Obama's Secret Rescue Mission

Lerxst · 07-27-08, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC.no.spin

Yes, but who funds them? Follow the money and you wind up in Iran. Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism. They were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups, especially Hamas, to use terrorism in pursuit of their goals.

There are legitimate concerns with Obama's foreign policy stance on dealing with terrorist nations and groups.

Obama shows a lack of appreciation of history when it comes to diplomacy with Iran. Their track record speaks for itself.

The Wall Street Journal Online - Featured Article

I absolutely agree Iran's track record is deplorable. However, nothing has improved under our policy of non-diplomacy. There is a "velvet revolution" occurring in Iran as we speak. Obama knows this, most strategists know this. The best thing we can do for the Iranian people is to show them we recognize this. The last thing we need, and the first thing the Iranian GC wants, is for us to storm into Iran and galvanize the people against us as foreign invaders instead of benevolent and supporting international community members. Make no mistake, that would reverse what the intellectual movement has started. Non-violent, democratic Islam is possible.

That said, I realize we cannot allow a nuclear armed Iran. However at this point, I am absolutely open to our government having serious discussions with any government in the world if it means we might make progress.

jallman · 07-27-08, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

What are you talking about? You were participating in derailing the thread to preach your position about Obama being a Messiah and his followers being blind.

No, I made a more general comment and you focused in on one, minute point (my using the words Lil' Messiah). Then you directed the conversation to speculate why I did so.

I answered your speculation with a more broad assertion concerning why Obamaheads come off the way they do and why they may carry on like they do.

That was where you took the conversation.

Quote:

I addressed your comments, it was going nowhere, we disagreed, and I simply requested we move back on to the subject.

Fine. Then simply say so and don't make the implication that I drug us off topic. If you'll recall, in answer to your post, I stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

Are we really so stupid as to assume that Obama is selling us out because he is talking to someone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

No, of course not. My issue here is that rather than address the point that was made, some people would rather just disregard that there is an issue to address, whether positively or negatively, because they don't want to accept that Lil' Messiah has his issues at all.

My response brought into play how the debate keeps getting reframed to "Oh you're just an Obama-hater".

I pretty much agreed with everything else you stated so there was no reason to address the rest. What I needed to address was how you backhandedly asserted that there is this "stupid" idea that Obama is selling out for "talking to someone". I thinkt he real reservation is that without a clear track record to look to, there is a legitimate worry that Obama's "talking to" Iran may be construed as appeasement. All of that simply speaks back to the fact that we don't know anything about Obama because he has NO RECORD.

the makeout hobo · 07-27-08, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

Notice it then. Most of his supporters are blind followers because they are having a reaction to Bush rather than making their decision based on the current two candidates.

There are many supporters, myself included, who researched Obama's policies, positions, and personality and picked him out of a crowded Democratic field. Many of us also looked at the Republican field and found them wanting. Not that I expect you to accept this, as it would interfere with your worldview.

Quote:

Whatever. Truth is very rarely ever well received by blind zealots. I'm totally aware of that fact.

What do Obama supporters do that make you label them blind zealots? Is it because we don't often criticize him? What about the ridiculous number of people that joined groups trying to get Obama to change his telecom immunity stance? Usually we don't criticize him places like here because we're too busy defending him from pointless minutae like him saying "bomb" instead of "bombs". And on that note, some McCain followers aren't any better.

Quote:

But to depict the campaign and the chosen way it is portrayed is not the same as to make a slur against his age which he cannot help.

No, but it will affect his ability to effectively govern, and isn't that the issue at hand?

MC.no.spin · 07-27-08, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

I absolutely agree Iran's track record is deplorable. However, nothing has improved under our policy of non-diplomacy. There is a "velvet revolution" occurring in Iran as we speak. Obama knows this, most strategists know this. The best thing we can do for the Iranian people is to show them we recognize this. The last thing we need, and the first thing the Iranian GC wants, is for us to storm into Iran and galvanize the people against us as foreign invaders instead of benevolent and supporting international community members. Make no mistake, that would reverse what the intellectual movement has started. Non-violent, democratic Islam is possible.

That said, I realize we cannot allow a nuclear armed Iran. However at this point, I am absolutely open to our government having serious discussions with any government in the world if it means we might make progress.

I would be open to those discussions as well. What's troubling is that the Iranian govt are dishonest and you can't believe what they say.

Iran reminds me of that con man we've all encountered who says one thing and then stabs you in the back with a rip-off deal. Why keep taking it up the ass when you know they are full of ****?

They need to stop developing nukes but the dirty truth is that they won't. Talking won't change this. However, their people might from within.It's a good point that the information age of today can bring democracy to Iran. I've heard their young adults are pretty hip to this idea myself.

The ultimate bringer of democracy to the world may well be the Internet. I don't look forward to the day when Al Gore tries to take credit for this.

Lerxst · 07-27-08, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC.no.spin

I would be open to those discussions as well. What's troubling is that the Iranian govt are dishonest and you can't believe what they say.

Iran reminds me of that con man we've all encountered who says one thing and then stabs you in the back with a rip-off deal. Why keep taking it up the ass when you know they are full of ****?

They need to stop developing nukes but the dirty truth is that they won't. Talking won't change this. However, their people might from within.It's a good point that the information age of today can bring democracy to Iran. I've heard their young adults are pretty hip to this idea myself.

The ultimate bringer of democracy to the world may well be the Internet. I don't look forward to the day when Al Gore tries to take credit for this.

I have no doubt Iran really has no desire to make meaningful progress here, otherwise they wouldn't be slamming doors and inciting violence. I have faith in their populace though, and we have to reach out to them, preferable without Tomahawks.

But, if the GC forces the issue, military action may be our only choice.

Vigilance. Diplomacy where possible, but the resolve to use undeniable force if necessary.

jallman · 07-27-08, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

There are many supporters, myself included, who researched Obama's policies, positions, and personality and picked him out of a crowded Democratic field. Many of us also looked at the Republican field and found them wanting.

And that is all well and good. In fact, it is desirable. However, if that is in fact how you went about making your decision, you can't deny that you are not in the majority of those who support Obama.

Quote:

Not that I expect you to accept this, as it would interfere with your worldview.

Not that I would expect you to even know what my worldview is. But I love how you fell in lockstep with the majority of Obamaheads and threw the ad hom in there. Not surprising.

Quote:

What do Obama supporters do that make you label them blind zealots? Is it because we don't often criticize him?

Because many Obama supporters won't even indulge criticism of him, meanwhile they will screech to high heaven calling McCain "an old idiot" and let's not even mention what we've listened to for the past 8 years directed at the current POTUS.

What irritates the holy hell out of me about Obamaheads is that they will reframe every debate that focuses on anything negative about Obama as "you're just an Obama-hater" or "let's discuss the issues" (code for: let's not talk badly about Obama anymore).

Quote:

What about the ridiculous number of people that joined groups trying to get Obama to change his telecom immunity stance? Usually we don't criticize him places like here because we're too busy defending him from pointless minutae like him saying "bomb" instead of "bombs". And on that note, some McCain followers aren't any better.

I think I made my stance concerning want of an "S" in that speech. I'm not repeating myself anymore on that issue.

You are more than welcome to go on the attack over stupid **** like that but look how this thread immediate started out. Read the first page and Hatuey's glowing response to any depth being brought to the issue. It's typical. I've come to expect no better over the past couple of months.

Quote:

No, but it will affect his ability to effectively govern, and isn't that the issue at hand?

Will it? If you think so, I invite you to express how you think it will affect his ability to govern. I have no problem defending that issue and I more than welcome the discussion. That's the difference between Obamaholics and McCain supporters...we don't MIND the discussion and there is no need on our parts to deflect from it.

MC.no.spin · 07-27-08, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

I have faith in their populace though

This is a good video representing the Iranian Resistance movement within in its own borders. Iran's govt calls them a terrorist group

YouTube - I have a dream for Iran-No War, No mullahs,Democracy/Freedom

bhkad · 07-27-08, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

The American people would be my guess. But regardless you hit the nail on the head...you don't know. But you sure do enjoy speculating.

As do George Bush's and John McCain's. Your point?

Bush is ineligible for re-election. McCain's associations and relationships have not warranted the negative attention that Obama's do or else you'd be harping on them. You aren't. That means of the two candidates, Obama's associations are worrisome. McCain's are not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

He and about three dozen other members of Congress. Really sneaky they were. How exactly does one "sneak a bill through Congress" anyway?

Quote:

The not-so-peculiar and odd thing about H.R. 1302 was that it passed the House by voice vote. This is a stratagem adopted by legislators who fear that a bill is so outrageous that it is better that no record be kept of those who endorsed it. S.2433 was passed from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the same manner - by voice vote, without public hearings, to protect the identities of the guilty. It will probably be introduced to the Senate for a similar, anonymous voice vote -- by Harry Reid. Obama's Global Poverty Act by Edward Cline -- Capitalism Magazine

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

Can't say I like that.

Then you will get sick at this:

Quote:

During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

First off, you don’t raise taxes during a recession. That’s a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That’s what history shows.

The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.

Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.

In fact, in America’s largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama’s plan, together they’ll also be slammed by Obama’s cap-gains tax increase.

This is more than just a failure to understand the Laffer curve. It’s another cultural misstep by Obama. I can’t help but wonder if the senator knows any cops or firemen. His appeal is to well-educated latte liberals. That remark about middle-income folks having turned to God, faith, and guns because of economic setbacks? Not only was it ill-advised, it illustrates the wide cultural chasm that exists between the candidate and the rest of America.

In effect, Obama’s economics are bad and his social circle is very limited. This is one of the many reasons why a quarter of the Hillary Democrats are telling pollsters they’ll likely move to John McCain in the general election.

Obama’s real agenda is far-liberal left. It’s an ideology that places income redistribution above economic growth. That’s his real message. And it’s the same one that sunk Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Bill Clinton? He was a growth Democrat. So he won twice. But Obama is aligning himself with the Democratic losers. And that will make him a loser as well.

Larry Kudlow on Barack Obama and Tax Policy on NRO Financial

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

Well this is absolute nonsense and has already been addressed in another thread. He was for trying another strategy. And he didn't say he would have opposed it "even though it would have guaranteed a U.S. defeat", he said he had no idea what would have happened if an alternate strategy was tried because it was never implemented. He said he would not hypothesize. But you like to, that is obvious.

Yes, it is nonsense. We can look it up at the time everyone knew that the Democratic challengers were all trying their best to pander to the anti-war leftist Democratic base by trying to be against the war more than the other guy. So, instead of voicing his supposed 'real' meaning at the time and risk losing votes, what he did was to denounce the troop surge and give the enemy more reason to fight on knowing that all of the Democratic "Party of Defeat" challengers for President were against the war. That gave the enemy a 50/50 reason for optimism. Show us anything from that time from Obama which suggested he thought we should stay and try to win.

McCain was right. ALL of the Dems. were more interested in winning the nomination than winning the war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

Let me correct this for you, he goes abroad to try and rebuild the U.S. image by approaching the people of those regions instead of unilaterally making decisions that turn the rest of the world on it's head.

Maybe. Maybe more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

Fomenting revolution? Are you serious? You think that is what he is up to? Well if it's revolution against GWB and his corrupt administration then it's long overdue. But whatever, this is more fear-filled rhetoric. Fomenting revolution....

Anyway, who cares about "paid bloggers." He has paid campaign staff, commercials, phone workers, etc. So what?

Quote:

Hillary has met not only her match in Alinsky tactics, she has met the master of bloodless socialist revolution, in my opinion.

Barack Obama had just graduated from Columbia and was looking for a job. Some white leftists were looking for someone who could recruit in a black neighborhood in the south side of Chicago.

Obama answered a help-wanted ad for a position as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. Obama was 24 years old, unmarried, very accustomed to a vagabond existence, and according to his memoir, searching for a genuine African-American community.

Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to "rub raw the sores of discontent," in Alinsky's words.

One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who had this to say to an Ryan Lizza of The New Republic, about Obama:

"He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."

The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the "realization" that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent "self-interest" in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease.

In these methods, euphemistically labeled "community organizing," Obama had a four-year education, which he often says was the best education he ever got anywhere.

[...]

But Obama isn't starry-eyed when it comes to protecting himself from the possibility of bad press regarding his church affiliation. When he was preparing to announce his campaign for the Presidency in February, he called his minister, Reverend Wright, the night before and disinvited him to stand on the podium in front of all the cameras. Rather than face questions, he simply eliminated the target, a perfect Alinsky action meant to forestall an enemy reaction.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVING PAID BLOGGERS. WHAT IS WRONG IS NOT DISCLOSING THEIR AFFILIATIONS.

So if someone is blogging about how much they love Obama or if they ban anti-Obama posters from their site and you think the blogger is just passionate, that's one thing. But if a paid blogger does the same thing and withholds their commercial arrangement, that is ethically out of bounds. But the Alinsky trained agitator knows not to be bothered by issues of morality.

Quote:

Alinsky considered himself a realist above all, the ultimate pragmatist. As a confirmed atheist, Alinsky believed that the here and now is all there is, and therefore had no qualms about assorted versions of morality in the pursuit of worldly power. He didn't coddle his radical acolytes or encourage their bourgeois distinctions between good and evil when it came to transferring power from the Haves to the Have Nots.

American Thinker: Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

BINGO!!! I don't care if he has "high key" Muslim affiliations. Islam is a religion and it's practiced in the U.S. Given our recent history I would have more serious concerns if he was allied with people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Quote:

Yesterday, RBO pointed out the obvious irony that one of the three Iraqi officials with whom Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) met while “making the rounds in Baghdad” was Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who had served on the Iraqi Governing Council, appointed July 13, 2003, by Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer, with Sen. Obama’s fellow Chicagoan, former Iraqi Minister of Electricity, Aiham Alsammarae, who was convicted in an Iraqi court in October 2006 in the theft of at least $650 million in Iraqi reconstruction dollars (i.e. U.S. tax dollars); who had contributed to Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign fund; and who put up three of his properties as surety for Obama political patron and convicted political fixer—and Obama’s personal real estate fairy—Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s bond this past spring.

The media, it appears, chooses either to be, or pretend to be, unaware of the irony.

What does Chalabi want from Obama? (Updated) The Real Barack Obama

Debbie Schlussel

Lerxst · 07-27-08, 08:37 PM

Iranian Youth Ditch Oppressive Islam. Damn Persian chicks are hot...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOi4x4G9jww&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-bLZbkYk-I

Lerxst · 07-27-08, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Bush is ineligible for re-election. McCain's associations and relationships have not warranted the negative attention that Obama's do or else you'd be harping on them. You aren't. That means of the two candidates, Obama's associations are worrisome. McCain's are not.

I don't harp. I critically examine. Right now neither of these men have associations that are making me lose sleep at night.

Regarding your quote on the voice vote, I already posted (in another thread) a very LONG list of those identified as co-sponsoring it. It's not anonymous, it's not secret, it didn't get by anyone, it was widely endorsed in Congress at the time. You are fabricating boogey men so you have someone to point at.

Quote:

Then you will get sick at this:

It certainly doesn't make me happy, but then again no candidate in history has been all things to all people. He's better than McCain.

Quote:

Yes, it is nonsense. We can look it up at the time everyone knew that the Democratic challengers were all trying their best to pander to the anti-war leftist Democratic base by trying to be against the war more than the other guy. So, instead of voicing his supposed 'real' meaning at the time and risk losing votes, what he did was to denounce the troop surge and give the enemy more reason to fight on knowing that all of the Democratic "Party of Defeat" challengers for President were against the war. That gave the enemy a 50/50 reason for optimism. Show us anything from that time from Obama which suggested he thought we should stay and try to win.

McCain was right. ALL of the Dems. were more interested in winning the nomination than winning the war.

I was referencing his statements during the Couric interview, which is what I thought you were referencing. I know he had different ideas way back when, he has since changed them. Politicians, including McCain, do that from time to time. The difference is I don't jump out of my pants over it.

Your continued rhetoric regarding Obama as a "revolutionary" is lost on me. I don't find it at all compelling.

Quote:

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVING PAID BLOGGERS. WHAT IS WRONG IS NOT DISCLOSING THEIR AFFILIATIONS.

Apparently to you it is.

Quote:

So if someone is blogging about how much they love Obama or if they ban anti-Obama posters from their site and you think the blogger is just passionate, that's one thing. But if a paid blogger does the same thing and withholds their commercial arrangement, that is ethically out of bounds. But the Alinsky trained agitator knows not to be bothered by issues of morality.

A privately owned forum or blog is just that. Privately owned. What they choose to disclose or not to disclose is their business. I am not the least bit shocked at this as I am familiar with the American political process...morality and ethics are taboo. I'll not lose sleep knowing that pro-Obama blogger who is paid by the campaign pushes pro-Obama stuff and stifles anti-Obama stuff on a private website. Now if they were forcing people to read the blog, yeah...that would bother me. Since that is not the case, I'm just not getting all excited about it. I just don't see this as some travesty of justice like you do.

Debbie Schlussel

This is rife with assumptions and partisan hype. I don't know what you hoped to accomplish by posting this in your response to me, I have already seen it. I have also commented on my thoughts about him meeting with people who support Hezbollah. Didn't you see those comments? Did he endorse Hezbollah? Did he denounce Israel? Get back to me with an answer so I can properly digest exactly what his meeting with this man amounts to in terms of what I need to be worried about.

07-27-08, 08:37 PM	#39
Lerxst Gettin' mine... Dungeon Master Join Date: Apr 2007 Last Seen: Today 04:32 PM Location: Nose to nose... Posts: 13,748 Thanks: 3,030 Thanked 3,670 Times in 2,095 Posts Lean: Moderate Gender: Total Awards: 3	Re: Obama's Secret Rescue Mission Iranian Youth Ditch Oppressive Islam. Damn Persian chicks are hot... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOi4x4G9jww&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-bLZbkYk-I
	__________________ Step into my office....

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode