudly than words)
_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
JerseyRudy
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 01:28:50 -0400, A Man Beaten by Jacks
> <nob...@fool.foo> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:22:49 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >>A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 20:54:21 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Unless you're so stupid that talking with you gives away more about
> >>>>> you than you get in return, talking with enemies is almost always
> >>>>> proper.
> >>>
> >>>> Sure it is. And "why can't we all just get along?"
> >>>
> >>>> Let's all sing a couple of choruses of "Kumbaya" now.
> >>>
> >>> If you're so fucking stupid you missed my point, don't emphasize it
> >>> by responding. Just STFU and save yourself the embarrassment. It was
> >>> a trivially easy point to understand.
> >>
> >>Sure, your Bush-hatred comes through all the time.
> >
> >>So you really think that Obama is smart enough that he can go and meet
> >>with Aminnejad or Hamas on their terms and not have them get far more
> >>out of it than we would? Amazing.
> >
> >And you honestly think these are some kind of preternatural fucking
> >geniuses? Obama was the President of Harvard Law Review. I think he
> >knows something about communication. If not he can hire someone who
> >does.
> >
> >You have a pretty low opinion of Americans as compared to the leaders
> >of terrorist organizations and rathole barbaric satrapies.
> >
> >Amazing.
>
> A naive young President of Harvard Law Review would get absolutely
> pwned by any old dictator of a rathole barbaric satrapy.
>
> You think that the MessiahObama could persuade any Terrorist to give
> up his only reason to exist?
>
> You think that he could do any better than Bill Clinton?
>
> Pfft.
>
> If you do, then you are a Moron.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Charley Brown
> Lucy
> Football
> ARRGGH
you are hilarious...now your fantasy includes Obama going to Tehran for
this meeting!
Let's see if you can answer the question this way. What do you think Obama
will actually give to Iran/Syria that would make you so afarid with
enegaging in any diplomacy with them? Give me an example of something
concrete that you fear Obama would give them? Neville Chamberlein gave
Hitler the Sudetenland...that is the analogy that Bush used)...what would
Obama give Ahmadijenad?
In other words, even if the diplomact leads to nothing, how can it be any
worse than what we have been doing the last 8 years? Iran had benefited
from every action taken by the Bush administration the last 8 years. They
are now the major power-broker in Iraq; they are using Hezbollah to
destabilize the Lebanese government and we are no won the brink of
resuming the civil war in that country which would be a disaster for the
whole region; oil prices are at an all-time high which means massive
revenues for Iran; we have been unable to get China and Russia to stop
doing business with Iran. How would engaging in talks with them result
in anything worse than this??
---
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
JerseyRudy
> A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:47:09 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> He may have been President of the Harvard Law Review, but if he will
> >> really go to their turf and meet with them on their terms, he's
> >> incredibly naive.
> >
> > Who said "meet with them on their terms?" Sounds to me like you're
> > twisting, hard. Not surprising from you, though, pretty much par for
> > the course.
>
> Obama said it, of course. More than once. On camera, it's on the
> record. "Without preconditions" means that you accept the other guy's
> terms.
>
> What I find amusing about this whole thing is that Bush didn't mention
> anyone by name, but the Democrats start defending Obama -- not Hillary.
> Making it obvious who the Democrats understand Bush to be referring
> to. Or, "If the shoe fits ..."
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Long aka ChipRider
> Somewhere on the Range
Now you just showing your ignorance of negotiation. "without
preconditions" means that both sides are willing to discuss any subject;
it does NOT mean that either side accepts the other sides terms.
It seems that the right-wing is similarly confused about the difference
between "appeasement" and "diplomacy". Which explains why they have used
the term incorrectly against even their own kind (Nicon went he negotiated
with China; and Reagan when he negotiated with the Soviet Union).
_____________________________________________________________________
JerseyRudy
> "A Man Beaten by Jacks"
>
> >>> Who said "meet with them on their terms?" Sounds to me like you're
> >>> twisting, hard. Not surprising from you, though, pretty much par for
> >>> the course.
> >
> >>Why not invite them to the White House? What does he have to say? What
> >>does he expect to hear?
> >
> > Because inviting someone to the White House is itself a statement of
> > regard. While you might invite someone you don't "like" to the White
> > House, you certainly would not invite them there without good reason
> > for doing so.
>
> So, where was the Senator talking about meeting those thugs without
> preconditions? Their house?
>
> What does he have to say?
>
> What does he expect to hear?
Where did Reagan meet the Soviets? His first meeting with them were at
neutral sites (and the Right-wing excoriated him for it).
As for what does he have to say, it is similar to what we have been saying
to them when we have had Ambassador Crocker meet with them in Iraq (this
is what makes this whole debate Alice-in-Wonderland...we HAVE been
engaging in diplomacy with Iran the last two years!!). We have ben
telling them that there is a way for everyone to benefit if they stop
sending weapons and EFPs into Iraq and stop arming militias. We haqve
some leverage over them with economic sanctions (those that have already
been passed by the UN and those that we are still pusing to get passed).
Aside from sanctions, it is clear that Iran moderates their behavior just
from the act of engaging in diplomacy with them. There is no doubt that
they made it easier for Maliki to tame Basra because of the talks that we
had with them.
Obviously the big issue is there nuclear weapons program. The reason why
we talk to them about this is the same reason why we decided to talk to
North Korea. Bush spent 6 years listeing to the right-wing and resusing
to talk with North Korea, and the result was that North Korea built
nuclear bombs and tested one of them. We decided to engage in diplomacy
with them and we now have an agreement in place that results in them
dismantling their nuclear weapons program and agreeing to verification and
inspection of their existing weapons.
________________________________________________________________________
da pickle
> you are just so used to spewing out BS that you do it effortlessly at this
> point. The McCain campaign realeased the entire interview with James Rubin
> and he never said wht you are claiming he said. This was the ENTIRE
> exchange:
You quote the entire exchange and yet you apparently did not read it.
da pickle
>> Well Dutch, how about the fact that blacks are the single most monolithic
>> voting block in the Democrat base and have been for forty years. That
>> 90+% of them vote Democrat in every single election. Or that 97% of all
>> black males voted for Obama in every primary. Does that give you a clue?
>
> You must see a parallel here with poor, rural white voters and the GOP.
But you are incorrect, Dutch, because you add more than color (and you miss
the more important part, fundamentalist pro-life Christian). You cannot
take a black/white question and add other rainbow colors and have a proper
analogy.
(Also, I really do not like the use of "black" to describe the stereotype
... the "group" is becomes less and less stereotypical ... I think this is a
good thing (a great thing) ... it will be a good day when "blacks" do not
vote as a group but feel comfortable voting as individuals. This is the
essence of the reason why keeping them "stereotyped" is important
politically.)
da pickle
>> So, where was the Senator talking about meeting those thugs without
>> preconditions? Their house?
>>
>> What does he have to say?
>>
>> What does he expect to hear?
>
> Where did Reagan meet the Soviets? His first meeting with them were at
> neutral sites (and the Right-wing excoriated him for it).
Were we talking about Reagan? Why not talk about Kruschev and his shoe?
(Actually, not HIS shoe.)
You immediately go "but Bush" or "but Reagan" ... the situations are
"different."
Why not just answer the questions?
> As for what does he have to say, it is similar to what we have been saying
> to them when we have had Ambassador Crocker meet with them in Iraq (this
> is what makes this whole debate Alice-in-Wonderland...we HAVE been
> engaging in diplomacy with Iran the last two years!!). We have ben
> telling them that there is a way for everyone to benefit if they stop
> sending weapons and EFPs into Iraq and stop arming militias. We haqve
> some leverage over them with economic sanctions (those that have already
> been passed by the UN and those that we are still pusing to get passed).
> Aside from sanctions, it is clear that Iran moderates their behavior just
> from the act of engaging in diplomacy with them. There is no doubt that
> they made it easier for Maliki to tame Basra because of the talks that we
> had with them.
No one is arguing about diplomacy, Rudy. We are talking about a head of
state meeting with a head of state ... there either needs to be
preconditions or not ... it is obvious to anyone with any experience with
such matters that LOTS of preconditions need to be worked out before such a
meeting is possible.
Why don't you address the actual issue rather than change it to how
experienced leaders did it before, which should have been the answer in the
first place.
> Obviously the big issue is there nuclear weapons program. The reason why
> we talk to them about this is the same reason why we decided to talk to
> North Korea. Bush spent 6 years listeing to the right-wing and resusing
> to talk with North Korea, and the result was that North Korea built
> nuclear bombs and tested one of them. We decided to engage in diplomacy
> with them and we now have an agreement in place that results in them
> dismantling their nuclear weapons program and agreeing to verification and
> inspection of their existing weapons.
Jezzz eating a ham sandwich, Rudy ... "we" do talk "them" all the time. We
are NOT talking about talking, we are questioning why a (putative) head of
state would make such a statement as the Senator made. You can spin it
whatever way you want ... the Senator is not an experienced politician.