-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/06/monday-open-thread-how-was-the-weekend-3/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I have no links to share just good vibes from the Erykah Badu show I was at this evening. She gave a nice interlude to have a spiritual/political conversation about how we can all join together to make the world better. She also talked about the vortex phenomena in relation to its affect on people. It was part art installation, concert and a combination of several of her influences. Definitely not like her other shows.
(Joe) Bullshit and Pat Buchanan talking about how McCain was leading the polls against Obama and that Obama was losing against Hillary (Ford laughed and said Gore had more votes than Bush and let it end on that) and George Will who was interviewed later said those polls were trashD and that Buchanan new from his polling experience that they were. Buchanan did not argue that point with Will.
Ford let Buchana go on and on insinuating that Obama was a losing to Clinton and that he would lose to McCain and all Ford could do was laugh.
Let them frame it any way they feel the need so long as he gets the votes. This is America afterall
CNN has nothing better to do.
One Historic Night, 2 Americas
It's not over
Krugman has been such a disappointment. I can't really read him seriously anymore.
Obama give up his money advantage?
HELL NO
but i like how she broke down diminishers and deniers.
when he does, he'll be all-black again, instead of having certain types of white folks want to claim the 'good' parts of him for themselves, because how could any black be good?
this also goes for certain 'he's biracial' segments. same song.
and to be fair, blacks pulled that b.s. too because of the number of people actually thought he wasn't cool enough to be black, he talked 'white' (notice nobody says that anymore?), he was schooled 'white', he 'acted white'. and there are still a number of people waiting for him to 'act more black' and who don't trust him because he can't be trusted to be Nat Turner.
“There’s a sense among some folks that if African-Americans are voting 90 percent for ‘one of us;’ then you’re going to vote for ‘one of us,’ ” he said.
------------------
People like Pat Buchanan who conveniently overlook the fact that blacks have been voting 90% for white candidates for years are just trying to justify why they won't vote for a black person. I wish they would just man up and say, without excuse, "No, I don't like black people and I'm not voting for one." I would have more respect for someone like that than people who pull excuses out of their asses to justify not voting for a black person or the white people who blame black people for why they won't vote for a white person.
For me, this talk of Obama being just as white as he is black just means he hasn't really f-cked up yet ;)
---------------------
Notice, nobody said anything about him being biracial or mixed race or half black/half white when the Jeremiah Wright tapes came out, he was all black then. When pointed out that he was half white, it was said that he must resent the white side of himself and that's why he "threw his grandmother under the bus." But I think Barack and Michelle addressed this phenomenon themselves last year. He said if he messed up nobody would have a problem describing him as "black." Jeremiah Wright is much lighter than Barack Obama and yet nobody questions whether he's half white or anything; he's just all black. Hmm.
People do want to feel threatened or defensive.
I agree with Obama has a fine line to walk.
Shelby Steele wrote:
"Mr. Obama has said of himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . ." And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a "blank screen."
Now that the general election campaign has begun, the 'contradictions' and 'bents of character' will receive greater scrutiny than ever. And if this scrutiny is of his record and his judgment is characterized by Obama or his supporters in a way that makes voters feel 'challenged' to defend their skepticism or criticism against cries of 'racism!' than he will fail to win much of the white vote.
In one paragraph he suggests that crime is committed by blacks when referencing a statement made by a Clinton surrogate when asked if America was ready for black president, he claimed under privileged blacks were more likely to rob or mug someone.
In another paragraph, he states that during Clinton's presidency crime went down for some unknown reason when it is well-known that the economy flourished during those times.
IMO, if he believes the statement he quoted regarding the underprivleged being more likely to commit crime, it would then be with in reason to assume that during better economic times that crime would recede.
What is too black? Are you referring to the amount of pigment in one's skin?
Are you referring to a type of culture common to a certain group of people?
Do you consider the KKK to be too radical?
Overconfidence on the Left
In other words, you and a persistent handful of others, are still hoping that there's some way to "niggerize" Barack so that y'all have plausible deniability.
You can't do it with his record, because it's about as sparse as John Roberts'. So really, all you can do is make him out to be the typical angry Black man that makes SOME white people uncomfortable and distrustful. All the while being able to patronizingly say that they're not voting for Barack because he doesn't have the right "temperment" or "judgment".
I work with nothing but Conservatives/rethugs. 3 Nascar Repubs (redneckin hillbillyin) 3 Reagan ( make alota money and dont want to share any of it) 4 of the 6 plan to vote for Obama 1 plans to vote McCain and 1 plans to stay home.
The ones voting for Obama say they are convince McCain is another Bush term (all the NASCAR GUYS) and though they can afford to live comfortably, they worry that with McCain in office, it wont last long.
The other Reagan conservative is oddly enough a hispanic dude who said he'd vote for Barack if he beat Hillary b/c its a signd America is recognizing minorities. Thats the only reason though.
Rikyrah,
So thats who the dark syth is..Ive said it before, and i'll say it again, Baracks first issue he needs to resolve as far as the Dem Party is concerned is to X. the DLC and the Bluedogs off the map.
They are nothing more then republicans who oppose Roe V. Wade.
O/T: Being here in Chicago, the R. Kelly trial is something else. Kelly is producing the "Shaggy" defense "It Wasn't Me".
The truth is I know quite a few folk who have that bootleg tape, hell you can go to 87th or 79th street and purchase it on the corner. IT was that widely distributed. I could not watch anything like this, but from the folk I knew who did, said it was Kelly and he should go to jail.
Yes, the other caveat is these underage girls, where is their mommas and daddy, for that fact. True. But in the end, no man had a right to have sex with 13 or 14 year olds.
Just this, remember he married Aaliyah and she was what, 15 or 16?
Kelly has strong support here and the jury is mixed, so if he is guilty he better make a lot of cd's before the shackles are on his feet.
Chicago Tribune Article
Voting for Commander in Chief
It would be hard to design a better test for the job of commander in chief than the real-life test senators John McCain and Barack Obama have undergone in the last two years. As the situation in Iraq deteriorated during 2006 and the war reached its most critical moment, both senators served on national security committees: McCain on Armed Services, Obama on Foreign Relations. From those positions, with access to classified situation reports as well as the public testimony and private advice of those who knew the situation in Iraq best, each man reached an understanding of the facts on the ground and the interests at stake. And each proposed a strategy. It was as close as a presidential candidate could get to showing how he would respond to a national security crisis without already being in the White House.
According to Fox News, fist bumps are really terrorist fist jabs.
Although nobody has ever seen Osama bin Ladin giving "dap" to anyone.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/09/fox-news-anchor-calls-the-obamas-fist-pound-a-terrorist-fist-jab/
The key word in your comments re: Obama's record is 'sparse.'
That, along with the fact that he has shown no ability or political will to break from the tired memes of the Democrat party that no longer reflect or confront the challenges we are facing, are enough to give voters cause pause.
Obama has yet to acknowlege our success in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He does not support domestic oil production.
He wants to raise the taxes during an economic slow down and raise capital gains taxes which will hamper the ability the middle class Americans to accumulate wealth.
He plans to expand the size and scope of our government, restricting our freedom.
He will not break from the unions to allow free-trade and school choice.
These are legitimate concerns for many Americans.
Also, re: judgment
Obama chose to associate with individuals who have controversial views and he must accept responsibility for his choices. Is it 'racist' to be skeptical? No.
Your take on my comments is exactly why Obama will not win. If your view towards those who do not support Obama becomes the meme of his campaign or his supporters you can wave goodbye to his election. He will be, in your words, 'niggerized' by his own supporters if they choose to deflect criticism and characterize it as 'racism', rather than defend their candidate.
He needs more experience in national politics and governing on a federal level. He needs to build a record that reflects his desire to be bipartisan.
you didnt answer my question. i would really like to know what a white person such as yourself considers black and in this case too black.
It has nothing to do with skin color.
I consider the KKK to be evil.
It has more to do with a repudiation of moderation, and a willingness to characterize scrutiny and criticism of a far-left agenda as 'racism.'
Obama is winning over so many independents because THEY BELIEVE HIM TO BE MODERATE. The 'blank slate,' 'a Rorschach test' on whom they can project whatever they wish to see.
But that will soon change. The 'radicals' will come out in full force, believeing that Obama's nomination is an embrace of their worldview and agenda. Afterall, the daily kos/moveon movement 'owns' the party and they claim credit for obama's nomination.
Smoothies comments about 'X'ing the DLC and bluedogs off the map is my case in point. If Obama is pressed by the far-left to push moderates from the party, Obama will lose the election.
Americans may want 'change' from GWB but they do not want to 'remake' the US into a vision of the far-left.
you still didn't answer. What is 'black' and what is too black?
i would really like to know what your definition is.
s,
How do you know?
That passage re: Iraq sums it up perfectly.
And overconfidence has always been a hallmark of self-righteous liberals who think everyone who disagrees with their worldview and policies is either ignorant, racist, xenophobic, greedy or callous.
Criticize Obama's tax hikes. Well you're just a selfish rich person who doesn't want to help the less fortunate.
Support the troops and the surge strategy in Iraq. Warmonger!
Take issue with Obama's thin resume. Liberals will claim you called him 'an inadequate black man.'
Take issue with Wright, Bittergate, et al and you are nothing but an ignorant rube who chooses to ignore the TRUTH about AmeriKKKa!
...................................
The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind
By Sharon Churcher
Last updated at 1:45 AM on 08th June 2008
Now that Hillary Clinton has at last formally withdrawn from the race for the White House, the eyes of America and the world will focus on Barack Obama and his Republican rival Senator John McCain.
While Obama will surely press his credentials as the embodiment of the American dream – a handsome, charismatic young black man who was raised on food stamps by a single mother and who represents his country’s future – McCain will present himself as a selfless, principled war hero whose campaign represents not so much a battle for the presidency of the United States, but a crusade to rescue the nation’s tarnished reputation.
Forgotten woman: But despite all her problems Carol McCain says she still adores he ex-husband
McCain likes to illustrate his moral fibre by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year-old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children.
But there is another Mrs McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator’s presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain’s three eldest children.
And yet, had events turned out differently, it would be she, rather than Cindy, who would be vying to be First Lady. She is McCain’s first wife, Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965.
She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.
But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.
When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons
had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.
Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.
Today, she stands at just 5ft4in and still walks awkwardly, with a pronounced limp. Her body is held together by screws and metal plates and, at 70, her face is worn by wrinkles that speak of decades of silent suffering.
For nearly 30 years, Carol has maintained a dignified silence about the accident, McCain and their divorce. But last week at the bungalow where she now lives at Virginia Beach, a faded seaside resort 200 miles south of Washington, she told The Mail on Sunday how McCain divorced her in 1980 and married Cindy, 18 years his junior and the heir to an Arizona brewing fortune, just one month later.
Carol insists she remains on good terms with her ex-husband, who agreed as part of their divorce settlement to pay her medical costs for life. ‘I have no bitterness,’
she says. ‘My accident is well recorded. I had 23 operations, I am five inches shorter than I used to be and I was in hospital for six months. It was just awful, but it wasn’t the reason for my divorce.
‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.’
Some of McCain’s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.
McCain was then earning little more than £25,000 a year as a naval officer, while his new father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a multi-millionaire who had impeccable political connections.
He first met Carol in the Fifties while he was at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. He was a privileged, but rebellious scion of one of America’s most distinguished military dynasties – his father and grandfather were both admirals.
But setting out to have a good time, the young McCain hung out with a group of young officers who called themselves the ‘Bad Bunch’.
His primary interest was women and his conquests ranged from a knife-wielding floozy nicknamed ‘Marie, the Flame of Florida’ to a tobacco heiress.
Carol fell into his fast-living world by accident. She escaped a poor upbringing in Philadelphia to become a successful model, married an Annapolis classmate of McCain’s and had two children – Douglas and Andrew – before renewing what one acquaintance calls ‘an old flirtation’ with McCain.
It seems clear she was bowled over by McCain’s attention at a time when he was becoming bored with his playboy lifestyle.
‘He was 28 and ready to settle down and he loved Carol’s children,’ recalled another Annapolis graduate, Robert Timberg, who wrote The Nightingale’s Song, a bestselling biography of McCain and four other graduates of the academy.
The couple married and McCain adopted Carol’s sons. Their daughter, Sidney, was born a year later, but domesticity was clearly beginning
to bore McCain – the couple were regarded as ‘fixtures on the party circuit’ before McCain requested combat duty in Vietnam at the end of 1966.
He was assigned as a bomber pilot on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin.
What follows is the stuff of the McCain legend. He was shot down over Hanoi in October 1967 on his 23rd mission over North Vietnam and was badly beaten by an angry mob when he was pulled, half-drowned from a lake.
War hero: McCain with Carol as he arrives back in the US in 1973 after his five years as a PoW in North Vietnam
Over the next five-and-a-half years in the notorious Hoa Loa Prison he was regularly tortured and mistreated.
It was in 1969 that Carol went to spend the Christmas holiday – her third without McCain – at her parents’ home. After dinner, she left to drop off some presents at a friend’s house.
It wasn’t until some hours later that she was discovered, alone and in terrible pain, next to the wreckage of her car. She had been hurled through the windscreen.
After her first series of life-saving operations, Carol was told she may never walk again, but when doctors said they would try to get word to McCain about her injuries, she refused, insisting: ‘He’s got enough problems, I don’t want to tell him.’
H. Ross Perot, a billionaire Texas businessman, future presidential candidate and advocate of prisoners of war, paid for her medical care.
When McCain – his hair turned prematurely white and his body reduced to little more than a skeleton – was released in March 1973, he told reporters he was overjoyed to see Carol again.
But friends say privately he was ‘appalled’ by the change in her appearance. At first, though, he was kind, assuring her: ‘I don’t look so good myself. It’s fine.’
He bought her a bungalow near the sea in Florida and another former PoW helped him to build a railing so she could pull herself over the dunes to the water.
‘I thought, of course, we would live happily ever after,’ says Carol. But as a war hero, McCain was moving in ever-more elevated circles.
Through Ross Perot, he met Ronald Reagan, then Governor of California. A sympathetic Nancy Reagan took Carol under her wing.
But already the McCains’ marriage had begun to fray. ‘John started carousing and running around with women,’ said Robert Timberg.
McCain has acknowledged that he had girlfriends during this time, without going into details. Some friends blame his dissatisfaction with Carol, but others give some credence to her theory of a mid-life crisis.
He was also fiercely ambitious, but it was clear he would never become an admiral like his illustrious father and grandfather and his thoughts were turning to politics.
In 1979 – while still married to Carol – he met Cindy at a cocktail party in Hawaii. Over the next six months he pursued her, flying around the country to see her. Then he began to push to end his marriage.
Carol and her children were devastated. ‘It was a complete surprise,’ says Nancy Reynolds, a former Reagan aide.
‘They never displayed any difficulties between themselves. I know the Reagans were quite shocked because they loved and respected both Carol and John.’
Another friend added: ‘Carol didn’t fight him. She felt her infirmity made her an impediment to him. She justified his actions because of all he had gone through. She used to say, “He just wants to make up for lost time.”’
Indeed, to many in their circle the saddest part of the break-up was Carol’s decision to resign herself to losing a man she says she still adores.
Friends confirm she has remained friends with McCain and backed him in all his campaigns. ‘He was very generous to her in the divorce but of course he could afford to be, since he was marrying Cindy,’ one observed.
McCain transferred the Florida beach house to Carol and gave her the right to live in their jointly-owned townhouse in the Washington suburb of Alexandria. He also agreed to pay her alimony and child support.
A former neighbour says she subsequently sold up in Florida and Washington and moved in 2003 to Virginia Beach. He said: ‘My impression was that she found the new place easier to manage as she still has some difficulties walking.’
Meanwhile McCain moved to Arizona with his new bride immediately after their 1980 marriage. There, his new father-in-law gave him a job and introduced him to local businessmen and political powerbrokers who would smooth his passage to Washington via the House of Representatives and Senate.
And yet despite his popularity as a politician, there are those who won’t forget his treatment of his first wife.
Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.
‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it.
‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.
‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’
One old friend of the McCains said: ‘Carol always insists she is not bitter, but I think that’s a defence mechanism. She also feels deeply in his debt because in return for her agreement to a divorce, he promised to pay for her medical care for the rest of her life.’
Carol remained resolutely loyal as McCain’s political star rose. She says she agreed to talk to The Mail on Sunday only because she wanted to publicise her support for the man who abandoned her.
Indeed, the old Mercedes that she uses to run errands displays both a disabled badge and a sticker encouraging people to vote for her ex-husband. ‘He’s a good guy,’ she assured us. ‘We are still good friends. He is the best man for president.’
But Ross Perot, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel – even by the standards of modern politics.
‘McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory,’ he said.
‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.’
Pass it on
To this point the focus has been on process (winning the primary) and platitudes ('hope' and 'change') and history. If the debate is allowed to move beyond race and 'distractions' the choice Americans have will become clearer.
Do Americans want a more expansive, expensive federal government that sacrifices individual freedom for a 'utopian' collective equality?
Do Americans want to move toward 'socialization' of healthcare or do they want to insure the uninsured while maintaining the most flexibility and choice possible?
Do Americans want more pandering to teacher's unions with speeches about 'higher pay' for teachers or do they want school choice?
Do Americans truly want to limit domestic energy production and exploration while paying higher energy prices to appease global-warming advocates and fund dictators hostile to the US?
Do Americans really want to leave Iraq in defeat and
disillusionment? To abandon a strategy that is finally showing progress?
Do Americans truly want to believe that we are the 'root cause' of the world's problems or do they want to believe that while, imperfect, we are still a beacon of liberty, opportunity prosperity for the oppressed in this world?
Perfect. Let's keep the focus off ideas, issues and policies. Let the 'old politics' prevail.
Afraid to debate issues?
My honest opinion is that most people don't really care about those things.
So many Americans are caught up in a wave of Bush/Republican hatred that all they want is something different.
And it's going to take that "something different" having a negative effect on their lives (like the way the gas prices have steadily gone up since the dems took Congress in '06, even after they swore to bring them down) before they realize that all change isn't necessarily good.
It is selfish to mortgage the future of this country by going to war and refusing to share in the financial burden of said war. It is selfish to continue to amass wealth and the expense of the poorest amongst us. If we keep going down that route, we are going to end up a world power with a third-world society (i.e non-existent middle class).
If you want people to acknowledge your arguments as valid, you need to stop being hypocritical. If you want to discuss Wright, then let's also discuss McCain's associations with convicted Nazi-sympathizer G. Gordon Liddy.
Junglecat
...and then we can bring Hagee, Parsley, Pfleger, Rezko, etc. back for one more go-round.
But what's that really gonna accomplish?
Two things have to happen:
1. Elements of the right wing have to stop dragging out Wright and others. Yes, it speaks to judgement....but we've had that discussion already. No need to rehash it at this point.
2. Obama's supporters need to stop playing the "my associate is better than your associate" game. You claim to want a debate on the issues; well, let's have it.
Wonder which will happen first.
According to George F. Will, the Republican government of 2000 - 2006 sure did.
Invidiual Americans are the most generous people in the world.
I do not believe the federal government is the best vehicle for helping the poorest among us. Wasteful spending and 'pork' permeates the appropriation of our tax dollars and I simply do not trust the government to spend our money responsibly.
However, the federal government is the best way to provide for our national security.
I do not buy into your fearmongering...we are not going to become a third-world society...unless we choose to cede our economic freedom and opportunity for government control over our 'well-being.'
Huge government entitlement programs seek make individuals dependent on government and try to impose a 'utopian' ideal of 'equality' through government restriction of our freedom.
You choose to label me as greedy, selfish and hypocritical, yet you have no idea how much of my income I contribute to charity, or how much of my 'disposable' income contributes to the employment of low or middle income earners.
That's right. The Republican government, not the voters! Much of the dissatisfaction with GWB speaks directly to the anger Republicans felt about the growth of government under Bush.
Democrats seem to think that Bush's low approval rating is due entirely to the war.
Limited government advocates and deficit hawks will not vote for Obama because he seeks to grow government, raise taxes, stifle our economy and limit our economic freedom and opportunity.
Where to begin. So much inaccuracy. Such a skewed worldview.
Endless war. Nice try, but this meme will not stick. It is in our interests to maintain and support alliances in the Middle East. The world runs on oil. Until US innovation and creativity develop the technology and products necessary to limit and end our dependence on fossil fuels, the free flow and peak production and refinement of oil is paramount to the economic security of the US and the world economy. To allow nuclear proliferation in a region so vital to the world's economy is dangerous. To negotiate with governments and leaders openly hostile to the US and our ally, Israel, without a credible threat of military action, will place us in a position of weakness and make it less likely to deter their hostile intentions.
So a unending occupation in Iraq, the telecoms spying on Americans without a warrant the tax burdan that is shifted to the middle class the transfer of our wealth to China and Saudi Arabia that is what you are avocating.Im sorry but consevative economic policies has always screwed over the people
"You choose to label me as greedy, selfish and hypocritical"
My response:
Wait a minute, I did not call you greedy:)
D,
Maybe, you should reread my post. I was only responding to S' statements that the Wright issue was legitimate. I do not think associations (with very limited exceptions) are legitimate topics of debate.
I would rather debate, how you think America is safer as a result of the war in Iraqi
I would rather debate, how it makes sense that taxes should be lowered even though we are involved in three wars.
I would rather debate how the federal government plans on preventing another Katrina.
However, if people like s keeping throwing Wright in my face, I will respond in kind.
Junglecat
You wrote:
"It is selfish to continue to amass wealth and the expense of the poorest amongst us."
That's pretty much the definition of 'greedy.'
"Okay again the NIE reported that Iran has suspended their nuclear progam."
_____________________________________
Perhaps you missed this.
From the NYT 5/26/2008
The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran’s suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remained “a matter of serious concern” and that Iran continued to owe the agency “substantial explanations.”
The nine-page report accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations that its nuclear program may be intended more for military use than for energy generation.
Part of the agency’s case hinges on 18 documents listed in the report and presented to Iran that, according to Western intelligence agencies, indicate the Iranians have ventured into explosives, uranium processing and a missile warhead design — activities that could be associated with constructing nuclear weapons. ….
The report makes no effort to disguise the agency’s frustration with Iran’s lack of openness. It describes, for example, Iran’s installation of new centrifuges, known as the IR-2 and IR-3 (for Iranian second and third generations) and other modifications at its site at Natanz, as “significant, and as such should have been communicated to the agency.”
The agency also said that during a visit in April, it was denied access to sites where centrifuge components were being manufactured and where research of uranium enrichment was being conducted.
Junglecat
Israel's nukes are a deterrent to the existential threat posed to them by Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, et al.
They have never threatened to wipe anyone off the map.
This deterrent is non-negotiable in face of the fact that their enemies will not even acknowledge their right to exist!
"So a unending occupation in Iraq, the telecoms spying on Americans without a warrant"
____________________________________
Your arguments are nothing more than the same regurgitated anti-American memes spewed by those who wish to believe the worst about this country.
Yawn.
Those are McCain's stances djchefron is reminding you of. Can you defend them?
Also, would you please tell me what the definition of black and too black is (one of your earlier arguments).
...................................There is nothing anti american about standing up for the constitution that I took a oath to defend.Show me where it is right to spy on citizens of my country without a warrant.I know a lot of you are scared so you abicate your rights to the government to protect you this was tried in 1930 Germany and we know how that ended.We do not have to be a imperialist country,It doesnt serve the people and it only enriches the few who can give a damn about our country.
Yes. I can defend McCain's stance on success in Iraq. Time and time again, McCain's position has been mischaracterized. I will not over that again, but I will say that it is not 'endless war' to suggest that it is vital to our security to retain a military presence in Iraq after we achieve success, draw down our forces, and bring most of our troops home. We remain today in Germany, Japan and South Korea and there is no 'endless war' in those countries.
"Endless war" is nothing more than a fear-mongering meme used to keep young voters who are ignorant of history believing that peace and stability cannot be achieved, in part, by military action or even the threat of military action.
As far as 'domestic spying:'
Again, more fear-mongering.
Until it can be proven that this action has led to a whole scale attack of our civil liberties, I am willing to allow it, in the same way that many Americans are content to pay high taxes because they think the government is helping our less fortunate citizens.
We have not been attacked here at home since 9/11. I am willing to allow the US government to monitor conversations coming in and out of this country to keep us safe.
I took the same oath.
If our enemies are actively using our infrastructure to plot against us, then the government has the right to take whatever measures it feels are best to bring them to justice.
I'm willing to bet money that if the government caught someone on tape threatening to kill you or your family without a warrant, you'd be first in line to have them prosecuted. This is no different.
To adress you other point.
I was responding to an article linked to by rikyrah, "Where White draw the Line."
Whites will begin to 'draw the line' on Obama if he is seen as 'too radical.' This has more to do with his worldview and vision for America.
Personally, I really don't by into the "Too black" vs "Not black enough" argument.
My point is not based on skin color. But on a personal political philosophy.
I agree with Shelby Steele's assessment that Obama has had to 'make a bargain' with white voters. To make them feel comfortable.
But all presidential candidates must do that in order to win election.
In that regard, his bargain is: "I am moderate." White independents and swing voters LOVE moderation, are non-confrontational and adopt a 'live and let live' attitude towards abortion, gay marriage, etc. They may personally oppose abortion, but do not want to see it outlawed. Some may prefer it to be left to the states, but feel that there is no threat that it will ever be 'out-lawed' and that doctors and women will be prosecuted for performing or seeking an abortion.
Again, this is vacuous Dem slogan.
I do not accept the premise that the money spent on Iraq can be better spent here at home.
I support spending money to fund our troops so that they can succeed in a mission that keeps us safe from domestic terror attacks and promotes a free, stable Iraq.
'Throwing money' at a problem alone will not achieve equality, assure justice or prompt meaningful reform.
How we choose to spend the money, and how responsible we are with it, both at home and abroad is more of a concern to me.
For example, how does pandering to teacher's unions about 'more pay' improve access to quality education or hold poor teachers accountable for the miseducation or non-education of our children?
I really just can't buy into your wild claims and gross exaggerations. Your extreme characterizations undermine your arguments. Can you cite any example of a serious violation of a fellow American's civil liberties as a result of our government's action regarding listening to telephone conversations?
d,
I'm with you. Your response is thoughtful and logical.
Getting Whitey: Michelle Obama's Secret Negro Agenda
and....
Be Not Afraid ;-)
"Whitey" tape doesn't exist:
Everything's Gonna Be All White
But this is funny anyway, 'cause McCain is such a jerk and calling your wife a "c*nt" is a no-no!:
John McCain is OLD!!!
JOHN MCCAIN: Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war.
When I was five years old, my father left for war.
My grandfather came home from war and died the next day.
I was shot down over Vietnam and spent five years as a POW. Some of the friends I served with never came home.
I hate war.
And I know how terrible its costs are.
I'm running for President to keep the country I love safe.
I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
I see you're not going to answer my question about what black or too black is and you certainly must have an opinion, otherwise you wouldn't have referenced too black and too radical. You know it's bullshit though, that's why you won't even bother defending it. It's the typical bs rhetoric you repukes use to try and win votes. Now that is racist. Take advantage of the negativity spewed upon one group = racist.
Also, what about being a prisoner of war, whore and war monger certifies one to be POTUS?
John McCain = YAWN
The leader of the tribal confederation that has fought to expel Al Qaeda from most of Iraq's Anbar province is offering his men to help gin up a rebellion against Osama bin Laden's organization along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
I'll be damned; Iraq's turning into an ally.
"The war is lost," huh?
Tha article asked "Where do Whites Draw the Line"
The article attempts to define 'too black' and yes I do think it is bs.
IMO Obama's success in winning over independent white voters lies in his success at defining himself as a 'moderate,' and politically 'non-threatening.'
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120579535818243439.html
Hilarous Jamaican Pot Smuggling Attempt from 1979
'
You really believe that Iraq is an ally based on the words of one tribal leader?
I know you are smarter than that. Stop being intellectually dishonest.
Junglecat
Been there, done that.
(how many times have I said that here?)
Junglecat,
Note I said "turning into an ally."
And when the word of a tribal leader- whose movement is widely recognized as one of the turning points in Iraq-is placed against the word of someone who hasn't seen the country in 2 years...yeah, I go with the tribal leader.
It would be intellectually stupid not to.
What's that all about?
C-SPAN Callers Post Hillary Clinton Endorsement Speech pt.1
I think the Democratic party has not done enough to diffuse the idea the primary wasn't fair. Some callers insist that caucuses are not legitimate.
One woman says Obama is not ready now but might be in 4 years. I wonder what he is expected to learn in 4 years. Maybe he can go to President school.
Another woman thinks if Clinton supporters are expected to support Obama, then Obama supporters should back Clinton for VP.
Not to mention the report about the administration blackmailing the Iraqi administration by holding hostage $50bn of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html
D,
We are NEVER going to have Iraq as an ally as long as we continue to occupy their land. If you want to grasp at straws in order to come to a different conclusion, knock yourself out.
Junglecat
...................................
Shiite cleric warns of popular uprising against Iraq-U.S long term agreement
Karbala - Voices of Iraq
Monday , 09 /06 /2008 Time 10:17:06
Karbala, Jun8, (VOI)-A renowned Iraqi Shiite cleric on Sunday warned that a popular uprising may erupt if Iraq signs the long-term agreement with the U.S .
The proposed security agreement would cover the status of U.S troops in Iraq, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity for security contractors after United Nations resolution governing U.S forces in Iraq expires in December.
Speaking to reporters and clerics in Karbala, grand ayatollah Mohammed Taqqi al-Mudaressi said “the proposed security agreement between Iraq and the U.S lacks the overall and in-depth vision of Iraq’s general affairs”.
The cleric expected “the agreement would fail if the details of the deal remained as they are in the current draft”, adding “ signing the agreement came while Iraq is deprived of sovereignty under chapter seven of (the Security Council charter).
He branded the agreement as “ a sort of US blackmailimg and a sword strangling Iraqis”.
“Infringing Iraq’s sovereignty would not be in the U.S interests as a superpower because the agreement humiliates people’s dignity, pushing them to uprise and to start a new cycle of violence”, he pointed out.
Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. Iraq has been considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter.
Influential Shiite clerics in Iraq and neighbouring Iran oppose the deal and have called it a move against their religion.
They have vowed to stage protests to force the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to roll back the deal which is expected to be concluded by the end of July.
A declaration of principles was signed between U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in December 2007. The declaration was planned to be ratified on July 31, 2008 to be effective as of January 1, 2009.
The agreement governs the U.S. forces' presence in Iraq after the year 2008. This presence currently relies on a mandate by the UN, renewed annually upon the request of the Iraqi government.
The agreement will not valid unless it commands a national consensus and be approved by the Iraqi parliament and the presidency board.
Al-Mudaressi is a Karbala-based grand ayatollah and key cleric of religious Shiite authority that has a strong sway in Iraq.
Karbala, the second hold Shiite city after Najaf, lies 110 km south-west Baghdad
AM
...................................Before you start beleiving the war criminals who lied us into this debacle read what the shiites who are the majority have to say about it
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/why-is-mccain-getting-58000-year-in.html
Junglecat
The best thing that could have happened for John McCain's outreach to evangelicals has happened --the Democrats have settled on their most radical nominee in their history, and no evangelical who cares about abortion or same sex marriage or porn or religious freedom can be indifferent to the result of the fall vote.
Senator Obama's expressed admiration for Justice Ginsburg contrasts sharply with the admiration Senator McCain has expressed for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. With six justices aged 68 or older, the stakes for the future of the Supreme Court could not be higher. Evangelicals might have preferred a different Republican nominee and Senator McCain would be well served by a running mate with solid conservative credentials, but only MSMers scornful of the intelligence and judgment of evangelicals will conclude that more than a handful will sit out the election because they didn't get their first choice as the nominee.
A Town called Dildo
One of the Oldest Bloggers in the World
Gore Vidal (Part 1)
Gore Vidal (Part 2)
SpaceShip Man
Hilarious. I heart Bill Moyers.
Honey01
You beat me to it! :)