BBC BLOGS - Justin Webb's America
« Previous | Main | Next »

Obama's Republican fans

Justin Webb | 20:53 UK time, Thursday, 18 December 2008

President-elect Obama's biggest fan club has now been well and truly outed: it is not the pinko media, it is W's staff, stupid!

The W posse are fawning over the O team with the kind of attention a spaniel lavishes on another spaniel's bottom.

What could they be after - presidential pardons? (Only kidding)

This is the latest evidence and evidence as well of the fact that Dick Cheney has a future as a stand-up comic.

President Bush's former chief of staff Andy Card - also at that meeting - told me recently that this transition is the best ever!

Ever!

Too cosy already...

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions

Comments

  • 1. At 10:21pm on 18 Dec 2008, Justin wrote:

    They're probably just relieved that all their messes are about to be someone else's problem.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 10:41pm on 18 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    No it is because one fault that you can not lay at George Bush is pettiness.

    Unlike say Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 10:46pm on 18 Dec 2008, OldSouth wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 4. At 10:51pm on 18 Dec 2008, alanskillcole wrote:

    Perhaps because the President-elect is very likeable. He's also very intelligent - even his enemies admit that.

    And he has a very smart team. Nobel Prize winning physicist, educator, financier, ex-supreme commander of NATO, other clever folk...as well as politicians.

    On this side of the pond, we can only look on wistfully - and make do with like of Mr. Woolas, the Milliband duo, Ms. Smith, Ms. Flint, Mr. Brown, etc, etc, etc
    (Gone are the days even of heavier politicains like Crossland, Hattersley, Wilson,...)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3816848/Jacqui-Smith-drops-plans-to-give-public-say-on-police-authorities.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 11:07pm on 18 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 3

    The problem with Republicans has nothing to do with running effective campaigns or presidential transitions, but with their ineptitute and arrogance once they win an election.

    Instead of the pragmatism and focus on qualifications exhibited by both Obama and Clinton, Republicans are known for appointments based on who helped the most during the campaign, regardless of how unqualified the person may be.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 11:10pm on 18 Dec 2008, LAshutterbug wrote:

    They're not going to need any pardons from President Obama, as most of them will likely already have gotten them from the one who currently resides in the White House. Despite the earlier promises of our our Constitutional monarch King George II (head of state and almost completely powerless, as recent history has shown) I have little doubt that he will pull a big page out of Bill Clinton's playbook and unleash a blizzard of pardons come January. The list will include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rice, Libby, Gonzales...and that's just for starters. Of course, Georgie-Porgie almost doesn't have a choice, as this is pretty much the only way his people will remain beyond the reach of U.S. law. And, since my country would sooner go Communist before joining the ICC and be forced to behave like everybody else and abide by rules, these Nuremburg-worthy trolls will walk away scot-free. The final disgusting piece of the Bush legacy.

    Funny how I have the sudden urge to stock up on spare pairs of shoes...

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 11:18pm on 18 Dec 2008, emmaforce wrote:

    #3, in that article whose link you posted, it clearly stated that similar pranks were reported in the transition from the elder Bush's admin to the Clinton admin. So it wasn't specifically a Clintonian farewell.

    Very pleased that GWB is exiting in such a fashion, honestly, but I'm waiting for the list of pardons to be announced.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 11:24pm on 18 Dec 2008, DougTexan wrote:

    Ahhh, ya'll miss the point,.. I've said for years that GW is the best damn Democrat I've seen in years,.. a big government, limited freedoms (wiretaps etc.), hidden prisons and wild spending,..

    Whats the difference betwwen him (GW) and Obama,.. they both studder, miss say words and are,.. in a word,.. clueless,.. to the people and the world,..

    .. and taxes, GW's so called tax break of six hundred in federal taxes cost twelve hundred in state and local,.. oh, but we were fooled. NOT

    ..and they both think they're perfect,.. Gods gift to humanity,.. if GW said weapons of mass demise, than thats that. If BO says change,.. than thats that... even with four more years of insiders,..

    ..isn't that the definition of stupid, doing the same things with the same people and expecting diferent results,.. ie: change?

    more than just words, propaganda.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 11:37pm on 18 Dec 2008, DougTexan wrote:

    5. , DominickVila
    "The problem with Republicans has nothing to do with running effective campaigns or presidential transitions, but with their ineptitute and arrogance once they win an election.

    Instead of the pragmatism and focus on qualifications exhibited by both Obama and Clinton, Republicans are known for appointments based on who helped the most during the campaign, regardless of how unqualified the person may be."

    WHAT?? Did you see an effective campaign? Clinton was focused on the intern and "IMPEACHED" on December 20th 1998. He couldn't do anything for two years and the economy and country 'boomed',.. you did know he was impeached,.. right?

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 00:30am on 19 Dec 2008, Jeebers76 wrote:

    3, OldSouth

    ''The real scandal here,'' Ms. Palmieri said, ''is how much time and money the Republicans have wasted in a vendetta against the Clinton administration. It's troubling that the White House cooperated so enthusiastically with this investigation, but refused to provide the G.A.O. with records of the energy task force headed by Vice President Cheney.''

    You think MAYBE this is why the Clinton bunch trashed the White House for Bush? Gee, seems more than a mite bit understandable, doesn't it?

    Kids, did you know that on Bush's limo ride to the White House just after the election, his car was egged?

    I don't think ANYONE likes the man these days, and apparently this began many years ago. I still wonder how he managed to get elected in the first place, but then I remember his fear-mongering.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 00:33am on 19 Dec 2008, Orville Eastland wrote:

    If anything this makes me glad I didn't vote for Obama. As someone who has never trusted George W. Bush for a second- even on 9/11- anyone highly praised by him is highly suspect to me. And, given what I know about the foreign policy team- and what I know they knew about WMD- then I'm even more suspicious of that group.

    Oh, it's not just the White House staff. Mona Charen, the Republican commentator just ran a column praising the Obama foreign policy staff.

    Can someone sue Obama for false advertising?

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 00:41am on 19 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 9

    Doug, you may want to buy a new history book. There is a difference between undergoing impeachment proceedings and being impeached. President Clinton finished his second term and handed the presidency to George W. Bush, keyboards integrity notwithstanding.

    Bill handed W a budget surplus, a $5 trillion national debt, record employment, a solid economy, and a Social Security and MEDICARE that were not being raided to make the budget deficits look smaller than they are.

    A month from now President elect Obama will inherit record budget deficits, a $10.5 trillion national debt, $53 trillion in unfunded liabilities, a ruined real estate market, financial and banking institutions teetering on bankruptcy, an auto industry approaching in "orderly collapse", and keyboards with the letter W on them.

    I have the feeling Obama would gladly trade the keyboards for what W inherited 8 years ago.

    I don't condone Bill's adulterous relationship, but why was he singled out and force to swear marital fidelity under oath when a whole array of US Presidents, from Washington to FDR, did the same?

    I repeat, the GOP is good a running presidential campaigns, but they are plain lousy at governance.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 01:15am on 19 Dec 2008, DougTexan wrote:

    "......,UNITED NATIONS – Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality...."

    Notice how "they" report the United States as "Alone",... And if that isn't enough,...

    "...In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution..."

    So, the US is "Alone" with 125 other members not signing this,.. but no accolades for forgoing execution.

    My point is moot,...

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 01:23am on 19 Dec 2008, DougTexan wrote:

    #12

    Article 1, perjury to a grand jury,. convicted 228 votes to 206, Article 2, perjury in the Paula Jones case,.. vindicated 205 yea, 229 nay, Article 3, obstruction of justice, convicted; 221 Yea, 212 nay, Article 4, Abuse of power, vindicated 148 yea, 285 nay

    Check your "HISTORY" book, an angry and divided congress made Bill Clinton the second president to be impeached in HISTORY!

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 01:25am on 19 Dec 2008, DougTexan wrote:

    .. and as to the sticky keyboards and stolen dinner ware and silver,.. they weren't republicans doing it, but bitter and 'without authority' DEMOCRATS.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 01:29am on 19 Dec 2008, ladycm wrote:

    I keep hearing in the media how orderly the transition is with Obama. I bet Bush's people are happy. They are tired of the debacle of the past eight years. I am willing to bet an animal could govern better than this administration. Obama has something George Bush, doesn't besides 2 size ten shoes coming at his face last weekend:

    1. true intelligence.
    2. pragmatism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 01:35am on 19 Dec 2008, ladycm wrote:

    12. At 00:41am on 19 Dec 2008, DominickVila:

    "I repeat, the GOP is good a running presidential campaigns, but they are plain lousy at governance. "

    The GOP treats America as if it was one big corporation. As top executives, they reap the benefits while the rest of us pay for those benefits.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 02:27am on 19 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    As far as the stolen silverware and vandalized
    keyboards go, I am amazed to find that the White
    House has been sacked twice in its history:
    once by the British and once by the Clintons!

    In fact, both pillagings were similar in many
    respects. The British, under Admiral Cockburn,
    raided a DC based newspaper, and destroyed
    all of its "C" lettered type so that it could not
    print derogatory articles about him.

    Perhaps Clinton's staff should have removed
    the same letter from the white house keyboards.

    More details are available here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 02:50am on 19 Dec 2008, moderate_observer wrote:

    well the W team ruined everything else so from their standpoint its more like 'well we have to get this right'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 02:54am on 19 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    And, I might add for our British friends, that if
    you invaded and burned Washington to the ground,
    and did not miss the IRS building, you would
    be doing all of us here a great favor. Particularly,
    of course, if you did it before next April 15th.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 03:12am on 19 Dec 2008, moderate_observer wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 22. At 03:23am on 19 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    Reading some of the putrid rubbish here from Democrats, it's evident you have short memories and arrogantly imagine you have an innate right to make any outrageous or slanderous statement with impunity. Typical! With such poor values and judgment, no wonder you are still besotted with a dope like Slick Willie whose second term, of his own making, was a disgraceful mess in which little or nothing was accomplished.
    From one who is not by far a George Bush fan, lest you conveniently forget when accusing him of dragging down the wondrous economy he inherited from Slick Willie - who through gross ineptitude and a bad dose of gutlessness let Osama bin Laden slip through his fingers - 9/11 occurred about nine months after Bush took office. That event devastated the U.S. and other economies, put airlines and other services out of business. The country then went into a costly wars, first in Afghanistan from where Al Qaeda operated, then Iraq after EVERY intelligence agency in Europe, not just the CIA, reported that Sadam Hussein still had WMD. For 12 years, till the invasion of Iraq, he had thumbed his nose at the world and rejected about 16 UN resolutions.
    The biggest mistake in regard to Iraq was Bush Snr not allowing General Schwarzkopf to finish off Sadam Hussein at the end of the First Gulf War.
    Your remarkable intolerance of anything Republican, or not Democrat, is almost astounding, renders you a pathetic lot given to irrational statements and poor judgment, your latest one choosing Louis Farrakhan's 'Messiah', Oprah's 'The One'. Utter rubbish fit for infants!
    We will see where the U.S. stands in the world when this presidency ends. My regret is that it won't be pretty, but then, 'without vision we perish' and it's something you will find out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 03:38am on 19 Dec 2008, ladycm wrote:

    20. At 02:54am on 19 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    "And, I might add for our British friends, that if
    you invaded and burned Washington to the ground,
    and did not miss the IRS building"

    I will agree with this also, they are just so cripplingly bureaucratic. There is a great episode of the Simpsons in which Homer Boo's the IRS. Every Americans dream.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 03:43am on 19 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    Speaking of Obama's Republican supporters, have you seen this:

    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sent a rather scathing letter to Mike Duncan on Tuesday, accusing the RNC chairman of engaging in "a destructive distraction" by attempting to tie Barack Obama to Rod Blagojevich. In particular, Gingrich hit the RNC for putting out a web ad that made it seem as if the President-elect was hiding a nefarious chapter of his personal history with the embattled Illinois Governor.

    "The RNC should pull the ad down immediately," Gingrich writes.


    More here.

    Newt Gingrich an Obama man? Who'da thunk.

    Did he who made the lamb ... make Newt?

    Cheers,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 03:51am on 19 Dec 2008, Jeebers76 wrote:

    22 robloop,

    Your post came across as more than a little angry, and somehow, I don't think anyone here will respond positively. What was your goal in posting on this thread? Do you really think you've done anything to accomplish what you set out to do?

    There are better ways to get your beliefs/points across. I don't think you're going to get what you want by using the language that you've used in 22.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 04:06am on 19 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    Chuck Hagel, where are you? We expected you to have an important post in the new administration.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 04:09am on 19 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    23, ladycm.

    I fantasize about strolling among the IRS computers with a huge magnet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 04:14am on 19 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    Re: 20 Guns, 23 ladycm

    South Park, the Snuke episode. Remember who is America's oldest enemy?

    "Mature" content. Viewer discretion is advised.

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 04:27am on 19 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #26 Jeebers76
    Nothing personal to you, and thanks for responding courteously enough. But just go back and read some of these postings from those who make evident their Democrat allegiance, and them consider them against what I've said. Apart from being angry, some seem to suffer from convenient amnesia or are biased to a point of irrationality. Is honest or fair? Regarding Bush it's as if they believe they can make any absurd accusation or statement without challenge. And yes, in response to that attitude, I am happy to annoy them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 04:35am on 19 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    chronophobe, you have pulled a bandaid off
    a scab of American culture. I promise to get
    to the Snuke as soon as I have watched
    "Night of the Living Homeless."

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 04:44am on 19 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    re: 26 Ms. Marbles

    Maybe he's the guy Gates will be "transitioning" to ?

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 04:58am on 19 Dec 2008, ladycm wrote:

    27. At 04:09am on 19 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
    23, ladycm.

    "I fantasize about strolling among the IRS computers with a huge magnet."

    Has anyone ever wondered why when you call the IRS they first open up with their badge number? Because they are constantly pissing people off probably! Boo the IRS! I will probably get audited now :(



    28. At 04:14am on 19 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:
    Re: 20 Guns, 23 ladycm

    "South Park, the Snuke episode. Remember who is America's oldest enemy?

    "Mature" content. Viewer discretion is advised."

    Hahaha! I love this show. I love Randy he is my favorite, he is such an idiot. That episode is sick, but hilarious as usual. I find that people who watch South Park have great taste.



    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 06:07am on 19 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    31, chronophobe.
    "Maybe he's (chuck Hagel) the guy Gates will be "transitioning" to ?"

    This is rather what I was thinking. It was stated clearly that Gates would not be around more than a year. So Hagel immediately comes to mind. It is a great spot for him, and I like him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 06:10am on 19 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    32, ladycm.
    "Has anyone ever wondered why when you call the IRS they first open up with their badge number? Because they are constantly pissing people off probably!"

    I guess it wouldn't help to throw a shoe at the phone, would it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 06:30am on 19 Dec 2008, ladycm wrote:

    34. At 06:10am on 19 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    "I guess it wouldn't help to throw a shoe at the phone, would it?"

    Only if you had a super futuristic phone. I like my shoe(s) thrown in person, but; that's just me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 06:40am on 19 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    28, chronophobe.

    I see that you know how to use quotation marks properly. Unusual on this blog. I wonder what you do for a living....

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 06:53am on 19 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    35, ladycm.
    "Only if you had a super futuristic phone. I like my shoe(s) thrown in person, but; that's just me."

    It's the thought that counts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 07:37am on 19 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    "President Bush's former chief of staff Andy Card . . . told me recently that this transition is the best ever!"

    Aren't we so chummy with the good and the great - "Andy" Card indeed! Justin, you do not impress us with such name-dropping - only the insecure feel the need to do that.

    "Too cosy already..."

    Such a Jewish-American phrase; you'll have to drop that back in Blighty.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 07:41am on 19 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #35. ladycm: "Only if you had a super futuristic phone. I like my shoe(s) thrown in person, but; that's just me."

    Not quite in person, but this simulation might prove handy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 07:43am on 19 Dec 2008, R-Snail wrote:

    22 robloop

    Rule # 1. Know your audience.

    These aren't Democrats. This is a BBC blog. The preponderance of posters here are far too left-leaning to be Democrats... socialist sycophants... many of whom have emigrated to the US for personal gain, and even naturalized so that they can now vote to make the US more like the motherland that they left behind....?
    The rest are mostly anti-authoritarians who despise Bush for having an opinion, and will soon despise Obama for his. Look at the backlash from the latest inaugural guest list.

    There are a few very intelligent, albeit opinionated, bloggers who post the occassional diamond... It's kind of fun to sift through the tripe, but don't try and change anyone's perspective here. It's like trying to put lipstick on a pig.

    Cry "havoc" and loose the pit bulls with cosmetics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 08:21am on 19 Dec 2008, Jeebers76 wrote:

    40 R snail

    That was insulting, derogatory, and just plain mean. Nothing more than simple hate speech. It's fine if you have an opposing opinion, but there are far more eloquent and respectful ways of doing so. Name calling isn't going to win you any respect here. You seem to have such a low opinion of us that I wonder why you even bother to post, but then I remember that some people make themselves feel better by ripping on others to bring them down.

    Pretty immature impulse, R-Snail, and an immature post. You can do better than that!

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 11:01am on 19 Dec 2008, Longmemoryman wrote:

    One can cynically conclude that the outgoing team want to avoid inquests into their actions once the new guys take over. This is an unfortunate feature of the US system. Whilst in office the administration's officials are almost above the law, but once out of power they are not only subject to the law, but more onerous than that, also to the political malice of their successors. Nothing new--it's been like that for two hundred years! If bush is obliged to issue some immunity to his people it's just the way the system works in Washington, I'm afraid. All considered, though, at least Bush is showing some dignity. I disagree with just about all his policies, but there is nothing petty about the man as an individual and he deserves some respect for that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 11:14am on 19 Dec 2008, Dabbler273 wrote:

    "Republicans in general, unlike Democrats in general, believe that elections have meaning, even when they lose, and cooperate in transitions.

    This is in contrast to the Clinton-to-Bush transition, in which the incoming Bush office staff arrived to find the offices trashed, and office equipment vandalized. Many computer keyboards, for instance, had the letter 'w' pried off. The Bush folks downplayed the incident, in the interests of moving forward, but it was truly a Clintonian farewell."

    I imagine a lot of people were smarting over the Florida vote counting ... it's hard to respect the winning candidate when it looks like someone cheated on his behalf, after all. Mind you it would have been amusing to see the USA revert to being a Crown Colony if the arguments had carried on much longer.

    I don't seriously think either side is whiter-than-white or in any way morally superior to the other, or respects the democratic process more than the other. Some do, some don't, some are bad losers (and winners) and others are dignified and graceful. Obama and McCain both seemed to handle the electoral challenge with a great deal of the latter, and GW has chosen to depart in the same vein, which is to the credit of them all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 11:54am on 19 Dec 2008, Schwerpunkt wrote:

    38. David_Cunard wrote:


    ""Too cosy already..."

    Such a Jewish-American phrase; you'll have to drop that back in Blighty."

    Actually this phrase would pass without notice in England as 'cosy' is in widespread use. Hardly something that would be seen as Jewish or even Jewish American.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 11:57am on 19 Dec 2008, Schwerpunkt wrote:

    42. Longmemoryman wrote

    "Whilst in office the administration's officials are almost above the law, but once out of power they are not only subject to the law, but more onerous than that, also to the political malice of their successors."

    Quite similar to the cycle in Republican Rome where office holders were pretty much immune to prosecution while they held the office but fair game when they relinquished it. Hence the attempts by the powerful who had made many enemiies to wangle another posting at the end of the consulships to keep the 'enemy' at bay for a while longer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 12:06pm on 19 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Loopy,

    "he had thumbed his nose at the world and rejected about 16 UN resolutions. "
    Far from champion in that league...

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 12:17pm on 19 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Hard-point, It ain't the 'cosy' that makes it sound "Jewish" already.

    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 1:43pm on 19 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 14

    No Doug, a rabid Congress led by a lecher that was later found guilty of an adulterous relationship sacked one of the most successful US Presidents for being guilty of zipper malfunctions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 2:01pm on 19 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #24 chronophobe
    No, Gingrich is not "an Obama man", just a Republican who recognizes the harm done by the RNC when having no proof of what they are claiming is a Obama - Blagojevich connection, and for being unbalanced.

    #40 R-Snails
    Whether the more wild comments come from immigrants, etc, as you've described, I have no idea, but appreciate you acknowledging that they are more than a little 'dippy'. I have no illusions about changing minds and despite what might appear, I do get a few good laughs at the more clever postings.

    #41 Jeebers
    Come on now! The posts to which R-Snails refers were all of what you attributed to him, not least "ripping others down", showing "hate", and being "immature". And no, I'm not looking for an argument with you, just suggest you look back and see what R-Snails is talking about.

    #13 DougTexan
    It takes 'character' to stand alone and little or no character to join the crowd.
    In this case the US was not alone, just
    'alone' among Western nations. If US personnel in the UN have been watching the EU and particularly this wretched little tyrant, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, they will know that behind the declaration is an agenda.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 2:21pm on 19 Dec 2008, Steve-Beacon wrote:

    Barack Obama has many opponents within the Democratic Party. Ed Rendell did not support Barack for racial reasons. Rendell has destroyed the Commonwealth's economy. The People of the State should consider recalling Rendell for incompetence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 3:26pm on 19 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Perhaps instead of analyzing the effects of voodoo economics and the borrow and spend of the past 8 years we should focus on the wonderful transfer of power that is about to take place which has, among other attributes, the orderly Vs disorderly transfer of bankruptcies.

    Hopefully the O's have not been removed from the White House keyboards!

    And now I'll just sit and wait for Rick Warren to deliver a sermon at the Inauguration...

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 4:37pm on 19 Dec 2008, TheresOnly1Soupey wrote:

    What a legacy - well done G.W.B and all your cronies.

    You have single handedly brought terror around the world with your hypocritical policies and your bloodthirtsy desire for oil. You have improved the recruitment of fundamentalists with your wars and failed to prevent the biggest murder of American citizens in a single incident EVER.

    You have brought the world to it's knees financially and possibly ended the modern day capitalist structure. You have presided over the destruction of credit confidence while your friends busily lined their pockets. You have allowed crooks to pillage in the name of democracy, right the way up to the white house (Halliburton)

    You have failed to intervene in true crisies - like Darfur, Somalia and Zimbabwe - choosing to turn your blind eye in response to the horros.

    Not since Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party has any one leader and his politics caused so much instability in the world.

    So as you head back to the ranch, stepping over the millions you have slaughtered in your term you will realise that rather than securing a future supply of oil for your country you have in fact made the USA the number 1 target for the rest of the worlds anger. You have also weakened the position of the US as a superpower, and in fact may have moved the centre of power to the East.

    Good riddance fool - if I had a pair of shoes on me I would.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 4:40pm on 19 Dec 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    OldSouth (#3), yes, but you left out the part where it was reported that similar incidents occurred during the Bush the first to Clinton transition. Deplorable in both cases, I think.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 4:43pm on 19 Dec 2008, HabitualHero wrote:

    " the fact that Dick Cheney has a future as a stand-up comic. "



    Was a man ever so appropriately named?

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 4:43pm on 19 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    A case needing more support?

    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 4:52pm on 19 Dec 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    DougTexan (#14), wrong. The language of the US Constitution is:

    " ... no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present."

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section3

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 4:53pm on 19 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Bill's Worldwide Fans

    "Bill Clinton's foundation disclosed its donors list, which includes the Saudi royal family and leaders of a Mideast nation seeking a U.S. nuclear deal...."
    Peace and Salaaaaaami
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 4:55pm on 19 Dec 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    Here's a link to the actual results. A simple majority was not obtained on either charge, let alone two-thirds.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 5:06pm on 19 Dec 2008, middlecroony wrote:

    #22 robloop
    Your remarkable intolerance of anything Republican, or not Democrat, is almost astounding, renders you a pathetic lot given to irrational statements and poor judgment
    -------------------------------------------------------

    Sadly robloop, you might have good point, but nobody listens because of your tone and level of condescension. I can't imagine what you may be like in person.

    Sticks and stones.
    Mastering the art of deplomacy is not easy, but it can be very effective.
    It's great there are differing opinions on this blog, it would be very mundane if it were not so. Please, just eliminate the name-calling for all our sakes


    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 5:10pm on 19 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #47. Ed Iglehart: "Hard-point, It ain't the 'cosy' that makes it sound "Jewish" already."

    Too subtle Ed, too subtle.

    Hardpoint, "cosy" (or cozy) has been around since around 1700 in England (don't know about Scotland . .) and everyone knows what it means - it's the tag "already" which is the Jewish-American part. I'll bet it's not used even in Golders Green.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 5:18pm on 19 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    jeebers 10 fear mongering worked the second election but the first time there was no fear in the US. they still believed no one would ever do anything against the US.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 5:22pm on 19 Dec 2008, mdalerwill wrote:

    I followed the link Justin Webb provided as the "latest evidence", this being the first time I've actually read the infamous Huffington Post. Interesting story, but then I read the comments.

    For those who did not have time to read the comments, I thought I would share my favorite: Whenever Dick Cheney makes a joke, somewhere an angel gets cancer.

    So sick, so crude, so wrong, so dead-on. I almost hyperventilated. I think this comment will be my email sagnature for awhile.

    Re #41, Jeebers76,

    Amen.

    Re #51, DominickVila,

    If the outgoing administration takes all the O's, perhaps staff can borrow from the 0's they are going to be using to describe the deficit also kindly provided by the previous administration.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 5:26pm on 19 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    25. At 03:51am on 19 Dec 2008, Jeebers76 wrote:
    22 robloop,

    Your post came across as more than a little angry, and somehow, I don't think anyone here will respond positively. What was your goal in posting on this thread? Do you really think you've done anything to accomplish what you set out to do?

    There are better ways to get your beliefs/points across. I don't think you're going to get what you want by using the language that you've used in 22.



    he's just a racist bigot that forgets where he is when his tail lifts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 5:31pm on 19 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    oh the slug is back yippee

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 5:32pm on 19 Dec 2008, OhNeverMind wrote:

    Sorry guys, but I don't see Obama as intelligent. Look at all the choices he's made so far. Just a load of old has beens.

    He just sounds intelligent - and I guess that's good enough for you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 5:34pm on 19 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    38 DC I would never have thought that a jewish phrase. maybe it was in origin but so is "OI" , last time I checked that was still pretty common in the UK.Who cares if it is of Jewish origin , so was Christ.

    Like the sock and awe though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 5:35pm on 19 Dec 2008, OhNeverMind wrote:

    Well done #40. The best thing I've read hear in well....

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 5:36pm on 19 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    44" tea cosy" to back your argument up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 5:46pm on 19 Dec 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    David_C,
    The ending "already" reminded me of the style of language, as used by the lost tribe of Israel- The Welsh. They too have the habit of putting already, isnt it, doesnt it etc at the end of every sentence when speaking.
    Of course it could be a throwback to a form that Justin picked up during his early schooldays at his Quaker school.
    He does seem to be throwing in a lot of old memories about friends from his past these days? Preparing himself for his return?

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 5:50pm on 19 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    41 another tail lifter.

    they think that they are smart ,have an point etc but once this blog topic is ruined by them, many others are convinced they are bigoted fools.

    Sorry to leave it at this, but seeing as neither R made any points there is nothing to argue about.
    might just as well respond in kind by insulting their intelligence and pointing out that both have shown enough bigotry in their writings to make the nazi's blush.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 5:51pm on 19 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    but be careful they like the complain button.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 5:55pm on 19 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    67
    oh never mind

    "Whatever"

    show some intelligence and people might believe you.

    Agreeing that two bigots plus you make three does not make an argument.



    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 5:57pm on 19 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    And DC I see the point already;)

    just thought all NY spoke like that.

    But that's probably like cockney they speak like that once they have left NY too show they are from NY.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 6:05pm on 19 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    PS num ones I was no fan of willie, (though I cared little about someone sucking up to him.)



    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 6:08pm on 19 Dec 2008, labcoat_samurai wrote:

    22 robloop

    "Your remarkable intolerance of anything Republican, or not Democrat, is almost astounding"

    Pot. Kettle. Why does this always have to be so partisan? We have DougTexan saying stuff like this:

    "Ahhh, ya'll miss the point,.. I've said for years that GW is the best damn Democrat I've seen in years,.. a big government, limited freedoms (wiretaps etc.), hidden prisons and wild spending,.. "

    These are democrat ideas? Maybe I'll give you the big government, but even the wild spending is a dubious charge unless you think the only true Republican is a Goldwater-esque Republican. But that hasn't been the case for a very long time (look at the national debt growth under Reagan)

    On the other hand, I'm not going to turn around and call them Republican ideas, either. I don't think it adds anything to the discussion to get into a pissing contest about which party has done more bad for the country and thus is the worse of the two.

    Why do people have such blind devotion to political parties in this country? I had to declare a Democratic party affiliation to vote for Obama in the caucus, and it made me feel dirty. I hate having to "affiliate" myself with a party, but it seems so many people out there do it happily and without a moment's hesitation, as though they were backing their favorite sports team.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 6:11pm on 19 Dec 2008, middlecroony wrote:

    It makes me sick that this evil outgoing administration is able to have light-hearted interviews about all their decisions and regrets. How many hundreds and thousands of people have lost their lives due to these criminal decisions.

    They should all be arrested for war crimes, & crimes against humanity. I'm against death penalties, so an ugly striped suit turning big rocks into little rocks for the rest of thier lives would do me just fine.

    Most of the time i'm ashamed to be human. I can only hope that the earth will someday cleanse itsself of us. We are very undeserving of all the beauty nature has to offer us. We never learn. Old diseases pop up anew, rapes, starvation, war, due only to greed and stupidity.
    ---------------
    It is a melancholy of mine own, compounded of many simples, extracted from many objects, and indeed the sundry contemplation of my travels, which, by often rumination, wraps me in a most humorous sadness.
    Shakespere.


    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 6:12pm on 19 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Enough, already!

    Bringing the mountain to a power station near you.
    ;-(
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 6:21pm on 19 Dec 2008, labcoat_samurai wrote:

    12 DominickVila

    "Doug, you may want to buy a new history book. There is a difference between undergoing impeachment proceedings and being impeached."

    14 DougTexan

    "Article 1, perjury to a grand jury,. convicted 228 votes to 206"

    Ok, two things. Yes, Clinton was indeed impeached. No, Clinton was not convicted.

    Probably the stinkiest thing about the whole business was the partisan nature of the vote. Republicans almost universally in favor and democrats almost universally against. Either he committed a crime worthy of removing him from office and convicting him or he didn't. It should not be a polarizing partisan issue. I was personally of the opinion that there was no good reason to proceed with impeachment, which leads me to call this a Republican witch hunt, but I respect that a person who genuinely felt the offense worthy of impeachment would draw the opposite conclusion.

    Similarly, I'm glad that partisan efforts to pursue an impeachment of Bush failed. Impeachment should not be a partisan tool to go after a president you don't like (and I don't like Bush, incidentally... though I do respect the civility and maturity of the transition so far.... funny, Bush has done more to make me like him in the last few months than he did in the preceding 8 years)

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 6:35pm on 19 Dec 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    labcoat_samurai (#75), I think you are mistaken when you claim "blind devotion to political parties." In fact, unaffiliated registrations have been going up in recent decades relative to party registrations. So many people consider themselves independents nowadays that the group can be considered almost a significant third party.

    You had to declare Democratic to participate in a caucus because it's a party function. You can't have it both ways, except in some primary states.

    I have been registered independent since 1976. I don't participate in party functions even when I have resided in states where one or more parties allow it. Why would a true independent expect to?

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 6:39pm on 19 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    Beyond the immediate transition period, no-one here, other than DominickVila, seems to have taken notice of Mr Obama's unfortunate choice of a minister for his Inauguration. Anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, anti-Prop 8 - all of which should give heart to Republicans. It is said that one should not judge a president by such a choice, but why would he want to offend so many who voted for him? A couple of articles on this point may be found here and here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 7:15pm on 19 Dec 2008, labcoat_samurai wrote:

    79 Gary_A_Hill

    Well, I don't think I'm mistaken, perhaps largely because I didn't make a generalized claim. If I had made a claim about the scope of such devotion, I would have something to be mistaken about, but there are undeniably a lot of people out there who are blindly devoted to a party, and I was mostly lamenting the presence of them on this board ;)

    "You had to declare Democratic to participate in a caucus because it's a party function. You can't have it both ways, except in some primary states."

    Oh I know *why* I had to declare the affiliation. I just said I felt dirty doing it.

    "I have been registered independent since 1976. I don't participate in party functions even when I have resided in states where one or more parties allow it. Why would a true independent expect to?"

    Why not? If I would rather have Barack Obama on the ballot in November than Hillary Clinton, and it is within my power to contribute to that goal, why not do it? Ultimately, declaring democratic party affiliation is meaningless. It doesn't make me beholden to the democratic party and doesn't prevent me from voting in the republican caucus next time, provided I "switch" my affiliation (and I might be tempted... I heard it was far more organized... the democratic caucus I attended was an absolute mess)

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 7:18pm on 19 Dec 2008, mdalerwill wrote:

    Re #80 David_Cunard,

    I guess it was too much to hope he would choose someone like, say, a UU reverend.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 7:19pm on 19 Dec 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    David_Cunard (#80), I noticed, but just didn't post anything. I'm not impressed with Obama's choice of pastors, either past or present. Why couldn't he choose one with no political footprint at all? This is just another thing for people to get worked up about, as if we didn't have enough already.

    I'm not worked up about it, myself, though. It's just a prayer, not policy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 7:23pm on 19 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Going to the mountains is going home.
    -- John Muir

    ""Oh Beautiful for smoggy skies, insecticided grain,

    For strip-mined mountain's majesty above the asphalt plain.

    America, America, man sheds his waste on thee,

    And hides the pines with billboard signs, from sea to oily sea.

    - George Carlin
    Keep close to Nature's heart... and break clear away, once in awhile, and climb a mountain or spend a week in the woods. Wash your spirit clean.

    -- John Muir

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 7:32pm on 19 Dec 2008, frayedcat wrote:

    I think the motivation being hopes of a pardon are dead on these people must be scared s***tless.
    Hoping to see charges of war crimes - aren't there already charges pending in Brussels?

    Can anyone see the humor in the choice of this reverend, vs the furor over the rev Wright? I think its funny- wizard!

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 7:34pm on 19 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #59 middlecroony
    I regret seeming condescending, but even if you read no other posting read TheresOnly1Soupey's #52 and you'll get the picture why I get fed up and responded as I did. It contains erroneous nonsense that then went unchallenged. With some here, unjustly demonizing Bush seems par for the course and evidently they don't even expect a challenge.
    Bush did not create terror round the world, Muslims extremists began it decades before Bush entered the scene, and took it to a new level when Bill Clinton was president.
    They began hijacking, blowing up commercial jet liners and killing the passengers more than 35 years ago. Panam flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was just one example. In 1993 and Clinton president, al Qaeda tried to bring down the WTC, killing many Americans; they blew up two U.S. embassies in East Africa, Nairobi and Mobassa, killing hundreds of innocent Africans, and among other things, bombed the USS Cole in Aden, killing 17 American sailors. Yet back in 1996 Sudan offered to hand over bin Laden to the U.S.!
    Only after that did Bush enter the scene. Then came 9/11, the London underground bombings and the blowing up of passenger trains in Madrid, Spain.
    The failure to apprehend Osama bin Laden and deal with al Qaeda began with Clinton, not Bush. These are facts, not the anti-Bush fiction so often seen here.
    And why should the U.S. intervene in Darfur, Somalia or Zimbabwe? Let the African Union deal with what is in their back yard.
    Whatever his other failures, blaming Bush for all the things this person has, is a cheap shot - yet no one else responds!
    Even if there differing opinions on this blog, which of course can be fun, all I ask is that posters try to be fair - and civil - and then I'll be civil, which in my 22 I felt disinclined to be.
    Of course yu can't imagine what I am like as a person, but the fact is that ft

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 7:44pm on 19 Dec 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    lab (#81), if there are a "lot," it's interesting that I've never met many. There's a handful of Republican zealots who grind their axe on blogs. There's the occasional Libertarian, all of whom are zealots but too few in number to matter. There's the Nader faction, which doesn't really count as a party. Nader goes shopping for a party banner every four years.

    If you felt "dirty" it's because you should have. Apparently, you lied about your party affiliation in order to crash someone else's "party." There's no honor in that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 8:21pm on 19 Dec 2008, middlecroony wrote:

    86

    I'm not really coming down on what you say, you're entitled to your own opinion, it's just the name calling. You are intelligent enough to make a point w/out that.
    I don't agree with every statement made here but i would never intentionally disrespect that person verbally.

    By being fair and civil, do you mean agree with you? people write what they truely feel, but that does not make them unfair and non civil, this blog is just a bit disproportionate with views such as yours in the minority, it's just the way it is. There are plenty of other blogs where your thoughts are the majority, you have options, but what kind of fun would that be?!

    ...and yes this country has made many mistakes in many administrations, going all the way back to the very beginning, i won't argue with that, but as i said before things just don't seem to change. Obama may do some great things he might not, but no matter what we all suffer the cosequenses together, as we suffer GB together

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 8:22pm on 19 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #86. robloop: "And why should the U.S. intervene in Darfur, Somalia or Zimbabwe? Let the African Union deal with what is in their back yard."

    Using that reasoning, why did the U.S. intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which are in America's back yard? If the reason to invade Iraq was to free the people from a tyrannical despot, then the same logic should apply elsewhere. African nations do not have the capability of taking military action to remove Mugabe.

    "all I ask is that posters try to be fair - and civil - and then I'll be civil, which in my 22 I felt disinclined to be."

    Lead by example, it works far better than your initial approach.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 8:34pm on 19 Dec 2008, labcoat_samurai wrote:

    87 Gary

    Yeah, I don't have any stats on it to argue the point, but I've met my fair share. I know a few people in my immediate family who vote straight ticket.

    "If you felt "dirty" it's because you should have. Apparently, you lied about your party affiliation in order to crash someone else's "party." There's no honor in that."

    Hey now.... I mislike having my honor questioned.

    We have a two party system in this country and there is no reason why I should have less say in who represents me come January than a person who happily and loyally backs their favorite political sports team. I'm going to vote for a republican or a democrat in November as long as they are the only ones with a chance of winning, so I don't see why honor should dictate that I have no say in who gets on that ballot in the first place.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 8:40pm on 19 Dec 2008, ladycm wrote:

    22. At 03:23am on 19 Dec 2008, robloop:

    You make good points here. I have a feeling this comment may be directed towards someone like me. For me, it's not about blind allegiance to any party but picking the lesser (in my view) of the two evils. By that I mean, I in general am against most of what republicans stand for. On social issues, and on fiscal issues. I just think they could never work, and in my opinion this has been shown in history over and over again. Especially with the bail outs given by our "free market" guy G.B. Also, the republicans have REALLY turned me off by rallying around people like Sarah Palin. Of course, dems have Rod Blago so... However, I do have a large amount of respect for people like Colin Powel. Republican who does actually care for us little guys. But your main point even though pointed out in anger is correct. There are many idiots in both parties and there are independent idiots too. No one is perfect, we are all hypocrites. I would say more but, I gotta go to work! I am just glad to have a job right now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 8:57pm on 19 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    As a respite from badly re-worked Hallelujah, Something far better

    Peace and Kisses
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 9:11pm on 19 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    The real thing, with best wishes from 80%

    Hallelujah
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 9:54pm on 19 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #76

    You keep harping in your BDS manner about this admin being evil and war crimminals.

    Sorry the War Criminals are:

    Irananian Mullahas
    Hezbollah and Hams members
    Hugo Chaves
    Fidel Castro
    The butchers in Darfur and Somalia
    Robert Mugabe
    The U.N human Rights council

    You can say Bush was a failure but he has committed no war crimers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 10:28pm on 19 Dec 2008, TruthSlinger wrote:

    12. At 00:41am on 19 Dec 2008, DominickVila wrote:

    Don't kid yourself buddy, revenues from FICA have always been treated as general revenues so Clintons initial deficits and subsequent surpluses were thusly distorted due to the same "raiding of the Social Security Trust Fund".

    If you remember the economy was not rock solid in fact you may remember the bursting of the Tech bubble or Greenspans famous quote of "Irrational Exuberence" both referreing to economic problems that mirror todays current mess.

    On that note 1999 Clinton was for repealing the fed banking regulations that led to much of todays problems (i.e. Glass - Steagall). Also he was for the social engineering project that created sub-prime and other "exotic" mortgages to expand homeownership.Now that they are all getting forclosed on seems that maybe they were not part of the housing market for a reason.

    George Bush's problems are many but don't white wash history.

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 10:32pm on 19 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    94, Magic.
    "You can say Bush was a failure but he has committed no war crimers."

    Your are a hero if you win, and a war criminal if you lose. The crimes are the same in both cases.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 10:59pm on 19 Dec 2008, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:

    What is the big deal over Presidential pardons? They are not a bad practice. I can not think of any modern president who issued no pardons at the end of his Presidency. They exist so that an incoming administration will not be paralyzed by cases surrounding the previous administration, think Ford's pardoning of Nixon. Governors have the same authority and use just as frequently. It is just best for the country to move on with our lives.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 11:06pm on 19 Dec 2008, middlecroony wrote:

    #94
    what is BDS?

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 11:14pm on 19 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #96

    What war crime.

    Iraq violated the terms of the first Gulf War war. Argue the wisdom of Bush's decision all you want.

    But as over 95% of the death were the result of Iranain or Al Quada backed terrorists you are looking in the wrong direction.

    but to you the U.S Israel and the Western democracies are always wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 11:32pm on 19 Dec 2008, seanspa wrote:

    #97, what state would the country be in without the pardon of Marc Rich? By an amazing twist though, Rich was actually once represented by Scooter Libby, who himself could have done with a pardon, but I believe that has not (yet) happened.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 11:40pm on 19 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #89 David_Cunard
    David, Afghanistan and Iraq situations can hardly be compared with those of Darfur, Somalia and Zimbabwe.
    Al Qaeda, with the approval of the Taliban government, operated out of Afghanistan when organizing the attack on the WTC and other targets round the world. Clinton's response to the earlier Al Qaeda-organized attacks on U.S. personnel in Saudi Arabia, then on U.S. embassies in East African and the USS Cole, was to send cruise missiles into Afghanistan in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden. Colin Powell later disparaged this weak effort as 'disturbing rocks in the desert'.
    Then came 9/11 and doing something about Afghanistan became urgent. The fact is, the WTC attack originated in Afghanistan and out of necessity Afghanistan became the U.S.'s backyard.
    The invasion and occupation of Iraq came after about 12 years of the U.S. and Britain, primarily, containing Iraq following the First Gulf War that Iraq caused by invading Kuwait. Again the U.S. was already deeply involved, initially drawn by the First Gulf War.
    Re Darfur, Somalia and Zimbabwe, why should the U.S. look for new challenges and do what the African Union and European nations, with a bit will, should be able to settle? Why is it necessary for the U.S. to also make countries in Africa it's back yard when already stretched in Afghanistan and Iraq? It seems to me that when an international conflict occurs, almost everyone wants the U.S. to come to the rescue, and then when matters don't go quite according to expectations it is condemned. Kind of damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.
    In the case of Somalia, the U.S. was involved, but after the death of about 17 U.S. servicemen during a battle with a warlord's mob in Mogadishu, Clinton pulled all U.S. troops out.
    The U.N. made noises about dealing with Darfur and the impression is that there was objection to U.S. involvment. In any event, the U.S. was already stretched and not looking for another conflicts.
    As to Zimbabwe, the utterly useless Southern African Development Community and AU was adamant that it did not want Western involvement. It said it would sort out Robert Mugabe - with Thabo Mbeki's totally useless 'quiet diplomacy' - that is so 'quiet' today Zimbabwe is now in a tragic mess. However, that was Africa's choice.

    #91 Ladycm
    Thanks for your courteous and reasonable comments. Your 'soft answer turned away wrath'! For your honesty I already feel better about you! But to be honest, you were one who annoyed me a bit. In all honesty I was not "angry" even if through words chosen I appeared so to you and others (I will try to remember that!), just thoroughly impatient at unbalanced things read time and again.
    Re politics, I think your attitude toward chosing the lesser of the evils is a good one. It avoids becoming overly partisan.
    All I ask is not that others reflect my opinions, but that they try to be factually accurate and fair.
    That aside, in these tough times I'm glad you have a job.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 11:46pm on 19 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    Had McCain-Palin won, with the prospect of Mrs Palin's daughter being married, I wonder how the media (on both sides) would have responded to this report about the mother of the groom?

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 00:41am on 20 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #89 David_Cunard
    One more point, re you comment about African countries not having "the capability of taking military action to remove Mugabe." The South African military could.
    For about 16 years South Africa fought a war in Angola after the Soviets deployed about 50,000 Cuban troops there. In 1987 the South African military pulverized a large communist force (of about 25,000) led by a Russian General Konstantin Shagnovich, at Quito Quannavale on the Lomba River. It captured millions of dollars of Russian equipment that today it uses for training.
    That includes Russian tanks.
    While no longer the force it was during white rule, the South African military could still beat to pulp anything that Mugabe has. The problem is that Mugabe and Mbeki are old Marxist chums and that takes priority over the lives of Zimbabweans and a country now afflicted by starvation, disease, now not least cholera, and Mugabe's thugs who run amock.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 00:45am on 20 Dec 2008, frayedcat wrote:

    #99 - perhaps this is incorrect. I think UN did not determine that Iraq violated treaty or law. There was no aggression against the US by Iraq prior to the 'war'. There had been no genocide for a decade. Iraq had civil peace, prosperity and the best health care system in the Mid-East.

    The Bush administration claims that 9/11 and Al Queda were connected to Iraq pre-war, and that there were bio and WMD in Iraq, have since been shown to be based on false, intentionally manipulated if not fabricated, reports. "Bush Doctrine" per se violated existing treaties. These are war crimes, as are torture and secret illegal imprisonment.

    When challenged , GW Bush said "so what".

    Not only is it war crimes, it is unAmerican. Strip him of his lapel flag pin too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 00:52am on 20 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 101

    "Then came 9/11 and doing something about Afghanistan became urgent. The fact is, the WTC attack originated in Afghanistan and out of necessity Afghanistan became the U.S.'s backyard."

    Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11/01 did have training camps in Afghanistan where they operated with our support when they were fighting the Soviet Union. It is not clear the Taliban participated in the planning and execution of the WTC tragedy, but since they were either too weak to intervene on our behalf or sympathetic to Al Qaeda's cause it is not difficult to understand why we decided to remove them from power.

    If you want to discuss the root of the intense hatred against us you have to go no further than Saudi Arabia. Most of the terrorists that executed the 9/11 attack were Saudi Wahhabists, and so is Osama bin Laden, the planners and financiers of that act. Instead of punishing the homeland of those that attacked us, we declared Saudi Arabia a "Most Favored Nation" for trade purposes and attacked and invaded Iraq whose secular regime was itself a target of Al Qaeda.

    Making comparisons about strategic errors made by the US government is risky. President Reagan's decision to deploy marines to an indefensible location near Beirut airport led to a horrible tragedy. His decision to cut and run after that attack citing that was not our war sent a wrong message to our enemies in the region.
    Our decision to replace the Iraqi Sunnis that had been our allies for decades with Shiites aligned spiritually to Iran changed the balance of power in the Persian Gulf region and made it impossible for us to withdraw from Iraq, not that we were planning to considering the political windfall in favor of George W. Bush that made him unbeatable four years ago, and all the money made by US corporations involved in the "rebuilding" of that hapless country.

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 00:57am on 20 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 102

    The focus would have been on her supplier if he/she had turned out to be one of those pesky Dems that are always up to no good.

    I wonder how inclusive a McCain/Palin Administration would have been? Would they have included Dems and asked an overt "agent of intolerance" to deliver the sermon during the Inauguration I wonder...

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 01:01am on 20 Dec 2008, middlecroony wrote:

    102
    total white trash!

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 01:03am on 20 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 99

    "But as over 95% of the death were the result of Iranain or Al Quada backed terrorists you are looking in the wrong direction."

    Are you suggesting the 25,000 munitions that the Pentagon said they used during the invasion, plus the thousands of munitions used since then, were expended in target practice? Were the targets mobile or stationary? When we see images of US soldiers shooting and walking through towns reduced to rabble, should we assume those sites are just training camps built by Hollywood engineers and our troops are simply participating in action films?

    There is no question that the acts of violence carried our by terrorists, and by insurgents intent on expelling us from their country, exacerbated the situation and contributed to much of the damage done since the invasion, but suggesting we were innocent bystanders is disingenous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 01:41am on 20 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #101. robloop: "Afghanistan and Iraq situations can hardly be compared with those of Darfur, Somalia and Zimbabwe."

    As with other zealots, you miss the point. Afghanistan and Iraq are not in America's back yard, so why should Africa be any different? Could it be that (other than the supposed discovery in Chinhoyi) Zimbabwe has no oil reserves?

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 01:59am on 20 Dec 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #94

    Magic,

    Hugo Chaves? Who is Venezuela at war with? Cuba?

    I'm not entirely aware of the UN decalring war on anyone since Korea either.

    Confused Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 02:19am on 20 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    105 DominickVila
    Some interesting comments. I think you will find that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden had pretty much made Afghanistan their home base rather than simply having training camps there. Bin Laden certainly had after fleeing there from Sudan - to which he had fled after falling foul of Saudi authorities.
    I don't think it is accurate to say that the U.S. helped Al Qaeda during the war to eject the Soviets from Afghanistan. It's my firm impression that the U.S. helped the Afghan mujahdeen who, it seems, later turned into the Taliban, rather than Al Qaeda whose leadership (including Osama bin Laden), as you've pointed out, were mostly Saudi Wahabists and even during that anti-Soviet war hostile toward Americans.
    As to the U.S. granting Saudi Arabia 'Most Favoured Nation' status following the mass murder committed by its citizens in 9/11, some things in international politics are thoroughly sickly and beyond comprehension.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 02:44am on 20 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #109 David_Cunard
    Why on earth can you not resist the temptation to be annoying by informing me that I'm a "zealot"? I'm not. Rather go back and re-read my posting, you are not making much sense.
    Of course Afghanistan is not "in" America's
    "back yard" and I didn't say it is. The U.S. made of Afghanistan - metaphorically speaking - "its back yard" when hostilities against it came from within Afghanistan.
    Africa IS different to Aghanistan and Iraq for the simple reason that none of its countries are at war with the U.S. and inhabitants of African countries did not attack the U.S., inhabitants of Afghanistan had. Did you really expect the U.S. not to retaliate against Afghanistan?

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 03:39am on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    102, David.

    Sometimes I enjoy a little smut and gossip (low taste). Think of the genetic burden of that baby, given its two grandmas.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 03:51am on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    107, middlecroony.

    Do they have trailers in Alaska?

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 04:18am on 20 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #101, Regardless of whether or not you believe
    that we should have invaded Iraq (and, for the
    record, I was against it), one would have to
    agree that the Bush administration bungled
    every attempt to occupy and stabilize the country.

    Bush failed to relieve Rumsfeld for a protracted
    period of time, even when it was obvious that
    the man had to go. It was only when Petraeus
    was put in charge that things turned around,
    and this was 4 years after the initial invasion.

    There were cheaper ways (in money and
    blood) to have deposed Saddam than by
    invasion.

    As far as Somalia was concerned, yes Clinton
    bungled the operation, but at least we didn't
    wind up there with an open-ended commitment.

    It appears that it is far more difficult to export
    American-style democracy abroad than it is
    to get ourselves embroiled in long-standing
    regional disputes, such as the ones between
    the Sunnis and the Shia. All we have done
    is to divert substantial resources from other
    issues which need our attention, such as
    Darfur, Somalia, and so forth.

    As far as the Europeans go, they won't be
    capable of unified action for at least another
    40 years or so. I'm not condemning them,
    this is just a political reality. This makes
    American leadership all the more vital in
    unifying the democracies of the world, which
    is something that the Bush administration
    has undermined on a massive scale.

    Even though I am not an Obama fan, I do
    believe that he will repair our image in
    the eyes of the rest of the world. And,
    there is possibly an upside in his election:

    The Republican party may eventually be
    able to discern why they lost, and come
    back to their roots.

    In the meantime, I will not be short of inspiration.
    The Democrats are a fine party to ridicule.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 04:52am on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    115, guns.

    At the risk of giving you a swelled head, I would like to say that you are an open-minded and astute man. I may not always agree with you (although I do, most of the time), but I cannot fault your reasoning.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 05:02am on 20 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    OK, USA, so you're deeply in debt, with massive revenue shortfalls. You're involved in two bloody, costly, and intractable wars. Unemployment is up, your financial sector and some of your major industries teeter on the brink of collapse, and yet:

    "That sucking sound is all the world's capital going into the U.S. Treasury market."

    Edward Yardeni, a U.S. financial analyst, noting that last week, buyers were so eager to park money in the world's safest investment, U.S. government debt, that they agreed to accept a zero-per-cent rate of return.

    Go figure.

    The real question is: is it a black hole?

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 05:12am on 20 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    One more late night post before bed.

    Apropos the Afghanistan question, have you seen this? It is a set of 40 or so interviews with Taliban fighters, who were asked a set of (relatively) standard questions.

    None of these guys knew much of anything about the "infidels" they are fighting, save that they are either not muslims, or lackeys of the not muslims. The only international ambitions they have are toward Pakistan, as none of them recognise the Durand line.

    These shmucks, at least, are not your international jihadis.

    Definitely worth a look.

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 05:15am on 20 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    115 gunsandreligion
    If you think about it again, Bush did send General Patraeus to Iraq, so in fact he didn't bungle "every" attempt to occupy and stabilize the country. He just took too darn long getting this right.
    Poor judgment must be one of his worst faults. Loyal to people like Rumsfeld is a serious flaw.
    In my opinion the moment to have ended Saddam Hussein's tyranny was at the end of the first Gulf War. The military momentum was there, and so was general international support, but Bush Snr didn't have the stomach and Colin Powell showed up poorly when not enforcing rules about where Iraqi forces could go, so in reprisals they murdered thousands in the south.
    If Norman Schartzkopf had had his way that would not have happened.
    However, on humanitarian grounds I believe that Hussein had to go and no one else, least of all the Arab League was about to do anything about him. The fault was staying around with illusions about creating a democracy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 05:32am on 20 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #112. robloop: "go back and re-read my posting, you are not making much sense.

    You wrote "Let the African Union deal with what is in their back yard."

    I see no no difference between genocide in Africa or elsewhere. And for your information, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq declared war on the United States. If you are suggesting that a nation is at war because of the actions of individual citizens, then using that logic you could say that America is at war with Great Britain. You are a zealot - and none too civil into the bargain.

    #113. allmymarbles: "Think of the genetic burden of that baby, given its two grandmas."

    And I still wonder of Mrs P's last child is really her own - the daughter seems to be quite productive. Also, will they ever marry, or will there be a change of mind now that the Palins will not be moving to Washington?

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 05:57am on 20 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #116, Ms. Marbles, it's too late, my opinion of
    myself does not correspond with my paycheck.

    #117, chronophobe, in a word, yes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 06:13am on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    119, robloop.
    "Poor judgment must be one of his worst faults."

    And inexcusible. We do not hire a president to be an idiot. A sign on Harry Truman's desk said, "The buck stops here."

    "Loyal to people like Rumsfeld is a serious flaw."

    No. The serious flaw was not being loyal to the interests of the American people.

    "In my opinion the moment to have ended Saddam Hussein's tyranny was at the end of the first Gulf War."

    We did not invade Iraq because of Hussein's tyranny (which was none of our business anyway). We did it for power and oil. Politicians are not known for their altruism.

    "The fault was staying around with illusions about creating a democracy."

    Each culture has its own notion of "democracy." The Iraqis do not see us as democratic. In any case, democracy is a propaganda word with no meaning.

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 06:17am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    107. At 01:01am on 20 Dec 2008, middlecroony wrote:
    102
    total white trash!


    I thought you were talking about robloop but then I checked the post.

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 06:18am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    Sam so good to see you back.

    I tried to fish for a sam earlier but got no bite.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 06:20am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    110 why let any truth get in the way of the racial bias.(now he has spent some time pretending he is not a bigot)


    .

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 06:26am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    I don't think it is accurate to say that the U.S. helped Al Qaeda during the war to eject the Soviets from Afghanistan.


    maybe not

    The origins of the group can be traced to the Soviet war in Afghanistan. The United States viewed the conflict in Afghanistan, with the Afghan Marxists and allied Soviet troops on one side and the native Afghan mujahedeen on the other, as a blatant case of Soviet expansionism and aggression. The U.S. channelled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the native Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupation in a CIA program called Operation Cyclone.[42][43]
    At the same time, a growing number of foreign Arab mujahedeen (also called Afghan Arabs) joined the jihad against the Afghan Marxist regime, facilitated by international Muslim organizations, particularly the Maktab al-Khidamat,[44] whose funds came from some of the $600 million a year donated to the jihad by the Saudi Arabia government and individual Muslims - particularly wealthy Saudis who were approached by Osama bin Laden.[45] Maktab al-Khidamat was established by Abdullah Azzam and Bin Laden in Peshawar, Pakistan, in 1984. From 1986 it began to set up a network of recruiting offices in the United States, the hub of which was the Al Kifah Refugee Center at the Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue. Among notable figures at the Brooklyn center were "double agent" Ali Mohamed, whom FBI special agent Jack Cloonan called "bin Laden's first trainer,"[46] and "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman, a leading recruiter of mujahideen for Afghanistan.
    The Afghan Mujahedeen of the 1980s have been alleged to be the inspiration for terrorist groups in nations such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the former Yugoslavia.[47] According to Russian sources, the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 allegedly used a manual allegedly written by the CIA for the Mujihadeen fighters in Afghanistan on how to make explosives.[48]


    last bit good, but not proof.
    all wiki

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 06:27am on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 128. At 06:37am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    The U.S. made of Afghanistan - metaphorically speaking - "its back yard" when hostilities against it came from within Afghanistan.


    No that was when they went over to help fight the russians

    and stormin Norman never had a mandate to go in. but never let relity get in the way.
    Did you really expect the U.S. not to retaliate against Afghanistan?

    It was a criminal action. by your standards and logic if iraq had the power they would be ok to invade the US.

    "and so was general international support"

    yea right thats why they couldn't get a mandate to invade also GW senior was not as much of an idiot as his son who as middlecroney put it should be locked up for war crimes.

    120 DC go for it.
    "You are a zealot - and none too civil into the bargain."
    well said

    115 GnR as always proving the Republicans can be fair minded intelligent people.
    Thanks again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 06:37am on 20 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#103Robloop

    I have spent some considerable time in Africa. One of my sons-in-law is from South Africa and he has family still living there.
    I am not sure what you are suggesting.

    The current political situation in SA is somewhat volatile. Mbeki is on his way out. Zuma is not universally popular and those who are not happy with him are seeking to form a new party.

    The situation in Zimbabwe is worse than terrible but Mbeki does not have the power to change anything. This is a complex problem. The suffering of the people of Zimbabwe tears into my soul but SA cannot really do much to help. Mugabe must relinquish his hold on power so his people can survive. I doubt that he will do this.

    One thing I do believe is that the US must stay out of this except for aid and sanctions. Many people in Africa feel that outsiders have already caused enough damage and that Africans can manage their own affairs.

    This is an emotional issue for me. I have kinship with so many people in Africa. Sorry if I got way off topic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 07:00am on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 131. At 07:01am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 132. At 07:03am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    Ed is 80% still out of the game?

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 07:04am on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    121, guns.
    "Ms. Marbles, it's too late, my opinion of
    myself does not correspond with my paycheck."

    I'll make things right by taking you down a peg in my next comment. I wouldn't want you out of sync.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 07:06am on 20 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#120Davidcunard

    Do you think that the US should use military to intervene in Africa? I agree that situations in some countries there are terrible but have we not done enough harm in the last eight years?

    How could we even know that what we were doing was best for people? As horrible as this may seem, perhaps the people know what they want and do not want the US telling them what to do.

    Our track record is really not very good.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 07:11am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    If some wonder why I am so rude to some here .

    True story. a friend once got so drunk that she did not know that she was having sex.
    the Guy took advantage of her alcohol induced unconsciousness .Then the next day was bragging.I asked my friend (V .close) "you and chris eh?"

    now she had never hid a sex exploit from me before so when she said "what?" I knew what had happened.We talked.
    I did confront the guy told him he was a short step from a long drop if he did it again.
    But from then on whenever I was in a room and he was being all civil and friendly , I could hardly help but shout "you fraud".


    Same here but not rapist of course.
    Strangely enough he didn't think he was a rapist either.

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 07:13am on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    120, David.

    I answered you twice, but each time my comment was placed on hold. The moderators' censorship is uneven at best. Outrageous and often racist comments are printed while many reasoned opinions are not. Their policy eludes me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 07:15am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 138. At 07:16am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    134 but we got gold medals at the olympics

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 07:17am on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    134, aqua.

    The problem you have with your knowledge of Africa is much the same as mine with the Middle East. Is the truth so much at variance with American policy that American policy wins out?

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 07:18am on 20 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #134. aquarizonagal: "Do you think that the US should use military to intervene in Africa?"

    Africa's a continent but certainly there are situations there where the head of government should be replaced - which was part of the rationale for the invasion of Iraq: regime change. I can't see what else would succeed, certainly sanctions have not. It's not as if a protracted fight could be mounted by Mugabe, et al.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 07:28am on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 142. At 07:32am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    136 this is a subject banned. or it got the jacksforge banned.

    on the republican fans.
    I have a total gun pokin tree killing oil lovin ,here's the strange one,wanna be racist republican friend.


    Funny as hell loves palin too. really gets on me worse than a rash of r's if I say bad things about her

    But He likes that Obama,though I suspect he will be pee ed off at the minister, CAUSE GOD DOESN'T BELONG AT AN INAUGURATION .

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 07:36am on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    140, David.

    We have to stop sticking our nose into things that are none of our business and which we do not understand. Look at the mess we are in today. We have our own problems. They are serious and should take precedence over everything else.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 07:37am on 20 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#140Davidcunard

    I would say stay out of Africa, the whole continent.

    What business is it of the US to dictate when a leader in any other country should be replaced?

    Has the US not done enough damage in their ignorance of other people and cultures?

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 07:37am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 146. At 07:40am on 20 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#139Allmymarbles

    Since when is 'truth' that important to anyone who wants power or wants to prove a point?

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 07:41am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    115 GnR I think they often have the pay scales mixed up. you speak too much sense here and if you do the same at work I am sure that is why you do not get paid enough. Either you make them look bad or
    If they did, you may take more time off which would give them less time to try to grab your ideas to present to the boss as their own.

    Though I had thought you to be self employed in which case it's them cheap customers ain't it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 07:43am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:



    on the republican fans.
    I have a total gun pokin tree killing oil lovin ,here's the strange one,wanna be racist republican friend.


    Funny as hell loves palin too. really gets on me worse than a rash of r's if I say bad things about her

    But He likes that Obama,(though I suspect he will be pee ed off at the minister, CAUSE GOD DOESN'T BELONG AT AN INAUGURATION IN THE USA) I shout because I suspect it would be that way,though I have not sought his views on this I would be in total agreement.

    Why have a bible or Koran or any other religious text.
    It seems to me to be illegal in a religion and state way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 07:46am on 20 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #147, it's those darn customers, they're always right!

    But, Ms. Marbles has generously offered to contribute
    to my retirement fund so as to make up my deficit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 07:50am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    marbles aqua here is a pretty big question . should we stop selling guns?
    Now I suspect you can guess my opinion , but some are going to argue that you could be selling them to the good guys.

    My view is that All international arms sales should be banned.

    Unless it is to the UN security forces(who have the least equipment often).

    Wiping out third world debt is part of the key isn't it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 07:55am on 20 Dec 2008, ladycm wrote:

    101. At 11:40pm on 19 Dec 2008, robloop:

    "All I ask is not that others reflect my opinions, but that they try to be factually accurate and fair.
    That aside, in these tough times I'm glad you have a job."

    I hate working but, I have to eat. Okay, maybe you're not angry; passionate? I can roll with that. I too am a passionate person and that can come off as angry when it's not. I urge everyone not to take themselves too seriously. I do rant, like I said; I am a passionate person. I make no apologies for that.

    76. At 6:11pm on 19 Dec 2008, middlecroony:
    "Most of the time i'm ashamed to be human. I can only hope that the earth will someday cleanse itsself of us. We are very undeserving of all the beauty nature has to offer us. We never learn. Old diseases pop up anew, rapes, starvation, war, due only to greed and stupidity."
    ---------------
    I'm gonna have to agree with this. What goes around comes around.

    114. At 03:51am on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
    107, middlecroony.

    "Do they have trailers in Alaska?"

    Oh my God, if they don't have trailers; I am going to have to change my whole mental picture of Alaska. Even if there are no literal trailers, you cannot keep the trailer out of Ms. Sarah Palin.


    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 08:00am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    151ladycm

    passion is a good thing when there is a good heart behind it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 08:01am on 20 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#140Davidcunard

    I should have said that I am very well aware that Africa is a continent and not just one country, since I have spent considerable time in four countries on that continent.

    I have also visited several more briefly and talked to numerous (ordinary) people there.

    What people have told me is that they want outsiders to stay out of their affairs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 08:04am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    151
    76. At 6:11pm on 19 Dec 2008, middlecroony:
    "Most of the time i'm ashamed to be human. I can only hope that the earth will someday cleanse itsself of us. We are very undeserving of all the beauty nature has to offer us. We never learn. Old diseases pop up anew, rapes, starvation, war, due only to greed and stupidity."
    ---------------
    I'm gonna have to agree with this. What goes around comes around.


    =================

    you should read terry pratchett and niel gaimans "good Omens"

    A truly great work of literature from this philistines point of view.

    New idea's on the four horseman and how they would work that I would not like to ruin by going further. A good read. Funny as well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 08:06am on 20 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#150Happylaze

    I will answer your question with this:

    "War is not healthy for children or other living things."

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 08:12am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    153 I saw a good report on Rwanda now, they have a majority of women in parliament now . Good to see there's a first(in modern times).

    I have a friend (white) who's family are in Zim. They could leave if they had wanted to but they do not. That shows me the situation is more complex than some here would like us to believe.

    Some criticise the UK for not doing anything which is dumb because as you would both know they are the last that should try.
    But generally at the moment there are no places in the world where america could have much influence on both sides of an argument.
    there was... Ireland, but that is beyond america now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 08:18am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    155 Aquagirl

    I am sure that neither you nor marbles would be arms sellers.

    War on Drugs=failure

    War on terror = failure

    war on condoms=failure http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03EEDB1E3EF933A25752C0A9659C8B63

    war on war is like a double negative it isn't real.

    The only war there should be is the war on 80's pop music.

    which means peace is the only way.

    Rivet

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 08:22am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    155 aquagirl

    I know you and marbles are not international gun sellers and agree totally

    War on Drugs= failure

    War on terror = failure

    war on condoms (tried to provide link for this)=failure

    Only a war on bad 80's pop music would be tolerable from my point of view

    PEACE

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 08:26am on 20 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #157, happylaze, war on disco would be worth fighting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 08:32am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    157 158 mods I think the first post 157 made my computer unexpectedly quit this is why i put the next post up 158.
    i think the first might provide problems to people and would prefer it were removed (and this letter) so that no one else will have the same issue.
    thankyou

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 08:42am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    159

    see that the problem with wars I was thinking a war on the "new romantics"

    lol
    there is a great scene in "rockers" the reggae film where they go into the disco and do a "take over" on the dj decks.

    Horsemouth and Dirty Harry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 08:45am on 20 Dec 2008, ladycm wrote:

    So, I am going to guess that no one else here thinks it's hilarious that the "W" keys were taken off of the keyboard in the Clinton/ Bush transition? Hilarious.



    154. At 08:04am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze:

    "you should read terry pratchett and niel gaimans "good Omens"

    As long as I don't have to go to the place where they keep the books, you know the library. I think I may owe them money, you know a lost video or book. So classy, I know. Maybe I will after I find me an FDR bio to read.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 08:55am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    Aqua and marbles
    the rash of removed post was not the Mods but me . a link was suspect IE may cause problems on some computers(mine eg)

    The comment was that I know neither of you would be into war I have read enough of what you write, and am glad you feel that way.

    War on drugs (a nr thing)
    Terrorism (a gw thing)
    condoms ( a gw thing)

    are all personally started wars by individuals that we all fund and only some pay for.

    GnR refers to the war I would not mind the war on 80's pop music

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 09:07am on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    149, guns.

    Men who are supported by women have an unfortunate stigma. But who cares what people think. Are you handsome?

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 09:21am on 20 Dec 2008, R-Snail wrote:

    155 aqua

    "War is not healthy for children or other living things."

    Chemotherapy kills cancer cells. It's not pleasant, but necessary. It's sad to mix children and chemotherapy, but some kids have cancer.

    War kills cancerous people. It's not pleasant, but necessary. It's sad to mix children and war, but countries governed by bad people have children.

    Is chemotherapy healthy? If it works.
    Is war healthy? If it works.

    Some people just need killing.
    (Hitler and Saddam for example.)
    The question is, who gets to choose?
    The answer is, the person you elected.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 09:27am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    Men who are supported by women have an unfortunate stigma


    they are called smart buggers

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 09:30am on 20 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #164, Ms. Marbles, in times like these, for the
    right amount of money, I can be very handsome.

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 09:30am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    162 ladycm I would get both then when the Bio is sending you to sleep too early you can switch;)



    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 12:51pm on 20 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #120 David_Cunard
    David, in the case of Africa, Darfur, Somalia and Zimbabwe are literally "in their back yard", which is why I described it so. I didn't introduced the idea of Afghanistan or Iraq being the U.S.'s back yard, you did.
    Declaring war is not in fashion any longer, so Afghanistan not declaring war on the U.S. meant nothing. Acts of war had been conducted out of Afghanistan; the Taliban supported Al Qaeda in its actions and for that the U.S. had a right to retaliate.
    Re civility, you preached to me about not being civil, after I acknowledged that I had not been, particularly in one instant, and then you showed your uncivil side. The fact is, you are a zealot who considers that because I don't share your views I am a zealot. The pot calling the kettle black.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 1:16pm on 20 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #122 allmymarbles
    Believe me, "democracy" is an ideology that was was conceived by the Greeks and genuinely represented the idea of popular government involving participation by the citizens of a city-states.
    If it is now a "propaganda word with no meaning", then that is what it has become through perversion of what was originally intended. Today I consider with a lot of scepticism what is claimed to be
    'democracy'. Increasingly, sometimes through the effects of defective constitutions, minorities, special interest groups, and individuals with huge wealth, impose their will on the majority.

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 1:38pm on 20 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    My opinion, on the original topic, is that Republicans are currently having an easier time with the center-right Cabinet and advisory appointments made by President-elect Obama than the Democrats. In fact, the likelihood of a backlash from the left as a result of the Rick Warren selection could have serious adverse consequences for Obama in 2010 and 2012.

    I suspect, however, that the effects of choosing a champion of intolerance to deliver a sermon at the Inauguration will be mitigated by the ability of the Obama Administration to solve the economic, fiscal, healthcare, education and foreign policy crises that afflict us. If they fail to deliver, all bets are off.

    The acid test, from a social perspective, will come when President Obama nominates replacements to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court. Will he exhibit the same sound judgment he has demonstrated thus far, or will he alienate conservatives or liberals and in so doing set the stage for a major campaign fight in 2012?

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 1:47pm on 20 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 170

    Judging by recent events in Greece it appears that Plato's descendents are more inclined to solve their differences through anarchy than democratic or Ghandi-like approaches.

    In my opinion, democracy is no longer what it was originally intended to be. It has evolved into a convenient tool to justify the actions used by the powerful to preserve or expand their interests at the expense of the weak and the most vulnerable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 2:24pm on 20 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #110

    Sam

    Hugo the Dictator has been supporting the FARC terrorists.

    conspiring with the terrorist state of Iran.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 2:57pm on 20 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Marbles (116),

    "115, guns.

    At the risk of giving you a swelled head, I would like to say that you are an open-minded and astute man."
    Seconded with pride
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 3:00pm on 20 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #129 aquarizonagal
    I was simply responding to a posting stating that no African country had the military ability to enter Zimbabwe to depose Robert Mugabe. South Africa has the ability and, I believe, the need, but not the will. There doesn't seem to be any sense of moral outrage over what is occurring.
    Meanwhile the citizens of Zimbabwe are suffering to an extent not reported by the media, partly because it is dangerous to go in.
    So you are right about Zimbabwe. Circumstances are appalling. Thousands of homes have been flattened by Mugabe's hoodlums who arrive at a home with AK47s and bulldozers. Hundreds of thousands of people now exist without a roof over their head in over-night temperatures near freezing point. People are dying of starvation, dysentry and now cholera, and Mugabe's gangs - now even thugs he has brought in from Central Africa and Mozambique - rounding up and murdering his political opponents. The man is not only a tyrant who has ruined a once flourishing country, he is a criminal who is either thoroughly evil or insane. Yesterday he said he will not go as he "own"s Zimbabwe!
    Millions of Zimbabweans have fled to neighbouring countries, creating a burden to those countries, so they have a basis to invade and get rid of him. I can't see what else will end this worsening human tragedy.
    Circumstances in South Africa are uncertain, to put it mildly. It has a temporary president, Kgalema Motlanthe, who seems quite level-headed, but in the wing looms Jacob Zuma who, to put it politely, is a man of low moral character and not much education.
    Regarding the ANC break-away party, COPE, I think it should be considered with a great deal of scepticism. In this new party is Thabo Mbeki to whose ejection from being president they object, yet he is linked to corruption scandals, not least the notorious arms deal, was almost totally useless at reducing the massive amount of violent crime and corruption, and equally useless at finding a solution to Zimbabwe with his dismally ineffective 'quiet diplomacy'.
    Yes, many people in Africa think the U.S. and other "outsiders have already caused enough damage" and should stay out - after "outsiders" in the West over the last three or more decades poured into Africa billions of dollars of aid - much of which African leaders then stole or wasted! They have made a massive contribution to self-inflicted damage!
    Think what they like, the evidence is that Africans can't "manage their own affairs." I have a Nigerian friend who thinks the continent "is cursed". Watching an almost never-ending mess makes me both mad and sad. The continent would have so much to offer if well managed.
    I liked your polite apology for going topic. It happens.

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 3:07pm on 20 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Happy (132),

    " Ed is 80% still out of the game?"
    Yes, but fighting for 'justice' through different channels. Keeping in touch.

    Peace and the 'back channel' (diplomatic, of course)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 3:28pm on 20 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Dominick, et. al.,

    Democracy is well suited to truly local systems, e.g. the Swiss practice. The genius of the Swiss has been not to tie themselves or make themselves subservient to larger, less local hierarchies. Democracy (by its true nature) is bottom-up:

    "But it is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into states, that division must be made, that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly, and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. Every state again is divided into counties, each to take care of what lies within it's local bounds; each county again into townships or wards, to manage minuter details; and every ward into farms, to be governed each by it's individual proprietor.

    Were we directed from Washington when to sow, & when to reap,
    we should soon want bread.

    It is by this partition of cares, descending in gradation from general to particular,
    that the mass of human affairs may be best managed for the good and prosperity of all."

    -- Thomas Jefferson
    Peace and Love thy neighbour
    ed
    "Invite your friend to a feast, leave your enemy alone,
    And be sure to invite the fellow who lives close by.
    If you've got some kind of emergency on your hands,
    Neighbors come lickety-split, kinfolk take a while.
    A bad neighbor's as much a curse as a good one' s a Blessing.
    You've got a real prize if you've got a good neighbor.
    Nary an ox would be lost if it weren't for bad neighbors.
    Get good measure from a neighbor and give back as good,
    Measure for measure, or better if you're able,
    So when you need something later you can count on him then."Hesiod, 2800 years ago

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 3:46pm on 20 Dec 2008, john-In-Dublin wrote:

    # 171 DominickVila wrote:

    "In fact, the likelihood of a backlash from the left as a result of the Rick Warren selection could have serious adverse consequences for Obama in 2010 and 2012."

    Will people really be worrying in 2 or 4 years' time about who said a prayer at the inauguration?

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 3:48pm on 20 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Speaking of Republican fans...

    "Our beloved president, taking a last victory lap in Iraq, was suddenly a target of footwear thrown at him by an Iraqi journalist shouting "You dog!" The journalist, in truth, meant no harm; quite the opposite. Having, like Mr. Bush, a tenuous grasp of the English language, he thought "dog" was a term of affection and sought to match word with deed, by hurling his shoes at the president, cognizant of the fact that dogs fancy unoccupied shoes.

    Oddly enough, a canine metaphor also underlies the Federal Reserve's approach to resuscitating the economy and the financial system, which have been laid low by a serious malady brought on essentially by a huge accumulation of debt accompanied by mindless consumption.

    Chairman Ben Bernanke's ingenious remedy is to effectively slash interest rates to zero, to entice people to -- what else -- borrow more and, of course, buy more.

    In other words, Dr. Bernanke's prescription for what ails us goes way beyond offering the patient merely a hair of the dog that bit him; he's intent on serving up Fido whole. The template for this most interesting approach is Japan after its great boom went bust in the early '90s. Last we looked, the Japanese were still mired in a very mushy economy."
    Alan Abelson
    If the link fails let me know, and I'll 'archive' the article.

    Peace, but no hair, please
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 4:17pm on 20 Dec 2008, U13752295 wrote:

    Do we say "war" rather than "campaign"
    because campaign now has such negative connotations?

    When FDR was fighting polio, was the March of Dimes a war or a campaign?

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 5:07pm on 20 Dec 2008, labcoat_samurai wrote:

    169 robloop

    I have to agree. Since your uncivil early postings in the thread, you have been polite, articulate, and insightful. I find that calling you a zealot is not only inaccurate, but disappointingly counterproductive in what has blossomed into a very interesting conversation indeed.

    (one in which, given my limited domain knowledge of Africa, I've elected to remain at the sidelines)

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 5:42pm on 20 Dec 2008, middlecroony wrote:

    Maybe we'll all feel differently when the cholera epidemic reachs Euopes back door.

    Also, there should be no religious speaker at all in this or any other inauguration! If Obama need spiritual guidence than he should pray at church or at home. Look at the conflict this has caused already! Bad move Obama.

    What don't people understand about the separation of church and state? Be religious on your own time!

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 6:27pm on 20 Dec 2008, Jeebers76 wrote:

    175 robloop,

    I've noticed that a lot of the reason why the various African countries fight amongst themselves is that their national boundaries don't match their traditional tribal territory. Perhaps the modern tendency to identify with nations and not smaller units is what is screwing up the continent? Wasn't it Europe that imposed many of these national boundaries?

    Just hypothesizing...

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 6:31pm on 20 Dec 2008, Jeebers76 wrote:

    The whole concept of separation of church and state is a really theoretical concept in most of the world, and is only in the recent century is anyone really taking it up. Remember, the USA is a grand experiment, the concept of democracy, socialism, and secular government is kinda unique.

    These people are so entrenched in their cultures that the idea of doing something in a radically different way never really gets through emotionally. It's like telling someone that your life is hell, but they can't begin to really understand until they sample some of what you've experienced.

    Does that help, 182 middlecroony?

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 6:46pm on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    170 "minorities,"
    not one to include if you are trying to prove you are not a bigot

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 6:48pm on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    conspiring with the terrorist state of Iran.


    Irangate

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 6:50pm on 20 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Jeebers,

    "Wasn't it Europe that imposed many of these national boundaries?"
    Beware straight lines. Consider the madness of several years spent surveying the Mason Dixon line, cutting a wide swathe for hundreds of miles, through virgin forest, over hill and dale, crossing the same stream several times....Wonderfully re-imagined by Thomas Pynchon.

    Straight lines mistake abstraction for reality.

    Peace and squiggly lines
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 7:10pm on 20 Dec 2008, middlecroony wrote:

    Yes, I know it's hard to get godfearing people to separate themselves from government, and i understand all the reasons why, but that won't make me stop trying.
    I am not against religion don't get me wrong about that, it's just damn frustrating!
    What Obama is doing is cow-towing to the right for whatever reason (bipartisanship to extreme) even amidst the counrty & worlds, conflict over religion.
    Seems void of common sense, but thats just my opinion of course.

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 7:24pm on 20 Dec 2008, Jeebers76 wrote:

    187 Ed, your article

    It always cracked me up the way the British provided us with such fine bright red targets with such a convenient white cross over their torsos... No wonder they were so ticked when we started creating Revolutionary snipers to pick off their officers from "just doing their jobs!"

    Even today, the very thought of wearing goofy outfits into combat like the ones the British STILL wear ceremonially reduces me to laughing fits. You know that silly brown upended rectangle on palace guards? I always wondered how much you could store in one of those... Wouldn't any food in there be smelly from the sweat?
    ;-)

    (chuckling....)

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 7:43pm on 20 Dec 2008, markingtime wrote:

    And we thought fighting with you in Iraq, that you had understood we were on your side this time!!!!!
    21st century and in the air or on the ground , we still need eyes at the back of our heads for you lot!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 7:46pm on 20 Dec 2008, Jeebers76 wrote:

    Oh, just forgot....

    If anything I wrote in 189 offended any British subjects, it wasn't intended to! I DID intend a gentle poke in the ribs. :-D

    188 middlecroony,

    No matter what the future USA Prez does, he's gonna tick off somebody. You're just going to have to make peace with that fact, especially since everybody and their uncle worldwide seems to be watching the man like a hawk! I never thought US internal politics mattered to the rest of the world, I guess I just didn't have that kind of ego. However, sometimes it seems like Earth is bent on proving me wrong lately! Oh well, I always was an idiot, I just forget sometimes how much that trait extends to.

    As for religion and government, the trouble with religion is that no matter which one you choose to enshrine in a nation, somebody's gonna have a cow! That's why we Americans did it originally, it involved the Catholics and Protestants mucking about in our public school system. Seems they got into a massive, well, pissing contest as to whose religion should be taught to children...

    This sort of behavior has LOTS of precedent, in fact, the same thing happened with the last time the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Catholics tried to reunite... As I recall, the whole thing ended up in a name calling contest! THAT is a really embarrassing way to conduct internal religious politics, don't you think?

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 7:59pm on 20 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #181 labcoat_samurai
    Thanks for your comment, but give me the benefit of the doubt and just consider some of the postings to which I reacted.

    #183 Jeebers76
    You are right with your 'hypothesizing'. European-created national boundaries in
    Africa did bring together different tribes between whom 'there was no love lost'. However, it does not fully account for inter-tribal hatred. Some conflicts began long before European intervention. In South Africa the Zulus, Xhosa, and other tribes were at each other's throats before the arrival of whites in parts of the continent that later became South Africa. The Matabele in Zimbabwe broke away from the Zulus and went north.
    One Scottish missionary to South Africa, Robert Moffat, recounted how when going into Namaqualand and, back then, Bechuanaland (now Botswana) into which no other white person had ventured, he found burnt out villages in which all round lay sun-bleached bones of the former inhabitants - the victims of tribal wars.
    Having gained independence I guess that African countries could long ago have got together and decided who should get what.

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 8:29pm on 20 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #112. robloop: "Why on earth can you not resist the temptation to be annoying by informing me that I'm a "zealot"? I'm not."

    Webster's defines zealot as

    One who is zealous; one who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his object with earnestness and ardor; especially, one who is overzealous, or carried away by his zeal; one absorbed in devotion to anything; an enthusiast; a fanatical partisan.

    It seems to me that the shoe fits.

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 8:31pm on 20 Dec 2008, markingtime wrote:

    Jeebers

    Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle.
    Could not see the GOOD for the trees eh.??

    British

    Canadian

    Others

    Try googling Friendly fire, if you have a lot of time on your hands.
    Politics or military matters. You sure know your stuff.

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 8:40pm on 20 Dec 2008, Jeebers76 wrote:

    190 markingtime,

    The problem with artillery and bombs is that they don't care who they blow up on. One of the things that the USA learned from places like Iraq is that Targeting Is Everything in the modern battlefield.

    You're right, it was a massive eff up, but not one that hasn't happened before with just about every military force in history. This particular conflict was televised, which means SNAFU's has a tendency to leak out...

    Over time, both the USA and Europe seem to becoming more socially aware of their actions as they make mistakes now that peer pressure can kick in due to great communication capabilities.

    The whole point is that all those tribes were competing with each other from the start, and what the West did was to radically exacerbate the situation with artificial national boundaries on a silly map.

    (holding my head in pain, groan) I just wish the West would learn faster, IMO. Right now, the only way I can think of to fix Africa would be to invade the continent and induce the inhabitants to move by gunpoint if necessary. That wouldn't go down well, either, so I guess we are stuck with a very messy African continent...

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 8:47pm on 20 Dec 2008, Jeebers76 wrote:

    194 markingtime,

    I wrote my last post without seeing 194. I don't understand what you meant by it. Yeah, I know about so called "friendly fire", and it isn't a new phenomenon in the least. It used to be worse, much worse in times past. Try WWII, for example. Dresden wasn't intended to go the way it did, from what I understand of German accounts for the event.

    In war, the major problem is that one little mistake costs lives, and as time goes on our weapons become even deadlier, which makes the phenomenon worse. :-(

    Were you serious about the "You sure know your stuff" or were you joshing me?

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 8:57pm on 20 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #193 David_Cunard
    Well, which is it, the first or the second section? I'll accept the first part of that definition, to the rest say 'nonsense' you don't know me, but still persist in being like a dog chewing on a bone. That probably fits you into the second half.

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 9:35pm on 20 Dec 2008, ladycm wrote:

    168. At 09:30am on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    '162 ladycm I would get both then when the Bio is sending you to sleep too early you can switch;)"

    I don't fight sleep.


    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 10:05pm on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    167, guns.

    Shallow men have a certain appeal.

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 10:12pm on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    163, happylaze.
    "the rash of removed post was not the Mods but me . a link was suspect IE may cause problems on some computers(mine eg)."

    I don't understand. Did you remove our posts?

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 10:18pm on 20 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #197. robloop: "to the rest say 'nonsense' you don't know me"

    No, I don't know you and can only judge from your posts. We've had your kind post here before, JohnAAA and MarcusAureliusII for example. I find your posts (not only on this blog) to be arrogant, condescending and with an exaggerated sense of your own correctness. A little humility would not be out of place

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 10:50pm on 20 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 178

    "Will people really be worrying in 2 or 4 years' time about who said a prayer at the inauguration?"

    I know it will not bother me then, in fact, the only thing I plan to do is take a short coffee break during that part of the Inauguration; but there are segments of our population that are deeply offended by the decision to give a forum to a man who preaches intolerance and discrimination in the name of the Lord.

    In answer to your question, I doubt many people will remember this unfortunate decision 2 or 4 years from now when the main factors to consider will be the state of the economy, unemployment rate, availability of credit, solvency of our pensions, the condition of our real estate market, etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 11:03pm on 20 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    129, 134, 144, 153, aqua.

    Further to 139. The problem may lie with state department practices. At least when I was in the Middle East, state department personnel were transfered every two years. So just when they were getting a grasp, they were moved out. The result was that America had no "old hands" on the spot. Perhaps because the government personnel knew their stay was temporary, they did not become involved in the country and did not learn the language.

    In contrast, the British did have old hands (and extensive colonial experience).

    I have asked myself why the State Department would deprive itself of an opportunity to gain valuable expertise. One thing stands out and that is the fear of "going native." I can remember attending a children's cotillion and getting into a conversation with a high-ranking army officer. When he heard me speak the native language he became curious. I told him I couldn't function or enjoy the country if I didn't speak its language. It came out that I had lived there several years.

    The officer got very wary and asked me where my loyalties lay. Having a smart mouth and a short fuse he knew PDQ what I thought of his mental processes. (I am probably on a list.) This was not the only incident. There was a long-time expat I knew who had some very unique and valuable experience, and knew the country inside-out as well. I suggested he go to work for the U.S. Government. He said they would not trust him because of his long connection with a foreign country.

    But there may be another reason for the U.S attitude - one that tells of insular thinking and naivete. Back in the States I was asked to work on a project concerning Indonesia. I said I was not able to since I knew so little about the country. The response? "That's great. You will be objective." So you see, this lack of sophistication is not restricted to the government. It is deep in the American psyche.

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 11:44pm on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 205. At 11:45pm on 20 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    198 ladycm. fair enough.

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 11:50pm on 20 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Merry Christmas! And, then there's this, so who said "Trailer trash"?

    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 00:15am on 21 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    From the Slave house to the White House

    :-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 00:52am on 21 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    200 no hush not allowed to talk

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 01:45am on 21 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#203Allmymarbles

    I guess that I have "gone native." I have strong kinship with so many people that I met and worked with there. The parts of Africa I have seen took a piece of my heart and kept it when I left.

    I agree that truly the best advocates are those who understand a given culture, who do not judge it by their own culture, and who perhaps give a small piece of their own hearts to the people there.

    I will add that what is returned to us from experiences such as ours is priceless.

    Thank you for your comments.

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 01:46am on 21 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    Re: Dominick et. al. discussing Rick Warren,

    An interesting perspective on the issue from the SkepticalBrotha website.

    "Barack Obama, unlike the ignorant patrician who preceeded him, is really trying to unify the nation. I can’t think of a better way to do that than inviting Rick Warren to give a purpose driven invocation."

    The comments are also worth reading.

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 01:47am on 21 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#208Happylaze

    This is just too much fun! Could I be Emma Peel?

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 01:53am on 21 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    I have a question.

    What is Dick Cheney doing? The man is giving interviews that are very disturbing to me. Is he trying to make George Bush look better or is he seeking a pardon in advance of an indictment for possible war crimes?

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 02:14am on 21 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 214. At 02:19am on 21 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    212, aqua.

    Who cares what Cheney says or does. He is history.

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 02:21am on 21 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    aquarizonagal,

    I think it's called "legacy building."

    While he still has access to the media spot light, Dick is trying desperately to spin himself a positive place in history, or as he would put it, "set the record straight."

    Is it working? You decide.

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 02:31am on 21 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#214Allymarbles

    Yes history, very painful and nasty. I can not say fully my opinion of him in English. The man is a wart is the best I can do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 02:34am on 21 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 218. At 02:38am on 21 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#215Chronophobe

    If you want my opinion, I think he wants to avoid an investigation and an indictment.

    I cannot believe that he is so deluded that he believes he can have a "positive place in history." If he is then our country has been run by two mad men for eight years.

    Sorry, yes I do believe it has been.

    "Positive place in history", indeed! I think I am gagging at those words!

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 02:44am on 21 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To Chronophobe

    Are you being censored? I wish I could read what you posted.

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 03:08am on 21 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    215, 216, chrono & aqua.

    If you think about it, whenever we have been taken over by despots, they have been deposed. We got rid of McCarthy and now we have gotten rid of Bush. These people may leave a bad taste, but it is an aftertaste.

    And as for the present economic depression, and, yes, it is a depression, not a recession, we will get over that too. But it will be nasty.

    Curses on those who manipulated the stock market, and curses on our antedeluvian car industry. I would like to see them all go down in flames if it didn't rebound on us. They will not be jumping out of windows this time, however, because they all have millions tucked away.

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 03:11am on 21 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    Aquarizonagal,

    I was trying to post a reference to the Huff Post re: Rick Warren and why he is not such a bad choice, perhaps, here. I think the mods objected to a bad word in the text I quoted. Or the quote was too long. Or both.

    No matter, hit the link and read it for yourself.

    On the subject of Dick, I don't know if you saw Arianna's rantcomparing Cheney and Clint Eastwood's character in his (Clint's) latest film Gran Torino. Suffice it to say she likes Clint's character a whole lot better.

    Seeing as you're such a Cheney fan, you might enjoy her perspective.

    Cheers,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 03:44am on 21 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To #220 Allmymarbles

    As you often do so well, you have expressed my feelings and thoughts so very precisely.

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 03:55am on 21 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#221Chronophobe

    Thank you for giving me this information. I have already read the articles you have cited.

    Do you know Spanish? There is a word for Dick Cheney in that language that could be very descriptive but I am sure our dear PTBs (moderators) would not approve.

    I have no problem with Warren. It is not a real issue. I watch the 'God Squad' (TBN) myself on occasion just to see what they are doing.

    I say give the howling dog a bone.

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 04:17am on 21 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    220 Marbles,

    Despite all the gloom these days, I think Obama is the right man at the right time. He's smart, he's progressive, he's articulate; but more than anything he knows that moving ahead requires the building of consensus.

    I get the feeling most people in the States are pretty much aware of how, for the last eight years, they have been manipulated by a patrician clique in the name of the common weal. Obama's the guy who is capable of bringing together people struggling with that sense of having been wronged, and turning their angst to a positive purpose.

    Despite the anger, disgust, and betrayal people feel toward W and company, I don't think Obama is going to dwell on the negatives of the past at all. He's got a forward looking agenda, and his goal is to get everyone he possibly can onside.

    People are hungry for change, and Obama's going to be the facilitator in chief. Despite the ongoing woes, I, oddly enough, have a sense of hope for the future I haven't felt for years.

    Not, mind you, that I'm anticipating a return to Eden, or the foundation of a new Camelot. It just seems like you in the States are turning a major corner . . .

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 04:37am on 21 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    224, chronophobe.

    When all is said and done, however, Obama is not a magician. Nor does a president have that free a hand. He still needs the Congress and Congress won't move without its pork. Also many a congressman's pocket is lined with (and let's call it by the right word) bribes to push or oppose particular legislation.

    The advantage Obama has is that he can go to his supporters and get them to act. That would not make Congress happy, and I am not sure what the result would b, but I can hear the screams.

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 04:49am on 21 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    chronophobe.

    We often forget that Europe, and you in Canada, are in the same boat we are. The only difference is that everyone looks to us to solve the problem. If we were that smart we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.

    By the way, we can damn Bush all we like, but it was Clinton that deregulated (undoing all of Roosevelt's work to get us out of the depression of '29). Bush made it worse by not exercising proper oversight. That accounts for America's problems, but not anyone else's. I remember my family in Wales telling me early in 2007 that the banks there were handing out mortages like party favors.

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 05:04am on 21 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    209, aqua.

    I think "going native" is a misnomer. It is often applied to people, like myself, who have lived under, and understood, another culture. But the term, as applied, suggests that those people have renounced their nationality, or allegiance, for another. That is not true.

    Complain about this comment

  • 228. At 05:20am on 21 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    There is an article in The New York Times that places the blame for the mortgage meltdown squarely on Bush's shoulders. They claim he was pushing home ownership for minorities (read "the poor"). That may be true, but if I remember correctly there had been talk for years about descrimination in mortgage lending and a big push to lend to those that posed a greater risk.

    You can vote Democratic (as I did this time) but that doesn't mean you have to put your brainsin cold storage.

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 07:18am on 21 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #199, in a reciprocal fashion, I would have to
    pass along my admiration for women who are
    self-sufficient. They are refreshingly different
    from the ones who take half and leave.

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 09:13am on 21 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    299, guns.

    How magnanimous to compliment me after my last jibe. I don't know about the self-sufficiency. That sounds so lonely. Adventurous maybe. Gutsy? Fortunately I found a man crazy enough to marry me. (That wasn't easy, by the way. There are not that many crazy men up for grabs.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 10:37am on 21 Dec 2008, vor_tecks wrote:

    # 221 chronophobe

    Many thanks for the link in your piece. Very chilling.

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 11:59am on 21 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Chronophobe (224),

    "People are hungry for change, and Obama's going to be the facilitator in chief. Despite the ongoing woes, I, oddly enough, have a sense of hope for the future I haven't felt for years."
    I, too, feel the lifting of a cloud which descended on my mood in December 2000....I didn't realise at the time just how much I was presuming Clinton would give way to Gore (whose book I had just read), and we would embark on a period of ecological healing...
    "Not, mind you, that I'm anticipating a return to Eden, or the foundation of a new Camelot. It just seems like you in the States are turning a major corner . . ."
    Indeed, but Obama's recent appointments presage "the greenest administration yet", according to media comment. If so, that is a major corner, if we haven't already got up so much speed we're gonna need the sandpit escape - hope it works!

    Peace and holding on tight
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 12:10pm on 21 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    On the ninth day of Christmas,...

    Happy Christmas, Cheerful Channukah
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 12:25pm on 21 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Yeah!

    "The four scientists will confront challenges in global warming after years of inaction by the Bush administration, which opposed mandatory cuts of greenhouse gas pollution. Last year, former Surgeon General Richard Carmona testified to Congress that top administration officials often dismissed global warming as a "liberal cause" and sought to play down public health reports out of political considerations."
    It's been a long time comin'

    Peace and real Science
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 1:21pm on 21 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 210

    Canadian Pinko,

    Thanks for the link. Warren is, indeed, a moderate evangelical compared to some of the other religious leaders of what I regards as a medieval religious movement, but his position on homosexuality and his opposition to stem cell research are more in line with Inquisitorial principles than 21st centuries values or logic. Well, at least he has not called for the assassination of foreign leaders that do not support our interests.

    I confess that my agnosticism influences my discomfort with this subject since I would rather see all expressions of religion and other supernatural concepts removed from what should be a political event.

    I did not vote for a priest, pastor, rabbi, or mullah, I voted for a President who I hope will restore our fiscal and economic integrity, improve our infrastructure and strengthen our ability to compete internationally, protect our environment, restore our Constitutional and Civil Rights, end torture and govern in accordance with the rule of law and democratic principles, and mend our credibility and image abroad.

    Regarding the number of evangelicals that voted for Obama, I would not be surprised if their decision was based on McCain's antagonism towards the "agents of intolerance" and his ambivalence towards religion (which I found appealing) rather than acceptance of Obama's social values.

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 2:48pm on 21 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    #228 allmymarbles
    You were right to question the New York Times article placing the blame for the mortgage meltdown squarely on Bush. Concering Bush I wouldn't expect anything else from the New York Times!
    Over the last three months I've read at least a couple of columns that point a finger at Clinton during his presidency, with Barney Franks, in particular, making accusations to mortgage institutions of the discrimination to which you referred.
    In regard to this matter your last sentence was right on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 237. At 2:53pm on 21 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    The pit and the Petulant

    "Caught in the middle is House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, who must spearhead the recovery package for Obama next month. He told Politico that the transition has proven to be “a disaster for the country because Bush is sitting around like Hoover did.

    ”The target keeps changing, it keeps getting worse,” the Wisconsin Democrat said of new estimates for what will be needed to jolt the economy. “These are calamitous events. While I think people know the economy is in trouble, I still don’t think they have a full appreciation of just how close we are to falling in the pit.

    “The tragedy is [that] immense damage is going to be done to the country over the next 30 to 40 days before Obama takes office, and government is sitting here in neutral trying to decide if it is going to go forward or backward."
    Peace and Interesting times
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 3:48pm on 21 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    Re: 235 DominickV

    The connection between politics and religion, or more broadly, between social order and the sacred, is as old as society itself.

    Human culture is now, as ever it has been, a complex matrix involving not only reason, but significant doses of imagination and passion as well. And remember well that, as James George Frazer (he of the Golden Bough) succinctly put it, "imagination acts upon man as really as does gravitation, and may kill him as certainly as a dose of prussic acid."

    Consider, if you will, the etymology of inauguration: " 'from Fr. inauguration
    'installation, consecration,' from L. inaugurationem (nom. inauguratio) 'consecration, installment under good omens,' from inaugurare 'take omens from the flight of birds, consecrate or install when such omens are favorable,' from in- 'on, in' + augurare 'to act as an augur, predict' (see augur)."


    Pastors Warren and Lowery take the place of the readers of entrails and bird flight, and satisfy the needs of 100's of millions of your fellow citizens for a religious sanction of political power.

    For we agnostics, there is Elizabeth Alexander, and Messrs. Perlman, Ma, Montero, and McGill playing John Williams. More importantly, there is the totality of the ritual itself, tying us by the thread of imagination to the most ancient customs of our species.

    I'd just say, relax, and enjoy the ritual.

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 3:56pm on 21 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #237, Ed, somehow I don't believe that voters
    and politicians understand the lag between
    effort and result, as if somehow someone in
    Washington can push a button and make all
    of our economic problems go away.

    It may take a generation to fix the mess that
    this country is in. Do the American people really
    understand that wealth is created over generations
    by hard work and careful conservation?

    So, 30-40 days is not going to amount to much.
    We saw the rush to action in the bailout bill,
    and not much in the way of results.

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 4:01pm on 21 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    Ed,

    Speaking of ritual, shouldn't you be celebrating solstice today, you old Gaian you?

    Bona Saturnalia!

    Sanctus Januarius -- the new year really begins today (or is it tomorrow, I can never get this straight. . . )

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 4:04pm on 21 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    236 and the minorities (Knowing your work here I would expect that to be the "discrimination to which you referred."glad to see you are learning to be more subtle with your zeal to jump on minorities)

    Marbles did not just quote the article but also in brackets put her own words which were more truthful than the original writers, glad to see you went for the approach you did.



    Marbles those loans to the poor (which often contain Minorities) that are so widly quoted are as accurate as the big 3 wages figures that are in the press.

    this lady on NPR was most insightful as to where the blame should go.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98123372



    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 4:08pm on 21 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #238, chronophobe, that's all easy to say if
    it's not your entrails which are being read!

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 4:24pm on 21 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    Guns,

    Speaking of entrails, you might want to have a close look at Fraser's Golden Bough, if only because: "The germ for Frazer's thesis was the pre-Roman priest-king at the fane of Nemi, who was ritually murdered by his successor . . ."

    Now that would be some inauguration event. Sometimes, old school is the best way to go?

    Cheers,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 4:44pm on 21 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Chronophobe, what you have said makes me
    happy that we have separation of church and state!

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 5:19pm on 21 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    Guns,

    Oh, that whole Enlightenment thing is just a fad. We'll tire of it soon enough.

    Independent thought, personal responsibility, moral ambiguity, respect, forgiveness -- waaay too hard. Obedience, absolute authority, moral certainty, blood sacrifice -- c'mon, you know we all waaaant it . . .

    Just kidding?

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 5:26pm on 21 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Pinko,

    "Speaking of ritual, shouldn't you be celebrating solstice today, you old Gaian you?"
    Who says I haven't been? And you should try to be precise!
    "In the Northern Hemisphere, the Winter Solstice occurs on December 21, 2008 at 7:04 AM EST and 12:04 UT (Universal Time)."
    Bona Saturnalia!
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 5:34pm on 21 Dec 2008, rob wrote:

    The party will be over much sooner that they imagined. One of the biggest issues is going to be homeland security, and what happens when Obama starts indulging in his secret past of being a musslim and how America will react and indeed the world

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 7:21pm on 21 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    For we agnostics, there is Elizabeth Alexander, and Messrs. Perlman, Ma, Montero, and McGill playing John Williams. More importantly, there is the totality of the ritual itself, tying us by the thread of imagination to the most ancient customs of our species.


    sounds too much like worship to follow these.lol

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 7:26pm on 21 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    247 and the three r's are complete.


    so sad to meet your acquaintance.

    robloop
    r-snail and
    robinstp

    Strange fellows all with all the same thoughts.

    OOOOHHHH his secret past.


    Was that where he ritually slaughtered all the mutemules, because it looks like he missed one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 7:29pm on 21 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    Boomshanka ED , happy solstice.

    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 7:36pm on 21 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    247, robinstp.

    Get over that "Obama is a Moslem" nonsense. Given his mindset and his background, my guess is that Obama doesn't care at all about religion, or a closet atheist. That is only an opinion, based on it-takes-one-to-know-one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 252. At 8:33pm on 21 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    239, guns.
    "We saw the rush to action in the bailout bill,
    and not much in the way of results."

    The money was intended to facilitate lending. But Poulson the Incompetent never spelled it out. He should have required that for each billion we give you, you have to lend ..... dollars. (Could Poulson be as dumb as we think he is? Was there something else going on?)

    I don't know much about economics, but I know the human mind. In business you never trust people to "do the right thing." That is why we have contracts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 253. At 10:58pm on 21 Dec 2008, Robert Bennett wrote:

    I don't know what they think is so funny, but the last laugh will be on the American people for getting into this mess with both these guys in the first place! Something has gone very wrong here. Maybe is was fraud, racism or alot of voters who can't read above grade six. I believe most citizens are just waiting in fear and anger over what comes next. If any one in Great Britain sees a happy ending to this saga of the past two years let us know here in the USA, we are at a loss for any good end to this "funny" story. Oh, it's eight o'clock, do you know where your CASH is tonight?

    Complain about this comment

  • 254. At 11:19pm on 21 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    Before I read backward any more I must add my Merry Solstice greetings to one and all from an old hag.

    Blessed Be!

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 11:39pm on 21 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To#253Rwbennett

    I think most of the American people would just like to have some respite for a few days.

    Do you have any tinfoil in your house? Perhaps you might like to make a hat.

    Complain about this comment

  • 256. At 00:00am on 22 Dec 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    To Rwbennett

    Sorry, my comment #255 was not kind to you.

    I think that people are just so worn out and tired of all the mess we have been living with for far too long that most everyone would just like to have a break from it all, even if that is only for a few days or hours.

    Peace to you and all you hold dear in your own heart.

    Complain about this comment

  • 257. At 00:20am on 22 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    254
    hippy solstice Aquagirl.

    253

    ooohhh R another R.

    Now what is this. so many bigots(past performances noted) come here with a name that starts with R.

    This is remarkable.


    but wait I'm sorry that ws uncalled for really.
    So
    "getting into this mess with both these guys in the first place! "

    Which two guys?

    If you are to say something then say it.


    "saga of past two years?

    what has made them stand out as any worse than any other year recently?

    or is it that Obama got too much attention and people aren't listening any more to the wrong right?

    where do they drag you guys up from and how is it you don't explode .
    Most oceanic bottom dwellers have problems when rising above themselves.

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 00:21am on 22 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    255 I'll forge one that fits him. I could use his head as an anvil.

    Complain about this comment

  • 259. At 00:25am on 22 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    252 the cads.

    Where did it all go?

    Viva la evolution .

    Complain about this comment

  • 260. At 00:26am on 22 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    I'll start making the pikes to mount them on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 261. At 03:12am on 22 Dec 2008, Robert Bennett wrote:

    To #256

    I sincerely want to thank you for your thoughts and kindness...but this is the biggest problem in war, you can't just turn it on and off when we would like. I don't know where you live but a few miles from me today another goup of headless bodies were found. If Obama and gangs get by the law, we will all be in a nightmare no good person ever thought could happen. Every day is important right now, Christmas or not. If "facist socialism" gets a hold and one group controls world banking there will be no peace or rest at all. God bless you. We all need to be praying for peace and sanity to return to the USA before political evil spreeds throughout the world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 07:09am on 22 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #261. rwbennett: "I don't know where you live but a few miles from me today another goup of headless bodies were found. If Obama and gangs get by the law, we will all be in a nightmare no good person ever thought could happen."

    I can only assume that the the group of headless bodies to which you refer was that found earlier this month in Tijuana, a result of drug gang warfare. I really don't think you can equate the incoming President with anything akin to drug cartels, with which these killings were involved with - in a foreign country, no less, not on American soil. In fact, writing of Mr Obama and gangs in the same sentence demonstrates a paranoia found only in the most rabid of right wing supporters.

    Incidentally, "fascist socialism" is an oxymoron, fascism being to the extreme right and socialism its opposite.

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 11:05am on 22 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    David,

    "Incidentally, "fascist socialism" is an oxymoron, fascism being to the extreme right and socialism its opposite."
    That explains why the National Socialists got on so fabulously with Mussolini....

    Peace and strange bedfellows
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 11:11am on 22 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Some more of Obama's Repugnant fans...

    "Amid all the pressures on the radio industry, news-talk stations see an opportunity — and his name is Barack Obama.

    After eight years of playing defense for President Bush, the conservatives who dominate talk radio are back on offense... "
    Peace and the world's best "Talk Radio" (BBC R4)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 11:21am on 22 Dec 2008, dceilar wrote:

    #262 David_Cunard

    Incidentally, "fascist socialism" is an oxymoron, fascism being to the extreme right and socialism its opposite.

    Indeed. Fascism does not believe in the concept of equality and internationalism, they believe in the opposite.

    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 11:21am on 22 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    With "Fans" like these....who needs filial loyalty? And, there's a Hurricane brewing!Peace and Gimme Shelter from the Storm
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 11:24am on 22 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Please remember, "left and right", "political opposites", etc., are for those who find a flat Earth too complex to handle.

    Peace in at least four dimensions
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 11:44am on 22 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    On the tenth day of Christmas... The sun begins its long journey back...

    Peace and lengthening days
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 2:47pm on 22 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    If Obama and gangs get by the law,



    wow he's a Gang mamber now . How did the press miss that.

    Drive by shootings and beheadings as he declares the USA is turf.

    Really dud you need a thicker hat . lead is quite pliable you could fashion something yourself without the worry I would hit to hard while forging you one.
    and less burns

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 2:51pm on 22 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    what do you mean "flat earth "to confusing.
    it's obvious other wise we would fall off.

    and land on an elephants head.

    Complain about this comment

  • 271. At 3:11pm on 22 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGKPHFrHVVY


    lol happy wishes all , even those I would probably prefer to see an elephant from close up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 272. At 3:18pm on 22 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7791278.stm

    maybe the UN should pay for this test to be carried out in all countries so we can see which ones are predisposed to violence.

    Then we could tell if they are fascist socialists or socialistic fascists .

    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 5:41pm on 22 Dec 2008, mdalerwill wrote:

    Re #99 MagicKirin,

    Please provide a link to data supporting yet another "95%" claim.

    Or are we to assume from now on that 95% of the statistics you present are simply made up to bolster your personal opinion? I would venture to guess that this tendency to make up statistics leaves 95% of readers unable to take you seriously 95% of the time, if ever.

    Complain about this comment

  • 274. At 5:55pm on 22 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Stop Press!

    MADOFF ASKS FOR $50 BILLION BAILOUT

    Report: Iraq, Afghanistan Wars Have Already Cost $900 Billion
    Critics: we could have bailed out Lehman Brothers with that money.
    Bush's “Conscience” Rules Take Effect
    Under change, you can't be forced to provide medical care if it goes against your religious beliefs, but you must administer torture if told to do so."


    Peace with irony
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 6:14pm on 22 Dec 2008, mdalerwill wrote:

    Re #174 Ed Iglehart,

    The Conscience Rules should prove interesting. A close friend who works at a local VA hospital was considering going to her boss and telling him that as a pacifist she cannot by conscience treat men of violence. Unfortunately, she doesn't think she could keep a straight face while saying it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 6:16pm on 22 Dec 2008, mdalerwill wrote:

    Re #275...Oops, that was in reference to post #274. I think I referenced #174 by mistake.

    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 6:31pm on 22 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #273

    Here is one link showing who is causing the deaths among Iraq civillians.

    Complain about this comment

  • 278. At 7:14pm on 22 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    277
    good link??? tfic

    Complain about this comment

  • 279. At 7:38pm on 22 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    Re: 226. allmymarbles

    We often forget that Europe, and you in Canada, are in the same boat we are. The only difference is that everyone looks to us to solve the problem. If we were that smart we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.

    Ms. Marbles,

    Sorry for my tardy reply.

    My expectations aren't nearly so high. I'm just glad that Federal level public policy in the USA is finally shaking out of the neo-con ideological straight jacket. That narrow view of the world wasn't great for us up here, but I think it was especially hard on you down in the States.

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 280. At 7:51pm on 22 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    275 I'm off to medical school , you have inspired me.


    I'm having all sorts of thoughts of who I could refuse treatment to.

    Idiots with monster trucks that hurt themselves.

    People who shoot themselves.

    I'll get back maybe but first I have to laugh at the Madoff affair again, just because it is so funny.

    Complain about this comment

  • 281. At 7:56pm on 22 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    Re: 275 mdalerwill

    That's funny!

    I recently gave a character reference for a young colleague who had applied for a position requiring a fairly high level security clearance.

    One of the many (ridiculous) questions the interviewer asked me was if the young man had any connections to organizations advocating violence. Knowing he (the youngster) was in the Armed Forces Reserve, I answered, with a straight face, "just the military."

    The interviewer, a buzz cut member of the Security Apparat, looked up from his clipboard, his steely gaze twinkled, and we both had a good laugh.

    In the end the young man got the job, perhaps in spite of my best efforts.

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko

    Complain about this comment

  • 282. At 8:05pm on 22 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #263. Ed Iglehart: "That explains why the National Socialists got on so fabulously with Mussolini...."

    I'e always thought the wording "National Socialism" was a misnomer, since neither Hitler nor the party espoused state ownership of essential industries; my understanding is that they actually privatised some which had previously been state owned. I don't speak German (such an unfortunate language . . .) but possibly the original, Die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, has a slightly different connotation; I think the emphasis is on "national" rather than "socialist".

    Complain about this comment

  • 283. At 8:10pm on 22 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    hey anyone heard from mostly erroneous since the MAdoff started.

    Complain about this comment

  • 284. At 8:29pm on 22 Dec 2008, dennisjunior1 wrote:

    Justin:
    it is nice that obama is trying to make fans with the republicans in the country.....

    since, here in the united states a-lot of things need to be worked out in various ways..

    health care, foreign policy, security and many other things.

    Complain about this comment

  • 285. At 8:54pm on 22 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    David,

    " I don't speak German (such an unfortunate language . . .) "
    I'm sure German don't mind your inability. ;-) You may be interested to learn that some 3/4 of English vocabulary is Germanic, while only 1/4 Franco/Latin.

    Most of the words for domestic animals and livestock are Germanic, but the food articles are French....a window on hierarchy?

    Cow/Kuhe, swine schwein, lamb/lamm, calf/kalb, hound/hund, etc., and veal/veau, beef/boef, mutton/mouton, pork/porc, bacon/bacon, - Who kept the beasts, mucked them out, etc, and who ate them?

    Peace and knowing your place
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 286. At 8:56pm on 22 Dec 2008, mdalerwill wrote:

    #280, #281
    I am only too happy to inspire and entertain. :)

    I was looking up the language used in these conscience rules, and I note the use of not just religious grounds for refusal of treatment but also moral grounds. Wow, is that a train wreck waiting to happen.

    I'm still reading up on this. Other than the issue of emergency contraception for rape victims, does anyone know if this applies to ER decisions? That would be interesting indeed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 287. At 9:02pm on 22 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    "Conservative of the Year!" From the self-styled "Headquarters of the Conservative Underground", no less.

    Peace under ground
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 288. At 9:12pm on 22 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Snowzilla decapitated

    Peace and Elfin Safety
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 289. At 9:17pm on 22 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Pectacular!

    Down, girls!

    Complain about this comment

  • 290. At 9:26pm on 22 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Golden days...

    "Banks that have their hands out in Washington this year were handing out multimillion-dollar rewards to their executives last year.

    The 116 banks that so far have received taxpayer dollars to boost them through the economic crisis gave their top tier of executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses and other benefits in 2007, an Associated Press analysis found.

    That amount, spread among the 600 highest paid bank executives, would cover the bailout money given to 53 of the banks that have shared the $188 billion that Washington has doled out in rescue packages so far."
    Buddy, can you spare a dime....

    Complain about this comment

  • 291. At 9:33pm on 22 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Mandelson's mate in doo doo Awwwww....

    Peace and schadenfreude
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 292. At 10:17pm on 22 Dec 2008, U13752295 wrote:

    Do not disregard the "fascist socialism" [sic ]comments.

    Since Obama became a serious candidate (read "threat"), the guillible have been fed the idea that he is a "fascist". By this, they mean "authoritarian dictator".

    They do not realise that the shame culture of fundamentalist upbringing naturally produces authoritarian robots. The burning desire to project the shame and thus reduce the guilt causes them to hate and want to kill those who do not share their worldview.

    Bob Altemeyer has written much concerning the right-wing political psychology of such individuals.

    Someone recently mentioned a study reporting that 30% of Americans prefered a "strong leader who did not have to bother with laws and parliaments".

    I wonder how much overlap there is with the religious right in the USA?


    Complain about this comment

  • 293. At 11:02pm on 22 Dec 2008, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:

    Ganz_Anders #292.

    I do not recall anyone calling Obama a Fascist. The people in America who are worried about Obama becoming an authoritative dictator, which is a weird phrase anyways because authoritative leadership implies dictatorship, are worried that he will lead as a Socialist dictator-the opposite of Fascist. But all that belies reality because America's institutions are designed to hinder such sweeping changes to the government and the constitution. The reality is that most Americans hate and fight the type of authoritative super nationalist policies that are attributed to Fascism and Nazism. Europeans need to realize that we have a different, more American, version of socialism called Populism which is very much geared to the working poor and big government. The First American dictatorial leader is far more likely to be a charismatic Populist than anything else.

    Complain about this comment

  • 294. At 01:00am on 23 Dec 2008, U13752295 wrote:

    Bienvenue # 293

    Indeed, I am in communication with Southern fundamentalists who do not know what fascism really is but have been told that Obama portends fascist government and do repeat same on their Forum postings.

    Are there still Populists left? I thought that they had all been convinced to vote Republican!

    How does FDR fit into your political classification scheme?

    Complain about this comment

  • 295. At 01:23am on 23 Dec 2008, Robert Bennett wrote:

    I may have made a mistake in language, clearity... how about "using facist techniques as a socialist dictator"? Then as the saying goes the real "elephant in the living room" that takes all these fears and doubts into sad reality, is RACISM. We mention race alot, but 50 years of brain washed media ploys, bad movies, unrealistic TV and PC propaganda just does not fit the reality that... is life in America today. I realize some will try to catagorize me just because I even MENTION this, but right now America and the "government"? is so fearful of riots our elected leaders will not even take a serious look into Obama's citizenship and political legality. Wether you like Mr. Obama or not, do you really think this is a good way to run a government? If Obama is legal fine, it's OK with me! but even if he were the Second Coming, and not a legal candidate he can not be the President of the USA. That is the law. Just think about what this means, to America's courts, armed forces, Congress and daily life in America from now on? Would all this just be overlooked in Britain, Japan, France, Germany , Denmark or Italy? Of course not! Once America is put on this... road not taken, what's next? A female supporter of Obama's recently said, on a Tom Brokow interview, Obama was ready to "RULE"... gee, we don't have any rulers in the USA, well, the Queen, maybe on very special occations. There is a deep sense of pay backs due and old hatreds coming up, this was out in the open even during the election here, but the PC American media surpressed it as usual. Does anyone yet see a PLAN for all this "change"? I hear there may be more troops off to Afganistan, a full Auto Co. bail out, a civilian corp, for what exactly, who knows? Now is this a program you can seriously believe in? I sit here trying to convey what may happen...to try and PREVENT more problems. Taking the risk of being called names, "sicks and stones" stuff OK, but many comments sound like this is a one big joke on white American,British, Europeans people. Why not ask the whites and others of South Africa how their doing after the "change" there. These are very large issues that have been coming at us since 1914. None of us knows what's next and yet the stage is set for a world nightmare without leadership, well used military power and a thoughtout, good orderly direction. I leave you with this, if the wrong groups get their hands on the USA, our institutions and government, where will this leave the rest of you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 296. At 04:14am on 23 Dec 2008, smilingSpongeMuffin wrote:

    That is because the neo cons are all saying "my work here is done".

    Complain about this comment

  • 297. At 04:15am on 23 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    280, happylaze.

    It is apparently your idea to let the self-destructive self destruct. Not bad! Think how much our health-insurance premiums would go down.

    Complain about this comment

  • 298. At 04:19am on 23 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    289, Ed.

    Those look more like saggy breasts than pectorals. I think he should keep his shirt on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 299. At 04:25am on 23 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    293, 294.

    Fascist, populist, democrat, socialist, communist, nazi, liberal, leftist, rightist.... Words that change their meanings depending on who is using them and why.

    Complain about this comment

  • 300. At 06:31am on 23 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #285. Ed Iglehart: "You may be interested to learn that some 3/4 of English vocabulary is Germanic, while only 1/4 Franco/Latin."

    I think that depends on what sources you read for verification - a lot happened between the 6th century and today!

    Complain about this comment

  • 301. At 06:59am on 23 Dec 2008, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:

    Ganz_Anders

    Hmm. You do have a point. The Populist Party was destroyed by the Democrat Party in the early 1900s. hehe. In fact the Populists nominated a Dem. to be their Pres. candidate in their last attempt at the Presidency. But modern politicians still use the term when they want to relate to the poor; John Edwards(D) and Mike Huckabee (R) or the two most recent examples.

    As for FDR, he was what is called a Progressive or country club Populist because both groups had similar policies. The Populists were mostly backed by rural farmers and their party whereas the Progressives were mostly backed by educated Dem. elites and the urban poor. The reason Long , a populist Dem., and FDR, a progressive Dem., hated each other in the 30s was because Long was gunning for FDR's job. Anyways, good discussion.
    -Merry Christmas everyone!

    Complain about this comment

  • 302. At 1:05pm on 23 Dec 2008, Grapevyne wrote:

    rwbennett 295

    This sounds like rumblings of a sick mind. Why do Repugs not content that Obama won fair and square? Why just ask white people about change? Why not black people or any other group? are they just not relevant in your twisted mind?

    You need help and I mean professional help.

    Complain about this comment

  • 303. At 3:10pm on 23 Dec 2008, Robert Bennett wrote:

    #302

    I am not sure Obama won anything "fairly" yet, and neither are millions of other Americans. I also believe each "group" or race, should have a say about their own future and culture, it should never be pushed on them from outside, as we saw some Germans did to the jews.
    I do not see elections as a racial game to try and dominate and promote one group over another. Of course, you should expect the French to vote as French folks not north Africans, because Frace is obviously French as it was intended to be. There is something very different and ominous happening in America right now--- most Democrats and Republicans are asking what has happened to our nation, regardless of race. America is in trouble, how about your countries?

    Complain about this comment

  • 304. At 3:32pm on 23 Dec 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    #303 rwbennett:

    "I am not sure Obama won anything "fairly" yet, and neither are millions of other Americans."

    Repeating this once again, and leaving aside your questionable motivations, if you have evidence of wrong doing offer it up, the onus is on those making accusations to prove them, not the accused to disprove them.

    "most Democrats and Republicans are asking what has happened to our nation"

    Eight years of the Bush Whitehouse perhaps? Five years of expensive warfare, lack of financial oversight, failure to encourage energy efficiency which would have insulated the USA against oil price rises, not to mention tax cuts that favoured the wealthy at the expense of the working class, and to cap it all a dismissive manner towarsds all opposition that destroyed any chance of bipartisanship on critical issues.

    Complain about this comment

  • 305. At 4:15pm on 23 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #292

    I don't recall anyone calling Obama a facist.

    I know some on the extreme right have called him a socialist.
    They should be taken as seriously as those on the left who call Bush a war criminal.

    An example of a facist is dictator Hugo

    Complain about this comment

  • 306. At 4:45pm on 23 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    293 sorry but they did , many time here during the election period they equated Obama with hitler and drew attention to the columns behind him etc.the O hand sign.

    They have had a great effect on the economy of the world.
    Pre elections Aluminium (notice the second U america) prices were going through the roof . As it happens it is wrongly seen as the best preventative measure in fighting socialism.
    The hats that can be fashioned from the "tin" foil were attributed with the power of being able to block out messages being sent out by the Loony left Socialists.
    Problem is Americas Sloth got in the way of science. Lead would have been better. It is a far more effective blocker of mind control waves than Al. If only America was not always looking for the lightest version of a product they may have been saved from the mind benders. But it looks like the Obama mind control program succeeded .
    And now the drop in Aluminium foil sales is impacting all they economy as people realise these hats did not work.

    Have faith keep control and change to lead.

    Complain about this comment

  • 307. At 4:54pm on 23 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    305 Lol thats funny.

    295

    I sit here trying to convey what may happen...to try and PREVENT more problems.


    Yea Right.

    to QUOTE YOU

    "What will it take to prove to the USA and UK governments that the simple truth is that people when free , peaceful and happy, choose to live with their own"

    You are a Racist .

    Complain about this comment

  • 308. At 5:04pm on 23 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    297 Marbles. Not a bad idea but mine was not so harsh;)

    I just have a problem with monster trucks because they are just so wrong , dangerous for others climatalogically criminal and so would want to refuse treatment.

    The Self shooting Gun Owners should not be given any help (unless young and dumb playing with mom or dads gun) because they had every opportunity to not shoot themselves. there are easy ways to guarantee it , but they chose to ignore it.

    Gamblers like smokers I would treat, thats just not guaranteed.look at a few o f the oldest people on the planet.
    but people that load a gun and shoot them selves. that to me is sooooo dumb , that I would refuse treatment.

    Didn't dwell on this so have no others to add to the list

    Complain about this comment

  • 309. At 5:05pm on 23 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    307 link to Quote
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/11/map_of_the_week_racism_and_ten.html#comment33

    Complain about this comment

  • 310. At 6:50pm on 23 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    Communitarianism is a new label that is becoming more widely used in political science. It considers that the interests of the community take precedence over those of individuals.

    This may be of interest to those who are using the labels "fascist" and "socialist" indiscriminately.

    Happylaze mentions the obvious: "most people prefer to live and associate with their own kind". That, of course, is fact.

    It is not the "politically correct" indoctrinated line. Can someone who is politically correct validly claim to be a liberal?

    Complain about this comment

  • 311. At 7:01pm on 23 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #303. rwbennett: "I am not sure Obama won anything "fairly" yet, and neither are millions of other Americans. I also believe each "group" or race, should have a say about their own future and culture, it should never be pushed on them from outside, as we saw some Germans did to the jews."

    The first part has been answered at #304 - and I very much doubt if "millions" of Americans are concerned. However, it is your second statement which concerns me - you are suggesting segregation, not just Blacks from Whites, but ghettoes for Jews and enclaves for other ethnic groups. That is not what America is about - the great melting pot still works within a generation or so. The US does not need - or want - to become like the UK with its policy of "multiculturalism" whereby each group of newcomers are encouraged to maintain their native lifestyle, dress and so forth rather than absorbing that of their host country.

    English is the native language of England, and yet governmental notices (benefits, voting etc) are printed in a dozen or more languages. Although in America Spanish speaking newcomers are catered to in this respect, I do not think we want to (or should) encourage multiple languages in business and commerce. Rwbennett would have us do this and divide the nation into not just 50 states, but into a thousand times more little sub-states. If he want to live in a segregated community, let him move to somewhere in the Middle East.

    Complain about this comment

  • 312. At 7:15pm on 23 Dec 2008, Robert Bennett wrote:

    #304

    I doubt if I will ever get into one of these "personal" comment battles again...what's the point, one of my biggest issues is how far we are away from each other in our thinking now and how angry and vicious it is getting to be.
    And friend, if you can not see my motives are to get at truth, fairness and honesty for all of us---all we can do is disagree in peace and work for the best.
    I still MUST ask why a legal canidate for President of the United States of America---will not produce a simple, legal bith certificate? I can and I'll bet you can too. We all need the truth, certainly Mr. Obama does also.

    Complain about this comment

  • 313. At 7:52pm on 23 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #312, rw, I am about as anti-Obama a person as
    one could find, but wasn't this birth certificate thing
    resolved in court recently?

    Complain about this comment

  • 314. At 7:56pm on 23 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    310

    "Happylaze mentions the obvious: "most people prefer to live and associate with their own kind". That, of course, is fact."


    Not what I think I am just quoting a racist.

    I personally do not care if they are "my kind" unless my kind refers to people that are not tolerant of racism.
    I have lived all over the world and have never seen any difference between My kind and their Kind.
    Either they are nice fair honest people or not.

    I would rather fumble trying to understand people but see through their actions they are "good" than see someone behave like a facist while speaking to me nicely in an accent I don't have to stress over understanding.

    Quote and quotation marks are there for a reason.

    Complain about this comment

  • 315. At 8:03pm on 23 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 316. At 8:06pm on 23 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    I also believe each "group" or race, should have a say about their own future and culture, it should never be pushed on them from outside, as we saw some Germans did to the jews."

    So you are for the immediate withdrawl of all american forces from afganistan and Iraq.

    Shut up you idiot

    Complain about this comment

  • 317. At 8:09pm on 23 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    312 the number of times you go on about this issue of birth certificate despite all the comments and actions statements that counter your view makes you look like a prize fruitcake.

    I would add an american fruit cake . fake sugared candies instead of real fruit

    Complain about this comment

  • 318. At 8:23pm on 23 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    what's the point, one of my biggest issues is how far we are away from each other in our thinking now and how angry and vicious it is getting to be.

    What will it take to prove to the USA and UK governments that the simple truth is that people when free , peaceful and happy, choose to live with their own"


    I would suggest locking all you racist twerps up that will help solve the problem.

    Complain about this comment

  • 319. At 8:38pm on 23 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #312. rwbennett "I still MUST ask why a legal canidate for President of the United States of America---will not produce a simple, legal bith certificate? I can and I'll bet you can too."

    Why aren't you satisfied with the one which has already been produced? The rest of America is, with the exception of conspiracy theorists such as yourself. I'd wager that you think 9/11 was an inside job, that JFK was assassinated under orders from LBJ and that FDR knew well ahead of time that the Japanese were to bomb Pearl Harbor. Crackpot ideas such as yours have no place in reasoned discussion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 320. At 9:03pm on 23 Dec 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 321. At 9:13pm on 23 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Here is an article on Wikipedia which explains some
    of the issues of citizenship with regard to eligibility
    to run for the presidency and vice-presidency, but
    it appears that there is some room for ambiguity
    and that it will have to be decided through litigation.

    It appears that the legal process is being followed,
    although the matter may not be resolved until
    a future presidential election.

    Complain about this comment

  • 322. At 10:14pm on 23 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    313, guns.
    "I am about as anti-Obama a person as one could find, but wasn't this birth certificate thing resolved in court recently?"

    Yes. He is just beating a dead horse.

    Complain about this comment

  • 323. At 10:23pm on 23 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    310, AlSearcher.
    "It is not the 'politically correct' indoctrinated line. Can someone who is politically correct validly claim to be a liberal?"

    The only thing that someone who is "politically correct" can claim to to be is a hypocrite or brain-washed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 324. At 10:35pm on 23 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    321, guns.

    I did not look up the Wikipedia entry, but I believe the ambiguity hinges on the word "natural" as applied to an American. There are natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens. It has always been understood that to become president you had to be born an American and not naturalized. The only reason the issue is being raised now has to do with the sore-losers. Obama is going to be our next president, and they may as well get used to it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 325. At 10:41pm on 23 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    319, David.

    rwbennet knows perfectly well that Obama's birth in Honolulu has been officially confirmed by the State of Hawaii. He is just a troll and not to be taken seriously.

    Complain about this comment

  • 326. At 11:34pm on 23 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #325. allmymarbles: "rwbennett . . . is just a troll and not to be taken seriously."

    I think that's rather unkind to trolls, those cute (?) little creatures from Scandinavia. Perhaps something like coelacanth would fit, ugly and prehistoric.

    Complain about this comment

  • 327. At 02:36am on 24 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    To be fair, rwbennett has a valid point. There are
    2 forms of birth certificates in Hawaii, the "long"
    form and the "short" one. The long form would tell
    us if Obama were actually born in Hawaii, the short
    does not.

    Obama's campaign released the short form, not the
    long one. Now, I am not an expert on such matters,
    but if he was born in, say, Kenya to an American
    mother, is he not automatically an American
    citizen, or does he have to be naturalized?

    The issue of renouncing citizenship to attend
    a foreign school is interesting, but just because
    someone renounces it in, for example, Pakistan
    does not necessarily have any weight here
    in the States. So, he has some wiggle room here.

    And, of course, there are many other wrinkles.
    Not releasing the long form of the birth certificate
    is typical Obama: not quite prevarication, but
    not full disclosure. Rwbennett is making the point
    that Obama is being disingenuous by not releasing
    the long form.

    All of this is very interesting, but there is no
    legal requirement for the Democrats to release
    this information. And, since they now control
    2 branches of government, it is not likely that
    the law will be changed at any time in the near
    future.

    As far as my reasons for not trusting Obama,
    I could go into them, but you have all probably
    read them before, or skipped over them.

    So we should just get on with business. If Obama
    slips up at some point, and shows his Communist
    Party card at a cocktail party, or starts quoting
    Saint Karl Marx, then I will be in a position to
    say, "I told you so."

    Complain about this comment

  • 328. At 02:51am on 24 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    A correction, Obama's short-form birth certificate
    does show that he was born in Honolulu. To
    effectively challenge Obama's status as
    naturally born, one would have to show that
    this document was forged.

    Complain about this comment

  • 329. At 02:53am on 24 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    327, guns.

    (1) The State of Hawaii itself testified to Obama having been born there and issued a copy of the official birth certificate. Because of the ruckus the actual certificate has been placed in a vault by the authorities..

    (2) If a child has one American parent he is an American citizen. If the child was born outside the US, there used to be a provision (and maybe there still is) that the child had to spend five consective years in the US before the age of 21 (?). I was up on this because three of my four children were born abroad.

    Complain about this comment

  • 330. At 04:31am on 24 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #327. gunsandreligion: "The issue of renouncing citizenship to attend a foreign school is interesting, but just because someone renounces it in, for example, Pakistan does not necessarily have any weight here in the States."

    Many, many years ago I was required to sign a paper which (and I have forgotten the wording) in essence had me swear allegiance to the United States. I called the British Consulate to ascertain what effect it would have on my citizenship, and the response was "none". The officer went so far as to say "take American citizenship, we won't recognise it, unless you come to us to renounce your British citizenship". Even if Mr Obama as young man did renounce his citizenship to a foreign nation, I doubt very much if the United States would recognise its validity - and the question of his age would come into it as well. I can't see that the matter of Mr Obama's natural citizenship can be questioned. If there were any validity in it, as my late mother would have said, "truth will out" - it might be fifty years when all may be unsealed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 331. At 05:34am on 24 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    330, David.

    I had a conversation many years ago with an Arab who wanted, for political reasons, to renounce the U.S. citizenship of his young son. Trusting to my memory, he was not able to do so.

    Complain about this comment

  • 332. At 06:53am on 24 Dec 2008, aynrandwho wrote:

    Justin is right. Bush, Cheney and their people are trying to make the last eight years rosey. But the people know they weren't.

    And can we get away from the birth cert issue?

    Complain about this comment

  • 333. At 07:13am on 24 Dec 2008, aynrandwho wrote:

    303. At 3:10pm on 23 Dec 2008, rwbennett wrote:
    #302

    "I am not sure Obama won anything "fairly" yet, and neither are millions of other Americans. I also believe each "group" or race, should have a say about their own future and culture, it should never be pushed on them from outside, as we saw some Germans did to the jews.
    I do not see elections as a racial game to try and dominate and promote one group over another."

    rwb, Obama won "fairly" because 53% of the electorate voted for him.

    The electorate includes white, brown, Asian, hispanic, and black.

    I don't know you're point.

    Complain about this comment

  • 334. At 07:33am on 24 Dec 2008, aynrandwho wrote:

    298. At 04:19am on 23 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
    289, Ed.

    Those look more like saggy breasts than pectorals. I think he should keep his shirt on.


    Marbles, those are not saggies. Those are the best pres pecs I've seen!

    Complain about this comment

  • 335. At 07:53am on 24 Dec 2008, aynrandwho wrote:

    318. At 8:23pm on 23 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:
    what's the point, one of my biggest issues is how far we are away from each other in our thinking now and how angry and vicious it is getting to be.

    What will it take to prove to the USA and UK governments that the simple truth is that people when free , peaceful and happy, choose to live with their own"


    I would suggest locking all you racist twerps up that will help solve the problem.


    Happy - you might have a point locking all the a-holes (read "racisists") away. Or we could do our best to convince them that their "a-hole" ways aren't the best.

    Complain about this comment

  • 336. At 10:20am on 24 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #332

    I don't recall Bush trying to paint the last 8 years rosy.

    But what I find annoying is that the Bush detractors such as the one who wrote the NYT article this wekk blame Bush for everything.

    The economic crisis is more the fault of the Dems especially Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who blocked reforms and push high risk home loans to people who can't afford it.

    When Barney Frank was called a coward it was so true.

    Complain about this comment

  • 337. At 12:30pm on 24 Dec 2008, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Justin I'm sure the cosiness is only temporary! It is good to see the transition going well, shame that Bush is pushing through those last minute executive orders though.

    Magick: coz its xmas I'll agree with you about Mr Frank.

    Someone above mentioned an 'authoritative dictatorship', is'n't that a tautology? Can you have a non-authoritative dictator? Or would he/she just be really bad at their job?

    ; )

    Merry Xmas all!

    Complain about this comment

  • 338. At 1:41pm on 24 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    "Authoritarian dictatorship" is, indeed, a tautology. These are necessary when speaking to fundamentalists.

    Is a king always a "dictator"?

    How about a "benevolent dictatorship"?

    Does anyone have any comments about the term "communitarianism"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 339. At 3:04pm on 24 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    "I am not sure Obama won anything "fairly" yet, and neither are millions of other Americans. I also believe each "group" or race, should have a say about their own future and culture, it should never be pushed on them from outside, as we saw some Germans did to the jews."

    If what the author of this statement meant to say is that President-elect Obama has not "earned recognition" for any achievements I understand, after all, he has not been inaugurated yet; but if the statement questions the right of 53% of the American people to choose who they want to lead us for the next four years I think the person that wrote this needs either a cold shower or professional help.

    The only questionable election in the USA took place in 2000, and Obama was not running then. Obama, and neither party for that matter, pushed anything on the American people, who voted for whomever represented our goals and values best. Not sure what the Nazis had to do with Obama being elected President by a majority of his fellow citizens. On second thought, professional advice would be more appropriate than a cold shower.

    Complain about this comment

  • 340. At 3:57pm on 24 Dec 2008, aynrandwho wrote:

    #336 Did you watch the piece Justin gave us? If that's not a rosy picture of a bunch of b.s. years, I don't know what is.

    The economic crisis is the fault of a lot of people. Bush was our leader. The buck does stop there. As it will with Obama.

    Complain about this comment

  • 341. At 4:43pm on 24 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    335 I have been on this site for a long time now and some will not be convinced and are dangerous to society.

    We locked up all those in our Cuban resort who were little more than taxi drivers.
    We lock up hippies for smoking pot.
    Why not lock up the racists.
    The economy is half based on prison dollars anyway.
    get the racists and the Bankers and hey presto we can get on with real life.
    ;)


    Gnr on nationality.
    Jacksforge;) spent one hell of a time trying to explain that
    "But, according to the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."[3]"

    which would also have applied to theMcCain fellow even more so than Obama.

    Seeing as this is a personal topic.
    This argument went on for ages.
    but it looks like the facts have never been settled as Hi suggested.

    This character is just a racist but it seems that others thinking segregationists are not racists just concerned bigots.

    Thanks for you thoughtful input again,

    and rw

    racist and a word rhyming with banker seem to fit these initials.



    a month before the elections Bush WAS trying to pretend all was rosy .
    so was mc cain and for sure the dumb palin was as well.

    And if america had got on board and lead the fight against global warming we my have been at the forefront of a new emerging tech sector.
    But GW cut spending in that direction and went off on his CHILDISH war. waste went up not down,all went wrong. it was his duty to say Franks was wrong and try to fix it, but he didn't he tried to fix the rest of the world.

    PS you never did listen to that npr piece I posted pointing out how the few minority loans were not why the whole thing failed.

    though it should be obvious to all.

    332 not for a year now it seems.

    Complain about this comment

  • 342. At 5:06pm on 24 Dec 2008, Vincent356 wrote:

    The Clinton-trashing of the WH in 2000 was shameful, and (so far) the Bush-folks seem above such trashy behaviour (good for them). But let's not rush to assume this means Republicans are (by nature?) more virtuous than Democrats. Pres Bush is also busy trying to polish his image; cozying up to a very popular Pres-elect only makes good sense. Let's face it, Pres Bush's image needs a lot of polish!

    Complain about this comment

  • 343. At 5:08pm on 24 Dec 2008, aynrandwho wrote:

    Happy, I'm a new contributor, but I've been reading this site for awhile and I see your point. I guess I was in a hopeful mood when I wrote that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 344. At 6:13pm on 24 Dec 2008, chronophobe wrote:

    Merry Christmas to all!

    This is, if I may say so, one of the very few news blogs worth reading and contributing to. Thanks to all those who make it so.

    I am headed up country for a few days. No internet, so I will be suffering withdrawal symptoms. That's OK, lots of booze will help.

    So, by way of a little gift for ya'll, here's Gillian Welch, David Rawlings, and the Old Crow Medicine Show doing an acoustic version of The Wait.

    "I pulled into Nazareth, I was feelin' half past dead . . . "

    Sort of Christmas-ish, anyway.

    Take a load off, all.

    Yours,
    Canadian Pinko


    Complain about this comment

  • 345. At 8:08pm on 24 Dec 2008, R-Snail wrote:

    Merry Christmas one and all.

    I wish for you peace on Earth and good will towards all.
    I'd gladly become unemployed for that dream to come true, but even just for this seasonal moment it's nice to dream.

    Complain about this comment

  • 346. At 8:21pm on 24 Dec 2008, mary gravitt wrote:

    As quiet as it is kept, more Republican voted for Obama the the media admits. The Republicans as a party was luke war to McCain and only the Ultra Right Wing of the Party and the Neocons i.e. Bill Kristol really favored the duo.

    Complain about this comment

  • 347. At 8:34pm on 24 Dec 2008, Interestedforeigner wrote:

    There have been some very ill-tempered posts in this string. That is not usual for this blog. The idea here is rational discussion, at least most of the time. Can't recall the last time I was referred to as a left wing socialist something or other. Makes me feel young and randy again ...

    Speaking of which,

    149, 164, 167, 199. Marbles and Guns: Enough of that. This is a family program.

    The other day, Marbles was chiding me for a Puritan cultural inheritance. Not true. If only. If you think the Puritans were zany fun-loving party animals, try Presbyterians.

    110. Sam. Problem with Chavez is that he is at war with the US - in his own mind. Its like Goldstein on the telescreen in 1984. Or like Mugabe always blaming the UK.

    150, 155, Happy, Marbles, Aqua

    It would be wonderful, but so difficult. Consider that the US is the world's largest arms exporter by some distance. Consider that the there are some very unsavory folks who operate from Northern Cyprus, Transdniestra, Belarus, Somalia/Puntland and elsewhere whose grasp or right and wrong lies far outside what most of us would recognize (and not only on the sale of weapons). Consider that in the wars of Dutch Independence, for example, the Dutch merchants sold arms and ammunition to the Spanish. Consider that in the Spanish Civil war there was an arms embargo. The Germans and Italians flouted it. The Russians flouted it selectively. It effectively crushed the legitimate government of Spain. (By the way, ever read Homage to Catalonia? Good book by a man who really, really loved England.)

    Treaties don't seem to work with this kind of stuff, but, oddly, law enforcement sometimes does. Former SAS members would be the ones I would hire for the job, but that is a personal preference. It takes a lot of patience, co-operation from many nations, and a great deal of persistence.

    226. Marbles.

    You might be surprised how hard some of America's friends have tried to help. Even countries that you might not instantly think of as being friends have tried to avert this catastrophe. Why do you think China, Japan and Taiwan kept buying US securities and US aircraft? Enlightened self-interest, sure. But they did it all the same.

    Many of America's friends kept their currencies at overvalued rates for a long time to try to increase demand for US exports, and suffered manufacturing job losses accordingly. (China did not do this, because it would have caused China internal problems, and the juggling act of running China is dauntingly difficult, too. Just imagine that you had to find work for 250 - 300m internal migrants to avoid social unrest.) Brazil has been a good friend to the US, but nobody seems to notice it.
    Yes, the US has lots of friends. Not all of them may find it healthy to stand in the spotlight.

    239 Guns

    "...as if someone in Washington can push a button and make all our economic problems go away."

    Why does the image of Dr. Strangelove suddenly come to mind? Possibly not quite what you meant?

    Merry Christmas to all, even to non-Presbyterians.

    Complain about this comment

  • 348. At 9:04pm on 24 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    I think we should all wish Justin one last Happy Christmas in Washington, that is assuming that he hasn't flown back to London for the holiday period - which is far, far longer in the UK than in the USA. Ever tried doing business in Britain between now and New Year?

    Next year he'll miss the National Christmas Tree and will have to make do with that austere example in Trafalgar Square. On the other hand, the lights of Regent, Oxford and Bond Streets are generally more spectacular that those of big cities here - and of course Christmas continues for the full Twelve Days, not the truncated version that exists in America. Since we have posters of all faiths, perhaps someone can explain why we are told that Hanukkah lasts for eight days and Kwanzaa for seven, but no-one ever mentions that Christmas, properly, takes twelve days. In any case, best wishes to all for the Festive Season (can't be more inclusive than that!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 349. At 9:17pm on 24 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    348 DC

    Happy Big Bong day to you too. ;)

    And a happy new year .

    Complain about this comment

  • 350. At 9:20pm on 24 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:


    "Chemotherapy kills cancer cells. It's not pleasant, but necessary. It's sad to mix children and chemotherapy, but some kids have cancer.

    War kills cancerous people. It's not pleasant, but necessary. It's sad to mix children and war, but countries governed by bad people have children.

    Is chemotherapy healthy? If it works.
    Is war healthy? If it works.

    Merry Christmas one and all.

    I wish for you peace on Earth and good will towards all.
    I'd gladly become unemployed for that dream to come true, but even just for this seasonal moment it's nice to dream."

    Wow how the" christian"mind can work.

    hope you get

    Complain about this comment

  • 351. At 9:23pm on 24 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    PS quotation marks do not make it my words.
    . they are just some strange thoughts.


    If we die by war tomorrow in the states we will know it is OK because GW was a war mongering piece of and as such our kids should die.


    The trail of slime from this slug is so fowl I could hardly just let it go.

    To the rest of you "Happy Christmas" and Peace.

    Complain about this comment

  • 352. At 9:40pm on 24 Dec 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    Merry Xmas!
    I keep reading about the trashing of the Whitehouse during the Clinton-Bush transition and I'm wondering is there any authorative source for this or is it just anecdotal?
    Given the distant relationship between veracity and the Bush Whitehouse I do wonder.

    Complain about this comment

  • 353. At 10:11pm on 24 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    # 351

    I found a new word applied to your friend:

    "hegemon".

    Has anyone else heard of it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 354. At 11:14pm on 24 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 352

    "Given the distant relationship between veracity and the Bush Whitehouse I do wonder."

    When it comes to credibility Pinocchio has more than the entire Bush II team.

    Complain about this comment

  • 355. At 11:44pm on 24 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7799170.stm


    speaking of pardons.


    Complain about this comment

  • 356. At 00:06am on 25 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    A golden oldie,

    Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all . . .



    and a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Scotland great, (not to imply that Scotland is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only country in Great Britain), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.



    By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

    Have a pc Christmas
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 357. At 00:25am on 25 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Merry X-Mas to all!

    chronophobe, since you are headed up north,
    if you happen to run across Santa Claus, please
    tell him that even though I've been bad this year,
    I still want my presents.

    And, happylaze, this song is just for you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 358. At 00:29am on 25 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    Have a pc Christmas
    ed

    I have to take great exception to this assumption that only PC is somehow socially worthy .
    As a Mac owner I would like to mention the blatant discrimination you show to Mac users.

    Though I am sure your message was heart felt I would like to start an argument over nothing so as to show my solidarity with the other Mac users.

    Happy opposite of summer

    Complain about this comment

  • 359. At 00:30am on 25 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    353 I can see oyu are way more polite than me , Happy new year to you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 360. At 00:35am on 25 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #356. Ed Iglehart "Have a pc Christmas" - a piece which includes:
    Arizona would be another poor, puny, poverty-struck antheap like California, not fit for man or his dog.

    Can't help but point out that for all its wild pigs, Arizona has John McCain for a Senator; at least California has Democrats! I know which I prefer; strange bedfellow for Ed!

    Complain about this comment

  • 361. At 00:40am on 25 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    Off topic but BBC 4 is going to give airing to a racist hate monger the Iranian President free TV time to brodcast a propganda speech

    What are people thoughts.

    Why not a Neo Nazi from Germany?

    Complain about this comment

  • 362. At 00:56am on 25 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    357 LOL THANKS GnR.

    Thats good.
    HAppy Christmas MAN.

    Complain about this comment

  • 363. At 01:01am on 25 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    the 12 days of Christmas.
    Please Mods all adults here.

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

    Complain about this comment

  • 364. At 01:03am on 25 Dec 2008, seanspa wrote:

    Pinko, north???? Isn't there enough snow for you where you are? We had record snowfall here in north Idaho last year - about 12 ft in all. We've had over a quarter of that already, and that only in the last week. More to come over the next week. At this rate my visiting UK-based mother will be stuck with us this winter. May you all have better luck than me!

    Complain about this comment

  • 365. At 01:14am on 25 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    361
    I'll share this thought, "Oh do shut up"



    Complain about this comment

  • 366. At 02:45am on 25 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    Merry Christmas to all, and to all a goodnight.

    Complain about this comment

  • 367. At 03:06am on 25 Dec 2008, abaloneca wrote:

    22 robloop

    Cannot let your comments go unanswered. First let me say this was one of the most sarcastic comments I've read in awhile, and makes me think you're spending too much time listening to the likes of Rush and Shawn, which is exactly why their followers are not gloating over a presidential win. It might behoove you to take a deep breath, listen to many of the recent comments from your party leader's, speaking about a new direction, and admitting to their mistakes. Brings to mind the Fox media blitz trying to justify going into Iraq in the first place. I recall the commentator's trying to convince the viewers that Iraq had yellow cake, manufacturing deadly chemicals and weapons of mass destruction, in mobile labs, etc. It's like someone addicted to drugs alcohol, tobacco, gambling, etc. If you can't make the jump to admitting you have a problem, there will be no cure for you. Take my advice my friend, make the jump, pull yourself together, and channel your efforts into something that will help you ovecome your deep rooted bitterness. That is the only way anyone will respect your comments. and you will feel better for it. Think about it, and good luck.



    Complain about this comment

  • 368. At 04:57am on 25 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    # 361

    Asks what are people's thoughts?

    1) Calling someone a "racist hate monger" contributes nothing to the discussion and lowers the tone of the discussion.

    2) Using the same description concerning leaders in another land in the Middle East might be more informative, but would equally lower the tone of the discussion.

    3) Since a public figure is referred to, perhaps the criteria of libel are more relaxed, it is still not the sort of comment that should be tolerated.

    ____________________

    Substantively, those in the Western tradition of liberalism, particularly in the U.K.,
    favor free speech and agree with J.S. Mill concerning the advantages of listening to the views of others.

    The real test of liberalism is tolerance, especially for views that one detests. Those from a primitive, paternal, authoritarian, tribal culture would never share such a view and probably would not understand it.

    There is a desperate need, post Bush/Blair, to treat Islamic lands with courtesy and respect and to listen to their views.

    Only through such dialogue can understanding, accomodation and peace be arrived at.

    The policy of bluff, boycott, bluster and threat unites the Iranians behind their Mullah government and is thus totally counter-productive.

    Among the urban population, there is great desire for things of Western culture and even affection for the American people (but not their government).

    Ever effort must be made to communicate with Iranians at all levels- thus can hearts and minds- and regimes- be changed.

    Remember, the greatest and most common factor in jihadism is a sense of humiliation.

    Creating humiliation and fostering hate for Iran is a primary present objective for Israel and its friends here. Those who favor Western values should be aware of this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 369. At 06:25am on 25 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #368 AlSearcher - One of the defences for libel is that the statement is true; would you agree that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a racist hate monger or not? The Australian human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell (resident in the UK) called on Channel 4 to "pull the plug on this criminal despot, who ranks with Robert Mugabe, Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and the Burmese military junta as one of the world's most bloody tyrants".

    I can't see that President Ahmadinejad's views are to be tolerated any more than those of Adolf Hitler; AlSearcher sounds more like an apologist for the Iranian government than one who would "treat Islamic lands with courtesy and respect and to listen to their views."

    Complain about this comment

  • 370. At 07:17am on 25 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    369, David.

    AlSearcher's seems to have an intuitive understanding of how to approach Iran, though probably his knowledge is spotty. On the other hand, you don't see past the rhetoric of both sides. What governments say give no hint of agendas. You have to look beyond their words for that. It is not any easy task if you are not deeply involved.

    Complain about this comment

  • 371. At 09:30am on 25 Dec 2008, hms_shannon wrote:

    Peace for this earth,with loved ones far away,
    may the Lord keep you & they..

    Wishing you joy and peace this Christmas...

    Complain about this comment

  • 372. At 10:05am on 25 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    369. wrote:

    I can't see that President Ahmadinejad's views are to be tolerated any more than those of Adolf Hitler;

    Precisely. I don't know why people insist on disregarding his comments about Israel and Jews in general. Ahmadinejad proudly hosted a Holocaust denial conference, which was eagerly converged on from all over the planet by extremely unpleasant characters, to put it in the mildest possible fashion.

    Again, Ahmedinejad is the president of a country which is the guiding hand behind much past and present terrorism worldwide and especially the terrorism directed against Israeli civilians and Jews in general. It's about time people stopped dodging that fact.

    Obama knows it, though he still seems to think Iran can be reasoned with.

    Just so people know who they are debating with, Xie_Ming, LesMajestey, Ganz_Anders, U13752295 and AlSearcher are obviously all the same individual.

    Complain about this comment

  • 373. At 10:13am on 25 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    370. allmymarbles wrote:

    What governments say give no hint of agendas.

    On the contrary, Ahmedinejad's words are perfectly in harmony with Iran's bloodstained hand, holding the shaft of the spear of terror.

    Complain about this comment

  • 374. At 10:27am on 25 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    #361

    First I am in absolutley in no danger in the U.K or U.S for libel. The truth is it's best defense.

    Second there is a difference between responsible Arab leaders even those like the Saudis(who are wrong on the Israeli/Palestiian issue) than the Irananians who foster terrorism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 375. At 1:06pm on 25 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Since I don't speak Farsi I can not say with absolute certainty what the meaning of Ahmadinejad's statement was regarding the future of Israel, but I am familiar enough with the form of speech used by people in that part of the world to know that they often use poetic flourishes to express their thoughts. It would not surprise me if his comments actually meant that the low birthrate of Israelis will eventually result in their disappearance as a dominant ethnic group in the ME, a naive conclusion considering the influx of Jewish immigrants from Europe and the US.

    There is little doubt in my mind that radical Iranians, like the neocon extremists in the US, sponsor and participate in acts of extreme violence to destabilize regions and achieve their religious, geopolitical, and economic goals. There is little difference between radicals on both sides of this conflict, aside from the size and lethality of the arsenal at their disposal. Arrest warrants should be issued against the whole gang and if any of them dare step out of their respective countries they should be arrested and sent to The Hague for trial.

    Complain about this comment

  • 376. At 1:47pm on 25 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #375

    Dominick can you honestly name someone in the Bush Administration that is the moral equivilent to the Irananian Preident and the intolerant mullahs.

    I am talking about someone who matters.

    Complain about this comment

  • 377. At 2:33pm on 25 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 376

    I suspect history will not be kind to Mr. Cheney and his neocons. Don't let the demonization of Ahmadinejad or Saddam Hussein cloud your logic. There is no evidence that either exported terrorism anywhere and except for Saddam's ill conceived decision to invade Kuwait everything he did was in line with what we asked that old ally to do.

    The Iranians have not invaded or attacked anyone in over a century, as a result, we had no choice but to accuse them of fostering acts of violence, without evidence to support our claims. Hatred towards them was, obviously, facilitated by the nonsensical hostage crisis in the 1970s.

    As I suggested in my earlier post, I would not be surprised if radical elements in Iran are, indeed, supporting organizations like Hezbollah which, unfortunately, resort to violence to achieve their nationalistic goals, but are those tactics any different from those employed by us when we drop high precision bombs and launch cruise missiles against countries 7,000 miles from our homeland whose only crime is to be ethnically or spiritually linked to the terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11? Personally, I would have been much more comfortable if the target had been Saudi Arabia, the homeland of the Wahabist thugs that destroyed the WTC. Incredibly, our neocons were able to carry out the Iraq strategy they planned long before 9/11, thus letting our enemies off the hook.

    The need to self-defense is undeniable, but the actions to achieve that goal should be focused on the elements that threaten our security or those that carried out terrorist attacks in our homeland, rather than lashing out against an entire culture. Guilty by association should not be a justification for acts of extreme violence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 378. At 2:47pm on 25 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    # 369

    Perhaps there is a cultural difference here:

    I do not believe that name-calling contributes anything to the discussion. Similarly, saying someone is "like Hitler" is not useful. You may be aware that such hyperbole is common within another Mid-Eastern country.

    I can lament the tactic, but if it is part of your culture, you will use it reflexively.

    Most raised in the British tradition will "tolerate" the speech of others. The real test is tolerating the expression of views that one detests.

    "..Censorship is the very opposite of tolerance. In his classic On Liberty, John Stuart Mill advanced arguments in favor of free expression: (a) An opinion might be true. (b) An opinion might be partially true. By contending with other opinions, a fuller truth could develop. (c) Contention makes even the whole truth better understood.."

    Mind and Ideology ISBN 9780920282113

    __________________

    Similarly, ad hominem comment concerning a poster evades the issue and is a tactic to be regretted.

    Complain about this comment

  • 379. At 3:03pm on 25 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    367 abaloneca
    Thanks for giving me a good chuckle on this Christmas Day. Believe me, my comments in 22 did not "go unanswered" and I did not let the responses go unanswered - you should have read further - but since way back then a lot of water has passed round the Cape of Good Hope and we've tended to move on. I never listen to 'Rush' and on the few occasions I've seen 'Shaun' have mostly tended to agree with him.
    Very evidently you consider seeing the world from your perspective the 'right way' and anything else the 'wrong way' - a circumstance that has made Washington in particular a very angry, intolerant and un-co-operative place. It could do with the spirit of Christmas.
    Your comments and advice to me are so way off base they might as well be in the middle of the Sahara Desert, but upon re-reading I can honestly they again gave me a good smile. Now go and "jump" into a good Christmas.

    Complain about this comment

  • 380. At 3:06pm on 25 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #376

    Hezbollah is a terroist orginization attacking the soviergn state of Israel. They are a proxy of Iran. they are responsible for the damage in death in Lebanon not to mention the war crimes against Israel

    In regard to Cheney he has servered honorbly in several administations and in congress.

    His service far surpasses appeasers like Jimmy Carter.

    Complain about this comment

  • 381. At 3:18pm on 25 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    # 375

    In fact, Israel is quite concerned with what it refers to as the "demographic problem"- even within Israel proper the gentile birth rate is viewed as threatening to them.

    _____________________

    Kahmeini is Supreme in Iran and it is his views that are determining.

    The phrase "remove from the map" refers to his idea of a massive plebicite for Israel/Palestine to establish a single country.

    _________________________

    The NeoCons, led by Perle, Kristol, Wolfowitz, et al. have been extremely active in involving the USA in the invasion of Iraq and urging the same for Syria and Iran.

    These lands Israel's right wingers consider existential threats to Israel and thus they, and their friends here, do their utmost to arouse hate against them.

    _______________________

    In fact, the USA has military forces around Iran, including a fleet operating close off its shores. The Bush/Cheney regime has been making continual threats against Iran and has made incursions with special forces.

    Israel has been urging war with Iran (Sharon brought the plans for same to Washington) and has been threatening air attack.

    Under these circumstances, Iran has a duty to defend itself and do everything possible to keep the aggressors off balance.
    ______________________

    Iran can become a most useful strategic ally for the West- look at the map, look at history, and look at its oil and people resources.

    _____________________

    Hatred against Iran is being fostered by Israel and its friends here.




    Complain about this comment

  • 382. At 3:32pm on 25 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    The basic issue raised above was whether the President of Iran should be allowed to speak on British media.

    Of course, he should. What mind-set would censor him from the British public? That mindset is alien to British tradition!

    From a practical point of view, dialogue with Iran should be encouraged at every opportunity. The President of Iran sought such relations with the USA several years ago but was rebuffed by Bush.



    Complain about this comment

  • 383. At 3:32pm on 25 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 380

    I share your opinion regarding Hezbollah's support of terrorist activities, but don't forget that those we regard as terrorists are considered patriots fighting for a just cause by others. As I am sure you already know, many people throughout the world do not support our expansionist and interventionist foreign policy, and believe we are the catalyst for much of the violence afflicting the world. References to crusades, statements such as wanted dead or alive and you are with us or against us, and insults such as Islamo-fascists may play well at home, but they don't elicit an awful lot of respect from anyone abroad.

    Dick Cheney does have a tremendous resume, one of his most remarkable achievements is a record number of college deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam. Mr. Cheney has been the architect of our foreign policy the past 8 years and took advantage of an intellectually challenged President and a rubber-stamp Congress to implement his goals with absolute impunity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 384. At 3:58pm on 25 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 382

    Mature democracies must, indeed, allow everyone to voice their opinion. Your channel 4 executives should be commended for their decision. It is up to the citizenry to reach a conclusion, preferably without coersion or distortions of reality from special interest groups.

    Countries that limit the right to free speech to expressions of support for their interests should not be considered democratic nations. Denying the citizenry the opportunity of listening to opposing views is one of the most important characteristics of a dictatorship.

    Complain about this comment

  • 385. At 4:22pm on 25 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #382 and 384
    There is a diference between freddon of speech and being given a free platform.

    does that mean a Neo Nazi who Iran's President is no better than should be given the 2009 slot?


    Yes he sought relations with the U.S

    If we all would convert to his intolerant brand of Islam
    Help destroy Israel
    Make women wear burkhas.


    Complain about this comment

  • 386. At 6:18pm on 25 Dec 2008, lawchicago wrote:

    Perhaps the Bush administration realize finally that the United States is a nation in transition .
    The American people have an opportunity now with the new administration to engage in a dialogue as a nation as to what we seek to be in the 21 century. Solutions from the past will not suffice nor will they be effective in this new dialogue .

    We will begin to define what we are as a people , who we are in the community of nations, and the relationships we seek to have with a world that has also changed profoundly in this new century . The dialogue is overdue . We have been approaching ourselves and the world with a perspective that reflects a reality of another generation.

    This may be a time for catharsis . we can emerge as a nation with focus and purpose and a deep sensibility for our people and our responsibility in the community of nations .

    The great American experiment we begin again ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 387. At 6:42pm on 25 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    # 386

    Most of the civilized World wants America to succeed and to do just that!

    The USA needs catharsis and redefinition and the World wants it to again become a shining beacon.

    So do the people of Iran.

    Before the CIA regime change in c 1954, Iran was a democracy.

    When the USA put the Shah (II) in, Israel was a great ally of Iran.

    Kohmeini's Islamic Revolution rode to power on resentment and populism.

    Now, the public has mullah fatigue and likes what it knows of US culture and has good feelings toward the American people.

    Hopefully, domestic politics will permit Obama to use his intelligence in this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 388. At 7:59pm on 25 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #370. allmymarbles: "AlSearcher's seems to have an intuitive understanding of how to approach Iran"

    That may be, but that was not the point of my post nor that of #361. MagicKirin (with whom I rarely agree.) Would you feel so positive if the President of the United States were to give a Christmas address on CBS and ABC, but NBC, in order to "balance" it, gave free air time to President Ahmadinejad of Iran? The British may be tolerant of others' views, but Channel 4 has for many years deliberately chosen to present an "alternative" to the speech the Monarch gives every Christmas Day when she speaks without the advice of the government but from her own heart.

    At any other time, President Ahmadinejad's views might be of interest, but presenting him (mercifully not at the same time, as in the past) is essentially a slap-in-the face for the British head-of-state. America would not tolerate it, so why should the British?

    Complain about this comment

  • 389. At 8:55pm on 25 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    # 388

    Ms. Marbles may speak for herself, but I certainly think the airing of opposing views is distinctly good

    and the suppression of views is very bad.

    The authoritarian/totalitarian mindset always seeks to allow only its version of reality to exist in minds.

    It is a fact of life that such intolerant attitudes are instilled in children when they are brought up in such households, and most become what are known as "obedient authoritarians".

    [See Bob Altenhauer or "Mind and ideology" referenced above]

    Complain about this comment

  • 390. At 9:23pm on 25 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Searcher, Dominic, & Ms Marbles,

    Well said all of you.

    Peace and free expression
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 391. At 9:28pm on 25 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #389

    Why are you justifying a racist, homophobe getting free air time?

    You seem to have a problem with the difference between freedom of speech and giving a venue to someone.

    An opposing view could be the party not in power, someone who believes the monarchy should be abolished.

    From what I can see the suppression of views in Britian seem to be those who take a Pro U.S or Israel stand

    See Dershowitz's book "The case against Israel's enemies"

    Note I felt the same way when Columbia U gave this terrorist a free venue; and the majority of columbia alums agreed. Just as the MP's in commons seem to in regard to BBC 4 decision

    Complain about this comment

  • 392. At 9:56pm on 25 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #389. A AlSearcher: "I certainly think the airing of opposing views is distinctly good"

    I don't know where you live, but it's the timing of the speech which rankles so many - check today's Times and Daily Mail for a sampling. You don't say whether you would approve such an address being made as an alternative to the US head-of-state - that's the concern of many in the UK.

    Complain about this comment

  • 393. At 10:47pm on 25 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    # 392

    Pro and con; balance; fair; debate

    Definitely a proper step and presenting on the same day instead of at the same time allows both to be heard.

    ___________________

    However, I have reason to suspect that it is only a liberal elite that really believes in tolerance and I suspect that perhaps 85% of mankind would happily club into silence those who hold different views

    If only the leaders didn't tell them otherwise.

    Primitive tribalism may be the preponderant feeling. What do you think?

    Complain about this comment

  • 394. At 10:48pm on 25 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    392. David_Cunard,

    Freedom of speech is one thing, but giving Ahmedinejad a platform in the West is simply legitimising evil.


    377. DominickVila wrote:

    Ref 376

    Don't let the demonization of Ahmadinejad or Saddam Hussein cloud your logic. There is no evidence that either exported terrorism anywhere...


    This is nonsense. Iran arms, trains and funds terror groups like Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah. Anyway, "exported" is the wrong word. Iran is steeped in terror up to its collective neck and uses these terror groups to fight its wars, especially its war against Israel, which, you might note, has never attacked Iran.

    I don't know why you are so keen to draw a moral equivalence between the West and regimes like Iran. There is no equivalence between them. Can anyone imagine the judiciary in a Western country slowly strangling a teenage girl to death from a crane for the "crime" of having sex? I can't.

    Complain about this comment

  • 395. At 01:18am on 26 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 394

    "Iran arms, trains and funds terror groups like Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah"

    The chances of Iran, a predominantly "Shiite" nation, supporting Hamas, a Palestinian "Sunni" political party, are slim to none. A more likely source of help to Hamas is Saudi Arabia. Incidentally, I find it amusing that while we don't hesitate to criticize the treatment of women in Iran and Afghanistan, we look the other way when it comes to our buddies in Saudi Arabia. A few lucrative contracts do wonders when it comes to foreign policy...

    Regarding the audacity of suggesting that everyone should be treated equally, all I can say is that cultural and religious bias, and greed, are the cancer that has afflicted humanity for centuries. Unless we learn to coexist in peace, respect each other, and treat each other as equals civilization is doomed.

    To be fair, our disastrous foreign policy is nothing new, decisions influenced by dubious motives have been championed by both Democratic and Republican Presidents.
    The time to change course is now, hopefully our new President with seize the opportunity and abandon the policies of expansion, intervention, and intransigence that have characterized our actions since we became a nation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 396. At 01:41am on 26 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #393. AlSearcher: "Pro and con; balance; fair; debate."

    It's not a debate - it's traditionally when the Queen speaks to Britain and all members of the Commonwealth. She doesn't speak about politics but more ordinary things. Channel 4, in its quest to remove any kind of deference to Her Majesty, has invited all kinds of bizarre speakers to make an address at the same time. You don't appear to understand how the British feel about this particular speaker or the great affection in which most Brits hold for The Queen.

    You still haven't answered my question though - would you approve of the President of Iran speaking to the people of the United States at the same time as their own President? Regardless of "balance" or "fair", I think the American people would be outraged. What say you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 397. At 03:14am on 26 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #393. AlSearcher: Not just the leading newspapers, but even the British Government has chastised Channel 4 for its broadcast by President Ahmedinejad. This is not an argument you can win!

    Complain about this comment

  • 398. At 04:00am on 26 Dec 2008, Orville Eastland wrote:

    My thoughts on Ahmedinejad:
    I'd be willing to listen to him. I would most definitely not completely agree with him, no matter what he said. Yes, he is open about his views- and, to his credit, more honest than Bush and Blair and Brown. I significantly disagree with his views.

    "I felt the same way when Columbia U gave this terrorist a free venue"

    If by a "free venue" you mean opening itself up to numerous criticism from numerous politicans, and opening with an attack on him by the president of Columbia, I'd definitely disagree with you over the definition of "free venue".

    As for the putting him opposite Her Majesty, I'd have to say the following:
    1. The US wouldn't dare to have Ahmedinejad speak opposite Bush, except a few places like Pacifica Radio (Which is NOT NPR.) This shows Britain's commitment to free speech.
    2. I do trust Her Majesty more than Bush, Blair, Brown, Obama and Ahmedinejad combined. (And I'm a Yank!)
    3. It's not like Channel 4 HAD to put ANYONE opposite Her Majesty for balance (and didn't this start out as a joke?).

    Complain about this comment

  • 399. At 04:25am on 26 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    # 396

    I stated that offering the speaker at a different time was a proper step.

    Given that change, yes, I would recommend US media giving air time to all the selected devils of both right and left.

    As to public reaction: as stated above(# 393), I suspect that the majority would want to club into silence anyone expressing views that did not conform to their indoctrination. I would like to have estimates from others on the Forum as to what percentage of the public think in such an intolerant fashion.

    The present government can be expected to continue with the disastrous Bush/Blair/Milliband line and their attitude toward unsettling possibilities is what one might expect of partisans.

    Some here seem to feel that free speech should exist only for views (or even persons!) that one agrees with.

    I feel that it is very salutory, almost necessary, that one listen to views that do not conform to own's own ideas.

    Complain about this comment

  • 400. At 04:39am on 26 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    I have just listened to the seven minute Christmas message of Amadadinijad:

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/the+alternative+christmas+message+/2892692

    Everyone should!

    Complain about this comment

  • 401. At 04:40am on 26 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    In the event that my linkage is defective, it is easily played on Channel 4.

    Complain about this comment

  • 402. At 05:33am on 26 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #399. AlSearcher "I feel that it is very salutory, almost necessary, that one listen to views that do not conform to own's own ideas."

    Indeed, that's why some of us watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, just to see what the other side says. But airing an address by someone whose views are almost universally decried is not something which is not, in my view - or that of the British media, or the British Government - suitable to be broadcast as an "alternative message" to that of The Queen. The relatively innocuous address is not the point, it is what the man represents. It's a pity that you cannot - or will not - understand the points being made.

    Incidentally, you did not "state(d) that offering the speaker at a different time was a proper step" - you wrote "Definitely a proper step and presenting on the same day instead of at the same time allows both to be heard." The point, which you miss, that it is promoted as an alternative Christmas message to that of the British Monarch. So again I ask you whether or not you would approve of an address by The President on one channel and another by President Ahmedinejad which, regardless of the time of transmission, was advertised as an alternative to that of the President of the United State of America? It's really a straight-forward query, but one, which in your zeal to promote equal time for all opinions, you avoid.

    Lastly - had this been seventy years ago, what would you have thought of a fireside Christmas chat by President Roosevelt, followed by a similar address by Herr Hitler? Inquiring minds want to know!

    Complain about this comment

  • 403. At 07:15am on 26 Dec 2008, british-ish wrote:

    It's simple enough, I would have thought. If you only hear what others say someone says, you will never find out what they really say, or really mean. And then you are easy prey; easily propagandised, easily misled.

    So then, since we have heard George Bush, Condoleeza Rice often enough, even John Bolton as well as Olmet, why should we not hear Ahmendinajad in his own words, not through the prism of others' politics or principles?

    To censor or deny another view is to show you are afraid that it may be valid, or even true. Since when did 'freedom of speech' mean the freedom to speak if you agree with me, but not if you don't? It's not divisible. If you want it, it's one of those things you can either swallow whole or not at all in the end.

    But why do people harp back sixty years? Britain is a different country, a totally different society, of different attitudes, with completely different modes of media approach.

    DC wrote "America would not tolerate it, so why should the British?"

    Why shouldn't we? Because if we get to know a bit more about Iran (and we have seen and heard quite a bit from ordinary Iranians as well over the last year on Channel 4 (they presented the nightly news from there for a week) and the Beeb, we might recognise they are a part of humanity and not a population of demons, and not fall for the next American request to help with bombing another country 'far away about which we know nothing' back to a stone age again?

    Anyway, the proportion of monarchists—or anyway of people who treat the reigning monarch as anything much more than simply a figurative, decorative and ceremonial head of state, but otherwise of no real importance or influence—is probably about the same as went to church on Christmas Day. Which is to say pretty small . . .Like the C4 audience, actually, so probably more watched the Queen's speech anyway . . .

    Maybe I'm just a different generation.

    (J haven't been out to look, but somehow I doubt if there will be long lines of Brits, of whatever origin, queuing outside the Iranian Embassy asking to emigrate, help bomb Israel or whatever, as a result. Give us Brits a bit of credit for sense.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 404. At 07:53am on 26 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #403. british-ish: "we have heard George Bush, Condoleeza Rice often enough, even John Bolton as well as Olmet, why should we not hear Ahmendinajad in his own words"

    None of the Americans mentioned have been billed as an "alternative" (on Christmas Day) to The Queen's annual message. President Ahmendinajad could have made his statement at any other time during the Christmas season, and the British press and Government have rebuked Channel 4 for making it available as an alternative to the British head-of-state. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "monarchists" or generational differences but rather everything we do know about Ahmendinajad and his intolerant regime. Britain knows no more about Iran and the Iranian people from his address than last week.

    "why do people harp back sixty years? Britain is a different country, a totally different society, of different attitudes, with completely different modes of media approach."

    Who's harking back sixty years? I suggest that you have no idea what Britain was like in 1948 - and my guess is that you were not even born then so cannot possibly have any idea what society was like at the time. The only difference in "media" approach is that television is more widespread and that in the last decade, electronic communication has become prevalent. Radio, still a big component in Britain, was equally available then and newspapers (still being printed) were available in larger numbers (and titles) than today. Couple those with filmed newsreels which brought full-size images to cinema-goers. I do not believe that the British public were any less informed than they are today, save perhaps for the speed at which news is transmitted.

    "Give us Brits a bit of credit for sense."

    In that case, apparently the programmers at Channel 4 are all foreigners . . . I'd say it was a public relations disaster of the first magnitude.

    Complain about this comment

  • 405. At 10:10am on 26 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #398

    1. Hilter was honest in his views and Iran is this century NaziGermany

    2. Columbia's President did criticize in his intro only when pressured by alumnai

    3. It's not daring, it's that no responsible media outlet in the U.S would give a terrorist a free venue.

    Pacifica is a liberal hate station that is the equivilent of the KKKK radio stations on the 50,s

    Complain about this comment

  • 406. At 12:51pm on 26 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    The prejudiced and intolerant mindset has been well-illustrated in some of the foregoing postings. Nothing further need be added.

    How extensive is such intolerance? Does it exist to the same degree in Britain as in the United States?

    Is an estimate of 85% too high? Would 30% be too low?

    Again, the question is: what percentage would seek to silence (a) views and (b) individuals that they hate?

    Complain about this comment

  • 407. At 1:36pm on 26 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 406

    I am not aware of any reliable studies that have been conducted to determine the level of intolerance that exists throughout the world, but judging by some of the comments on this and other blogs I would say it is alive and well and it is not limited to a couple of nations or a specific ethnic or social group. Religious, social, and ethnic prejudice has existed since the beginning of mankind, and it is likely to be around until we cease to exist as a species.

    Not surprisingly, world leaders have taken advantage of our weaknesses to incite hatred and, by so doing, achieve their goals. Propaganda, ranging from the crude approach taken by Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of "Public Enlightenment", to more subtle methods of indoctrination are routinely used to manipulate public opinion. A requirement to succeed in this endeavor is to silence or discredit the opposition, which is relatively easy to do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 408. At 3:23pm on 26 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    395. DominickVila,

    I take your point about Saudi Arabia. They are as committed to spreading terror as Iran, but do so via cash and propaganda - e.g. Saudi-funded schools in the west teaching children that Jews and Christians are the sons of monkeys and pigs and wagon loads of Saudi cash delivered to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

    It's an oily business that makes the Saudis and the Americans friends.

    No doubt the Iranians would be happier if Hamas were fellow Shias, but they still assist Hamas in whatever way possible. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad is also Sunni, but is more closely connected, through its establishment and history, to Iran.

    In January 2002, the Karine A, a ship loaded with Iranian weaponry and captained by a Palestinian was intercepted by Israel on the way to the Suez Canal. The plan was to drop these weapons in flotation tanks near Gaza. Divers would then inflate the tanks and bring them ashore. Katyushas were part of the shipment. Recently the first Katuysha was fired at Israel from Gaza and cities further and further from Gaza are coming within range.

    No doubt the Iranians would be happier if Hamas and Islamic Jihad were fellow Shias, but they will assist these groups in whatever way possible. As long as Gaza is a fertile breeding ground for terror against Israelis, Iran will fund, arm and train the terror groups, no matter who they are.



    Complain about this comment

  • 409. At 3:58pm on 26 Dec 2008, seanspa wrote:

    Xie, why on earth should we tolerate hate? Are there any studies to show how stupid you have to be to fall for weasel words? There is a world of difference between censorship, which no-one has called for, and giving a platform to propaganda.

    Complain about this comment

  • 410. At 4:13pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    What a bunch of twisted hypocrites .


    OOHHHH He's a bad man.
    Well guess what some of you who by now should know who you are , are a bunch of total racist the war against terrors.

    He should be allowed as much room as the BBC has allowed you things.

    You come here preaching hate and division, segregation , white judao-christian supremacy .
    Most of your posts break UK law with the amount of hate speech.
    Yet you want to say this message Should be banned.


    WELL GO BAN YOURSELVES THEN.

    I have heard every religion talk about when they will rule the world.
    get over it.

    Watch it.

    He didn't say nowt wrong.

    as for what goes on in their regimes "DO SHUT UP"


    America kills kids , kids convicted by people with understanding and comprehension levels of half the idiots here, with mental problems and adults .. OH WIAT WE WENT THROUGH THIS TIRED OLD CRAP LAST YEAR YOU PATHETIC TROLLS



    MOVE ON


    WATCH OUT> the infrastructure is so crap in the US a Bridge might fall on your heads.


    Complain about this comment

  • 411. At 4:18pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    PS some with a lack of balance here say that ahmadinnasbad called for the destruction of Israel.

    HE DIDN"T the speech they all quote he said "it is Gods Will"

    that is the same justification for Israel being where it is.
    Not a threat at all.

    even stevens.

    Get over it
    LOOK TURN AROUND ,IDIOTS 2009 IS HEADING YOUR WAY.

    GET YOUR FOIL NOW.

    Complain about this comment

  • 412. At 4:20pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    What a bunch of twisted hypocrites .


    OOHHHH He's a bad man.
    Well guess what some of you who by now should know who you are , are a bunch of total racists.

    He should be allowed as much room as the BBC has allowed you things to post here.

    You come here preaching hate and division, segregation , white judao-christian supremacy .

    Yet you want to say his message Should be banned.
    but yours allowed

    WELL GO BAN YOURSELVES THEN.

    I have heard every religion talk about when they will rule the world.
    get over it.

    Watch it.

    He didn't say nowt wrong.

    as for what goes on in their regimes "DO SHUT UP"


    America kills kids , kids convicted by people with understanding and comprehension levels of half the idiots here, with mental problems and adults .. OH WIAT WE WENT THROUGH THIS TIRED OLD ARGUMENT LAST YEAR YOU PATHETIC TROLLS



    MOVE ON


    WATCH OUT> the infrastructure is so crap in the US a Bridge might fall on your heads.


    Complain about this comment

  • 413. At 5:02pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    409 seanspa "why on earth should we tolerate hate?"

    good question.

    I refer to all the posts by majickirin, true too rwbennet,robloop,

    Who could all be the same person.
    A lot of hate from this crowd over time.

    Much removed for this reason.
    Though of course they are careful to be as cowardly as they can about their racism.




    DC sorry it offended you but there are people in the UK (quite a few and before "the queen " film a few more) who do not give a stuff about the queen.

    I am not one of them .

    I like the tourism created.

    I thought the speech was nice.

    As nice as if it had come out of GW mouth.


    But one hell of a lot more intelligent.

    Jesus would be a terrorist in this day and age, that is the truth.

    money lenders , Pharisees.


    Complain about this comment

  • 414. At 5:04pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    PS some with a lack of balance here say that ahmadinnasbad called for the destruction of Israel.

    HE DIDN"T the speech they all quote he said "it is Gods Will"

    that is the same justification for Israel being where it is.

    Not a threat at all.

    even stevens.

    Get over it
    LOOK TURN AROUND , 2009 IS HEADING YOUR WAY.

    GET YOUR FOIL NOW.

    Complain about this comment

  • 415. At 5:07pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    SO WHO IS COMPLAINING?

    Oh so much for free speech,

    this is not the mods but someone complaining.


    This happened before.

    Complain about this comment

  • 416. At 5:49pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    413

    I would add
    R snail.
    Robinstp to
    Robloop
    Rwbennet
    Because there seems to be a likelihood that if it starts with R it will be someone like this

    Complain about this comment

  • 417. At 5:59pm on 26 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #406. AlSearcher: "The prejudiced and intolerant mindset has been well-illustrated in some of the foregoing postings. Nothing further need be added."

    Nothing further need be added. Is that why you cannot answer the two simple questions posed? For your convenience, I repeat them:

    1.) Would you approve of an address by The President on one channel and another by President Ahmedinejad which, regardless of the time of transmission, was advertised as an alternative to that of the President of the United States of America?

    2.) Had this been seventy years ago, what would you have thought of a fireside Christmas chat by President Roosevelt, followed by a similar address by Herr Hitler?

    A 'yes' or 'no' answer is all that is required, no beating around the bush.

    #409. seanspa - You hit the nail on the head

    #415. happylaze: "This happened before." Careful, Jack, or you'll get removed by the mods again, as before.

    Complain about this comment

  • 418. At 6:07pm on 26 Dec 2008, dianaatkin wrote:

    Yes, but did the Dems get access to material that's probably been shredded by now?! Or the global covert ops that the US would 'deny'? The last 8 years will be the Cause. Now, the Dems will have to be the Effect. Within the Cause I can well imagine there's a lot more horse poop than meets the eye that will emerge and have to be dealt with under the new administration playing out the Effect...

    Complain about this comment

  • 419. At 6:19pm on 26 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #409, seanspa, exactly!

    There is a difference between providing access
    to different points of view and providing an
    endorsement by a state-supported media.

    David_C, If I understand you Brits properly,
    the Monarchy is essentially a symbol
    of your nationhood, much as the Constitution
    is for us.

    We don't hold the President in such high regard
    as you do the Queen. He's just a hired hand.

    So, presenting a foreign leader's Christmas
    greeting as an "alternative" to the Queen's
    address is akin to our letting an agent of
    a foreign power spray graffiti on the Constitution
    and the Declaration of Independence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 420. At 6:24pm on 26 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    # 384

    Does someone know how to copy it?

    Villa's # 384 is the succinct masterpiece of this thread!

    Complain about this comment

  • 421. At 6:25pm on 26 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    400 AlSearcher
    Having listened/watched Amadadinijad I marvel that someone, if sincere, who speaks so flattering about the influence of Jesus Christ, "the Merciful one" he said, has not become an convert to Christianity.
    "Jesus the son of Mary is the standard bearer of justice, love.." If those are his instincts, for what more could he ask?
    Some of what Amadadinijad said about the 'Almighty' is the essence of sweet reasonableness and quite profound, but having listened to/read some of his previous statements, some of them a testament to hate-filled belligerence, I once again conclude that this man is a very intelligent and skillful deceiver and propagandist, who either knows or researches his audience, and then seduces it on a subject it knows at least a little about with soothing talk of "peace and goodwill" - while himself having little intention of pursuing it.
    He in fact insults his audience by regarding it gullible - and ignorant of his previous belligerence, and contribution to violence all over the Middle East.
    I saw the Queen of England on t.v. yesterday, and considered her's a simple message that was elequent and sincere. By contrast Amadadinijad's message was calculated propaganda intended to mislead.
    In my estimation, based upon his record, for a British t.v. channel to have featured this man at the same time that the Queen spoke was a deliberate affront, a product of warped minds intent upon disrespect.
    And as a matter of interest, while Amadadinijad talked about "the prophets", among whom he included Jesus of Nazareth, the Bible informs readers that he was the Messiah, the son of God, not simply a prophet, but otherwise everything of which Amadadinijad informed viewers. He does his homework while weaving his evil web.

    Complain about this comment

  • 422. At 6:50pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    DC OOOHHHH I'm quaking(on jacks behalf;)See you get all shirty on this one eh.

    lol LA is a slum.

    Really he is not a great guy this one but then he has generally kept to screwing only his people.

    As opposed to the recent rash of the west who like to screw anyone by whatever degree they want.

    What a bunch of hypocrites.

    I would love it if this ahmadinnesbad had no reason to be showed because we had made his politics irrelevant.

    But ignore ALL the reasons behind what has happened in history and carry on the same way and things won't change.

    All YOU HATE is based on WHAT.
    THE UK GOV. Dislikes him. So What?

    Even If all the Brits Hate him , SO WHAT?

    Yea the regime(him) is way harsh So is our buddies in Saudi.

    So is Gitmo

    So are the prisons in the US where you dare not take a shower(ones dick cheney had a hand in).
    You read this long enough to remember that the Judge in the girl hanged case was tried.

    Here is the US great record.



    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1935


    http://www.justicedenied.org/shaka.html

    here's one of GW failures to read ending in others death.
    "HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN, CAST THE FIRST STONE"

    Complain about this comment

  • 423. At 7:22pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 424. At 7:36pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    421 more hypocrisy.
    "while Amadadinijad talked about "the prophets", among whom he included Jesus of Nazareth, the Bible informs readers that he was the Messiah, the son of God, not simply a prophet, but otherwise everything of which Amadadinijad informed viewers. He does his homework while weaving his evil web."

    "Having listened/watched Amadadinijad I marvel that someone, if sincere, who speaks so flattering about the influence of Jesus Christ, "the Merciful one" he said, has not become an convert to Christianity."

    Why should he have to convert hell your desire to see him convert is transparent.

    Jesus was his prophet, in his religion.

    I am surprised that you do not think that if Christians believe in God then they should all become Jews.


    unlike you he can think.OK good.
    Now we have a president that can think maybe there is a chance.

    OH but you things wouldn't let that happen .

    He is no worse than what we put forward up til now.

    Oh and how sensitive was it Of GW to pardon someone who sold weapons of mass destruction to Israel.
    Bombers were a big one .
    (see Justin brought up pardons ,a link to the post)

    Just the fact that this whole thread has been HIJACKED yet again by references to something totally irrelevant to the US and this Blog , is worse than what Channel 4 have done.


    Go to the Brit site or the mideast site where ever, this is meant to be a blog related to events in the "America's"

    But NO we have to discuss Israel through the back door approach.

    Iran is not the Enemy of Israel. It is all those that would defend it even when it was not in the conversation.Those that promote hate that people are going to react against.You all have created in me more anti Jewish reactions than anyone else in the world, including ahmadinnasbad.

    Again I accuse you of using this forum to promote that hatred of Israel, that you wish to instil in me.

    It doesn't work because I think you are all fakes , race baiting fakes.




    If you want to discuss the fact that an AMERICAN president (and the others were pardoned by other past presidents) pardoned a guy that sold planes to a terrorist state.
    (As it was considered at the time.lol)


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7799170.stm

    causing this

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7390166.stm


    just to show other side to the story.


    Complain about this comment

  • 425. At 7:44pm on 26 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #422. happylaze wrote: "LA is a slum."

    If you mean Los Angeles, it's an awfully big place to tar with one brush; you might as well say that about New York or Chicago. Nevertheless, I can't see the relevance of the statement as to whether Iranian propaganda should be broadcast. And I'm waiting for AlSearcher's responses to my two questions - what's the betting that he never provides them?

    Complain about this comment

  • 426. At 7:45pm on 26 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 421

    "Having listened/watched Amadadinijad I marvel that someone, if sincere, who speaks so flattering about the influence of Jesus Christ, "the Merciful one" he said, has not become an convert to Christianity."

    Why are you surprised by Ahmadinejad's reverence of Jesus Christ? He is a Muslim and, consequently, he reveres the five most important prophets in that religion including Mohammad, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ.

    Could it be that our refusal to allow a Islamic leader speak freely and candidly to the Western world is based on the need to maintain the myth that our "God is better than theirs" and that Muslims are infidels intent on destroying Christianity when in fact Christ is a major part of that religion? Those who are confident in the strengths of their religious, political, and cultural convictions and traditions are not afraid to let opposing views be expressed. It is up to us, the listener, to conclude what is right and what is wrong.


    Complain about this comment

  • 427. At 7:51pm on 26 Dec 2008, hms_shannon wrote:

    Re..Amadadinijad..

    As allways you can fool some of the poeple all of the time.
    Be very careful with this charming chap,his I.E.Ds have caused devistation to our Boys
    and will continue to do so...

    Complain about this comment

  • 428. At 7:52pm on 26 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    happylaze, we have more crimes than convicted
    felons, so we have to make do. Besides, I'm sure
    he was guilty of something. He probably had
    an overdue library book from high school in a
    closet at his parents' house.

    Complain about this comment

  • 429. At 7:56pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    421 more hypocrisy.
    "while Amadadinijad talked about "the prophets", among whom he included Jesus of Nazareth, the Bible informs readers that he was the Messiah, the son of God, not simply a prophet, but otherwise everything of which Amadadinijad informed viewers. He does his homework while weaving his evil web."

    "Having listened/watched Amadadinijad I marvel that someone, if sincere, who speaks so flattering about the influence of Jesus Christ, "the Merciful one" he said, has not become an convert to Christianity."

    Why should he have to convert hell your desire to see him convert is transparent.

    Jesus was his prophet, in his religion.

    I am surprised that you do not think that if Christians believe in God then they should all become Jews.


    unlike you he can think.OK good.
    Now we have a president that can think maybe there is a chance.

    OH but you things wouldn't let that happen .

    He is no worse than what we put forward up til now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 430. At 7:57pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    Oh and how sensitive was it Of GW to pardon someone who sold weapons of mass destruction to Israel.
    Bombers were a big one .
    (see Justin brought up pardons ,a link to the post)

    Just the fact that this whole thread has been HIJACKED yet again by references to something totally irrelevant to the US and this Blog , is worse than what Channel 4 have done.


    Go to the Brit site or the mideast site where ever, this is meant to be a blog related to events in the "America's"

    But NO we have to discuss Israel through the back door approach.

    Complain about this comment

  • 431. At 7:57pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:



    If you want to discuss the fact that an AMERICAN president (and the others were pardoned by other past presidents) pardoned a guy that sold planes to a terrorist state.
    (As it was considered at the time.lol)


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7799170.stm

    causing this

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7390166.stm


    just to show other side to the story.

    Complain about this comment

  • 432. At 7:58pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    Iran is not the Enemy of Israel. It is all those that would defend it even when it was not in the conversation.Those that promote hate that people are going to react against.You all have created in me more anti Jewish reactions than anyone else in the world, including ahmadinnasbad.

    Again I accuse you of using this forum to promote that hatred of Israel, that you wish to instil in me.

    It doesn't work because I think you are all fakes , race baiting fakes.


    Complain about this comment

  • 433. At 8:00pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    428 Maybe he burned it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 434. At 8:02pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    427
    certainly that is true.

    But did we not provide that opportunity?

    And could this be because we further trashed the neighbouring country while screaming "your next".



    Complain about this comment

  • 435. At 8:06pm on 26 Dec 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    Seasons greetings to all and best wishes for our common future. Nice to see David maintaining his roots and promoting a "Boxing day" comment.

    In Robloops piece # 421 he notes -" I once again conclude that this man is a very intelligent and skillful deceiver and propagandist, who either knows or researches his audience, and then seduces it on a subject it knows at least a little about with soothing talk of "peace and goodwill" - while himself having little intention of pursuing it".
    Aimed at Amadadinijad , but substituting the " very intelligent and skilful deceiver" to be Bush [and/ or Blair] from the side of the west, then we fell for similar remarks like a sack of potatoes too.
    Would agree with his and Davids' assessment about the disrespect shown by Channel 4 at airing it when they did. Perhaps trying to push the independence Channel 4 enjoys, opposing the hands-tied image that many feel the BBC often reflects. Regarding the content of "A"s' message I had hoped that Ms Marbles, as the only blogger with an understanding of "farsi" would have given her thoughts as to the translation, seeing as the last translation of a speech coming out of Iran had a misunderstanding that fanned many unnecessary fires.
    East or West:- Everybody gets screwed by all leaders around the world. They just have different ways of killing us softly, using their own plausible wording that fits the moment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 436. At 8:08pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    425 DC you know why I called it a slum.

    Sorry I know your heart is in the right place, but there are bigger fish to fry here than what channel 4 get up to.

    On the Iranian leader I would rather have a smart man to deal with than the likes we have put forward.
    Yes he is playing the decent guy,more than his actions show sometimes, but Christmas is a time to promote peace and this diplomatic gesture to Iran showing a more charitable nature in channel 4 than most here have could have done some good.
    Instead all scream bloody murder and the chance will be lost.

    Again.

    As for being opposite the queens speech. Great less people would have heard it.

    If that's what you want.





    Complain about this comment

  • 437. At 8:45pm on 26 Dec 2008, happylaze wrote:

    435 so well said.

    Complain about this comment

  • 438. At 8:46pm on 26 Dec 2008, hms_shannon wrote:

    #434

    Right on both points,but at least we are
    consistant with our hypocrisy...

    Complain about this comment

  • 439. At 9:21pm on 26 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #436. happylaze: "425 DC you know why I called it a slum."

    No, I haven't a clue - perhaps you'd care to explain?

    Complain about this comment

  • 440. At 9:23pm on 26 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    429 more predictable stupidity
    Unhappyglaze, if you have a brain to engage, why not try it once in a while? You might just possibly become coherent. Just read the utter trash you've written in 429! You rant on with absurd comments and ridiculous insults that don't make an ounce of sense.
    Your 422 to David Cunard was another real 'gem'. Anyone whose views conflict with your own, incurs your wrath and your insults flow. "Hypocrites","racists", "bigots'. Your own bigotry and intolerance is a wonder to behold.



    Complain about this comment

  • 441. At 10:01pm on 26 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    Ref 382

    "Mature democracies must, indeed, allow everyone to voice their opinion. Your channel 4 executives should be commended for their decision. It is up to the citizenry to reach a conclusion, preferably without coersion or distortions of reality from special interest groups.

    Countries that limit the right to free speech to expressions of support for their interests should not be considered democratic nations. Denying the citizenry the opportunity of listening to opposing views is one of the most important characteristics of a dictatorship."
    ---------------------------------

    Dominic Villa has said it all.

    Is one here dealing with sincine individual opinion or with an organized special interest group?

    {If in doubt, consult the wording of the BBC report concerning the talk]

    Complain about this comment

  • 442. At 11:41pm on 26 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    New York is pretty het up about the pressure Mayor Bloomberg and the Kennedy mob are putting on Governor Paterson to appoint Caroline Kennedy to Clinton's seat. And Paterson is not exactly happy either. He is probably feeling like everyone's dogsbody.

    Huffington came up with the perfect solution. Appoint her ambassadress to the Court of St. James. This post is usually held by a wealthy American who can afford to pay for gala entertaining. She would be right in her element (and off our backs).

    Complain about this comment

  • 443. At 11:53pm on 26 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    I thought Ahmadinejad acquitted himself rather well.

    peace is with enemies
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 444. At 00:03am on 27 Dec 2008, U13760202 wrote:

    # 443

    The number of people who are too biased

    to heed the obvious invitation to dialog is

    rather discouraging.

    Complain about this comment

  • 445. At 00:08am on 27 Dec 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Guns,

    "There is a difference between providing access
    to different points of view and providing an
    endorsement by a state-supported media."
    The BBC is NOT state-supported. It is Publicly supported, though that support is virtually compulsory, and,
    "
    presenting a foreign leader's Christmas
    greeting as an "alternative" to the Queen's
    address is akin to our letting an agent of
    a foreign power spray graffiti on the Constitution
    and the Declaration of Independence."
    Rubbish! And have you watched Ahmadinejad's cordial and at worst, harmless greeting? What a fuss of the ill-informed and prejudiced!

    I'm with Dominick on this, 100%

    Peace and open minds
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 446. At 00:40am on 27 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 442

    "New York is pretty heat up about the pressure Mayor Bloomberg and the Kennedy mob are putting on Governor Paterson to appoint Caroline Kennedy to Clinton's seat."

    I find the examples of nepotism that dominate our political climate very disturbing. It doesn't matter if it is Caroline Kennedy, Biden Jr, Cuomo Jr, or Jeb Bush; the question is why do members of a few families feel entitled to the highest offices in our country and why do we tolerate this?

    I rather put up with an occasional Cunnigham, Stevens or Blago than letting individuals whose main attributes are name recognition and wealth govern our country.

    In the interest of fairness, Jeb Bush is not asking for an appointment, he plans to run for Mel Martinez' senatorial seat two years from now and he is a very popular former Governor of Florida. Caroline's qualifications include her surname, the fact that she is a lawyer, an author, and a Mom. The latter is probably the only real asset for the position she is seeking.

    Complain about this comment

  • 447. At 01:10am on 27 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #445. Ed Iglehart: "The BBC is NOT state-supported. It is Publicly supported, though that support is virtually compulsory."

    Not funded directly by the government of the day (the State) but the licence fee is compulsory for anyone who wishes to receive television and radio signals, a licence fee mandated by law - the State. The BBC operates under a "Royal Charter" which is drawn up by the government - the State - and in essence controls what the BBC may or may not do. In any case, I don't think that G+R meant 'supported' in the financial sense but supported meaning 'encouraged and approving.' Ed, you're becoming too Scottish for your own good - you know what is said about Scottish parsimony; not everything revolves around money!

    "And have you watched Ahmadinejad's cordial and at worst, harmless greeting? What a fuss of the ill-informed and prejudiced!"

    To misquote Mandy Rice-Davies' famous quip - "Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?"

    Complain about this comment

  • 448. At 02:07am on 27 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    417. David_Cunard,

    Ain't much point in trying to engage with the robotic Xie_Ming/LesMajestey/Ganz_Anders/ U13752295/AlSearcher or get him to answer a straight question. Just as he never refers to anyone here by name, or pseudonym, he never responds to direct communication. I think it is reprehensible of Channel 4 to give Ahmedinejad a platform as an alternative to the Queen's message. If people really want to hear him, there are countless sources on the Internet they can access. To legitimise him is irresponsible and repugnant.

    And jacksforge/happylaze, your 412 post is hilarious. You complain about banning and in the same breath invite people to shut up. And you are wrong about Ahmedinejad. Of course he called for the destruction of Israel.

    And you refer to, majickirin, true too rwbennet,robloop,

    Who could all be the same person.


    If you make an effort to emerge from your self-induced fog you'll notice that we all have very different styles and approaches to the debate here.

    Though of course they are careful to be as cowardly as they can about their racism.

    You need to take a serious look at yourself. You are one of the most prejudiced people I have ever debated on the Internet.

    430. happylaze wrote:

    Oh and how sensitive was it Of GW to pardon someone who sold weapons of mass destruction to Israel.

    Nonsense. He didn't sell them and they were not weapons of mass destruction. He flew one of those aircraft over himself at great risk to help the fledgling state of Israel ward off the genocidal attacks from the invading Arab armies in 1948. Try to at least retain a grip on reality.

    And you are the last person to talk about highjacking threads. You comment far more than anyone else here and on any off-topic subject you like.

    Yep, Ed Ingehart would think of Ahmedinejad as giving a cordial and harmless greeting. Any enemy of Israel is a friend of Ed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 449. At 02:14am on 27 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    Not sure why my no. was "referred" so I’m trying again, removing the bit about the ship - that the BBC doesn't seem to like.

    395. DominickVila,

    I take your point about Saudi Arabia. They are as committed to spreading terror as Iran, but do so via cash and propaganda - e.g. Saudi-funded schools in the west teaching children that Jews and Christians are the sons of monkeys and pigs and wagon loads of Saudi cash delivered to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

    It's an oily business that makes the Saudis and the Americans friends.

    No doubt the Iranians would be happier if Hamas were fellow Shias, but they still assist Hamas in whatever way possible. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad is also Sunni, but is more closely connected, through its establishment and history, to Iran.

    No doubt the Iranians would be happier if Hamas and Islamic Jihad were fellow Shias, but they will assist these groups in whatever way possible. As long as Gaza is a fertile breeding ground for terror against Israelis, Iran will fund, arm and train the terror groups, no matter who they are.

    Complain about this comment

  • 450. At 02:48am on 27 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    Oops, I should say I was wondering why my no. 408 was "referred."

    It seems that sometimes the moderators refer comments and sometimes its trigger-happy people on the site who simply don't like another person's comment. Would be good if these blogs could have system whereby people can complain about a comment but it only gets "referred," i.e. hidden, if the moderators agree that it should be hidden. People here shouldn't have the power to censor one another's comments, albeit temporarily. Also, the moderators take a long time to reinstate hidden comments, and by that time the debate has usually moved on and few, if any, people will go back to see the comment.

    Have Your Say has a different system. People can complain about comments, but only the moderators have the power to remove them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 451. At 04:29am on 27 Dec 2008, U13760202 wrote:

    # 407

    Mr. Villa has certainly made some worthwhile and mature contributions to this thread today and we should all be grateful to him.

    Prejudice and intolerance seem very common among tribal peoples.

    Educational level would probably be in inverse degree to intolerance, but perhaps not.

    Perhaps someone may find some studies on the prevalence of intolerance in different societies? Would the World Values Survey have anything on this?

    Complain about this comment

  • 452. At 04:34am on 27 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    426, Dominick.
    "Why are you surprised by Ahmadinejad's reverence of Jesus Christ? He is a Muslim and, consequently, he reveres the five most important prophets in that religion including Mohammad, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ."

    Thank you for saving me the trouble of explaining that, Dominick. The Moslems hold as sacred the Old Tetament, the New Testament and the Koran. Jesus is revered and this is evidenced by the huge number of Arabs named 'Issa (Jesus).

    Complain about this comment

  • 453. At 05:01am on 27 Dec 2008, Orville Eastland wrote:

    To get off this topic and onto another off-topic, I just read an article on GMAC's financial problems. Apparently, their financial situation isn't that good, since they've had some of the same financial difficulties as other finance companies. They are eligible for the financial bailout, though they have to become a bank holding company, and GM has to sell much of its stock to a trustee. (Oddly enough, cerberus Capital Group, who owns Chrysler, owns much of the rest of GMAC.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081225/fed_gmac.html?.v=5

    Complain about this comment

  • 454. At 05:07am on 27 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Ed, I agree that Ahmadinejad's address was
    cordial, but in no way is a political leader's address
    equivalent to the Queen of England.

    As for his other views, I do not subscribe to them,
    but I trust that the British people can form their
    own opinions without guidance one way or the
    other. So, IMHO, his address to the British
    people should be aired, but not in a way which
    adds or subtracts from his stature.

    Complain about this comment

  • 455. At 05:07am on 27 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    AlSearcher, Ed, Dominick, David Cunard.

    Being slightly groggy (pun intended) from Christmas I only gave a cursury glance at the comments and missed altogether that Ahmadinejad had sent Christmas wishes to us.

    Apparently (I I have this right) the speech has been suppressed by some. I can't understand why. Are people afraid that Iranians speak and act like normal people and not crazed zealots?

    Undoubtedly Ahmadinejad, being a politician, has a political purpose in his message, in addition to the hope of creating good will. We certainly should recognize that. Our politicians do it all the time.

    I am convinced, having nothing to do with the speech, that Iran does not want war with the United States, Israel, or anyone else. Iran has not the strength for such a war and she knows it. Her goal is economic strength. War would mean economic devastation.

    Thank you for the link (400, AlSearcher). By the way, the translation was accurate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 456. At 05:53am on 27 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    The ratings for Christmas Day viewing have just been released and The Queen's message was in the top ten, with a total of 8.2 million viewers. Channel 4 did not make an appearance in the chart.

    Earlier there was a mention of government support for the BBC, which was interpreted as referring to funding; not mentioned was that Channel 4 is in receipt of a direct grant from the government in the amount of fourteen million pounds over 6 years. So in effect, the British taxpayer paid for President Ahmadinejad's appearance. Regardless of the content of the message, I can imagine the outrage if PBS did something like that in America!

    Complain about this comment

  • 457. At 05:54am on 27 Dec 2008, frayedcat wrote:

    I wonder about the focus on Amadinejad's comments about religion, rather than his politics. As though he is being "classified" as an ignorant fanatic zealot and so dismissed. It is not like the US people are generally dismissive of ignorant fanatic zealots anyway - often more like 50% 'in support of.' So are we back in the kindergarten recess, "my religion is better than yours so 'nyaah'?'

    Complain about this comment

  • 458. At 06:28am on 27 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    457, frayedcat.

    I don't entirely understand your comment. Who are the "ignorant fanatic zealots"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 459. At 06:34am on 27 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    456, David.

    Isn't the BBC funded to provide news? Ahmadinejad is news. How can people know what is going on in the world if the only news that is presented is what you personally approve of? Basically you are saying that you approve of censorship (with you as the censor).

    Complain about this comment

  • 460. At 07:13am on 27 Dec 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Ms. Marbles, here is a synopsis of what caused
    the uproar. I believe that originally Ahmadinejad's
    address was to be aired at the same time as the
    Queen's.

    Complain about this comment

  • 461. At 07:56am on 27 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #458. allmymarbles: "Who are the "ignorant fanatic zealots"?

    By my reading, he refers initially to just one, President Ahmadinejad and secondly to those who would impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us - think evangelicals, Sarah Palin et al.

    #459. "Isn't the BBC funded to provide news?"

    Not directly by the government but by a compulsory licence fee. If you are sufficiently curious, you can read the Royal Charter under which the BBC operates by going to this link and downloading a PDF version of it.

    In any case, the broadcast in question was not transmitted by the BBC, but by Channel 4, which, because of financial problems, has been bailed out by the government to the tune of twenty-one million dollars. The message was not presented as "news" but as an alternative to the British head-of-state who, since 1932, has traditionally addressed the people of the Britain and the Commonwealth (before 1947, the British Empire). It's not a question of censorship, although censorship certainly does exist in all countries (and on this blog) but rather a question of what is appropriate.

    It's not as if the BBC is the sole source of news in the UK, there are other TV channels, plenty of radio and national newspapers, so "censoring" isn't a consideration. I refer you to the questions posed to AlSearcher at #417 - perhaps you'd care to answer them, considering that AlSearcher appears not have the cojones to do so.

    Complain about this comment

  • 462. At 10:38am on 27 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 463. At 11:31am on 27 Dec 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    Justin,
    No news is at times good news, but we are all struggling here, going off tangent on your December 18th thread awaiting your next input.
    Missing you?
    Your present piece concerning Obamas' republican fans could appear to suggest the same attention could never be reciprocated by the other side, but you are wrong.
    If future planning for the Middle East is correct, then ex-Republican nominee Bob Dole will shortly be honoured as pathfinder in bringing the extra force necessary for the next big push required to make progress on the Afghan front.
    Red white and BLUE
    According to David, whether you are a warlord or blogger it is all about the cojones!

    Complain about this comment

  • 464. At 11:50am on 27 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #461

    First as someone who can do without evangelicals, I think it is unfair to equate to them with intolerant mullahs. I've never seen any attempt by Billy Graham or Rich Warren to physically force their beliefs on jews, moslems or athiests.

    I agree with your comment on censorship espicially on this blog. I have several posts removed by PC modeators for no justification.

    But it goes back to this point should a publicly funded source give air time to a terrorist and an enemy of both our nations?

    Complain about this comment

  • 465. At 12:48pm on 27 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 455

    "I am convinced, having nothing to do with the speech, that Iran does not want war with the United States, Israel, or anyone else. Iran has not the strength for such a war and she knows it. Her goal is economic strength. War would mean economic devastation."

    Marbles, you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the people that were convinced of the enormous threat posed by Nicaragua, El Salvador, and the miniscule island of Grenada don't see it that way.

    The climate of fear that currently exists in our countries is not only caused by misleading claims advanced by national leaders - often with the complicity of the media and business moguls - to give the illusion of imminent threats to our security and our culture, but are the result of extreme ignorance of world geography, history, and the current capabilities of the developing nations or Third World countries we single out for attack.

    The level of misinformation and ignorance is apparent everywhere and covers a broad spectrum. Coverage of the Olympic games is an example, I cringe when I hear announcers portray our athletes as underdogs competing against foreign giants; but somehow, the absurdity of seeing a basketball team composed of multi-millionaire players famous worldwide play a team of amateurs from a developing country bothers noone. The same is true when our fleet surrounded and bombed Grenada to prevent an imminent invasion of the USA led the PM Bishop and the 700 Cuban construction workers building a civilian airport in that island.

    Under these circumstances it is not difficult to discern why Palestinians living in what is nothing less than a barren concentration camp are perceived as the aggressors because they launch home-made missiles that can not strike an African elephant 100 feet away with any degree of accuracy, and the Israelis are regarded as besieged innocent underdogs fighting for their survival.

    The most effective tool to fight the so-called War on Terror is education, and it must start at home.

    Complain about this comment

  • 466. At 12:55pm on 27 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 464

    "First as someone who can do without evangelicals, I think it is unfair to equate to them with intolerant mullahs. I've never seen any attempt by Billy Graham or Rich Warren to physically force their beliefs on jews, moslems or athiests."

    Magic, have you forgotten that some of our religious leaders have called for the assassination of foreign leaders who do not support our interests or dared criticize our foreign policy (e.g. Hugo Chavez)?

    Is there a way to keep evangelicals away? I am sick and tired of people knocking on my door, Bible in hand, who no matter how clearly I let them know that I am not a religious person and I am not interested in their evangelism they keep coming and, if anything, seem more determined and energized in their resolve. Perhaps a trained pit bull is the answer...

    Complain about this comment

  • 467. At 1:06pm on 27 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 468. At 1:43pm on 27 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    455. allmymarbles wrote:

    Are people afraid that Iranians speak
    and act like normal people and not crazed zealots?


    No, people are concerned that the Iranians' actions (e.g. sponsoring of terror worldwide) will continue to match their speeches, proving that they are indeed crazed zealots.

    Whether Ahmadinejad said:

    the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time

    or Israel must be wiped off the map

    is immaterial and is an exercise in semantics.

    Judging by the incessant stream of hatred he spews against Israel, it is obvious what he meant. He also said,

    I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world

    and

    Israel is a germ that must be wiped off.

    And your "moderate" Khamenei wants the destruction of Israel in a more phased manner, i.e. by flooding the country with Palestinian "refugees."

    But you and others obfuscate and propagandise and try to hide the unpleasant facts. Unluckily for you, there is the Internet:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Reaction_to_Israeli_Prime_Minister_Ariel_Sharon.27s_stroke






    Complain about this comment

  • 469. At 2:04pm on 27 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 468

    TrueToo,

    Unfortunately for us, some of the conclusions expressed by Ahmadinejad regarding the State of Israel are shared by many people worldwide who question the right to establish a sovereign nation based on divinity rights, the right to displace tens of thousands of Muslims who shared that land with their fellow Middle Eastern Jews for millennia, and who object to the expansionist and intolerant goals expressed by the Zionists since before the creation of Israel.

    Although both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict share responsibility for the current impasse, it is not too difficult to understand why people who have been eradicated from their homes and who live in deplorable conditions in what can only be described as a giant concentration camp, resort to violence to attract international attention to their cause. Sadly, a very biased and powerful propaganda machine and a complicit media easily distorts what should be considered a legitimate claim to exist and transforms their grievances into acts of unmitigated aggression against a tiny indefensible nation that happens to have the most powerful and lethal military apparatus in the region...and much of the world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 470. At 2:13pm on 27 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    426. Dominickvila/452. allmymarbles wrote:

    Why are you surprised by Ahmadinejad's reverence of Jesus Christ? He is a Muslim and, consequently, he reveres the five most important prophets in that religion including Mohammad, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ.

    Omitting, of course, the fact that Muslims regard Islam as having superseded both Judaism and Christianity as the final word of God.

    And also omitting the uncomfortable fact that apostasy is a crime in Islam, punishable by death.

    Small comfort, then, that Islam regards Moses and Jesus as prophets. Tell that to the Jews who have suffered pogroms and been driven out of Muslim countries by the hundreds of thousands and tell that to Christians who have to be extremely cagey about their identity in Muslim countries lest they be attacked and killed and their churches destroyed.

    Tell that to the dwindling Christian populations of Gaza and Bethlehem, coming under increasing persecution from their Muslim brothers.

    DominickVila 455. wrote:

    Under these circumstances it is not difficult to discern why Palestinians living in what is nothing less than a barren concentration camp are perceived as the aggressors because they launch home-made missiles that can not strike an African elephant 100 feet away with any degree of accuracy, and the Israelis are regarded as besieged innocent underdogs fighting for their survival.

    Tell that to the families of the Israelis, including children, killed and maimed by the rockets. Tell that to the people of Sderot, who have not had a normal days' existence for seven years of rocket fire. Whether or not there are more Palestinian terrorists killed by Israelis than Israeli civilians killed by Palestinian terrorists is immaterial. The Israeli intent is toavoid civilian casualties while the Palestinian intent is to inflict them. Those who cannot see this glaring discrepancy have no moral compass.

    The most effective tool to fight the so-called War on Terror is education, and it must start at home.

    Well, quite. You might make a start by easing up on your exposure to left wing media. The home-made rockets excuse was incessantly pushed for years by the BBC and others. Even they can no longer do that, of course, now that Hamas has successfully smuggled in sophisticated rockets by the thousands, through Egypt.

    And there is nothing "so-called" about the War on Terror, no matter how strenuously the left wing media spins it to the contrary.

    Complain about this comment

  • 471. At 2:27pm on 27 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    426 DominickVila, 452 allmymarbles
    Over the last few years I've met and spoken with numbers of Muslims. Two I know well, the one from Lebanon, the other a Persian from Iran. From them I long ago learned that Muslims regard Jesus Christ as a prophet. However, there is a substantial difference between 'regarding' or 'believing' that Jesus was a prophet and 'revering' him.
    As to the "crazed zealots" of which Marbles spoke, on t.v. I watched the wild scenes after the death of Ayatollah Komeini, his body on a stretcher of sorts being tossed about, eventually falling off and having to be pushed back as people tried to touch or grab it. "Crazed Zealots" was a thought that came to mind.
    Iran might not want war with the U.S., about Israel I'm not so sure, but by stealth it is doing things that contribute to war, not least funding and supplying with weapons violent groups directly involved in confrontation with the U.S. and Israel.

    461 David Cunard.
    I'd like to point out that by talking about their religious beliefs Sarah Palin and other evangelicals have not 'imposed' them
    "on the rest of us".
    Muslim extremists do impose their beliefs on others, not least non-Muslims. The more extreme impose their beliefs on the less extreme and those who in their view are not sufficiently religious.

    Regarding what you said about Channel 4 televising Ahmedinijad's speech at the same time as the Queen's, I believe you are correct. This had nothing to do with censorship, a lot to do with a traditional Christmas address by the British monarch and Channel 4 disrespecting the occasion for its perverse reasons.
    To fashion Ahmedinijad's speech as
    "news", as some have done, is just argumentative nonsense. The real issue there was the timing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 472. At 2:53pm on 27 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    466 DominickVila
    Tell the truth, it was not "some of our religious leaders" who called "for the assassination of foreign leaders," it was Pat Robertson who on t.v. stated that he wondered why (not "called for" - he isn't in a position) the U.S. did not use special forces to bump off Hugo chavez. Robertson, after being heavily criticized - by Christians - then wrote an apology to Hugo Chavez.
    Re your 465, I don't believe Marbles is entirely "right" regarding Iran. I doubt it wants a war that would devastate it, but by supplying terrorist and other violent groups at war with the U.S. and Israel with funds and weapons, it places itself in a position where it could bring war on itself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 473. At 2:59pm on 27 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 470

    TrueToo,

    Are you insinuating that we should forget the slaughter of innocent civilians in Sabra and Shatila but should condemn desperate Palestinians for launching rockets and killing some Israelis living in occupied territories?

    Both sides have carried out unspeakable atrocities, it is time to find a solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, rather than promote the perpetuation of violence that characterizes life in that part of the world to use it as justification to achieve geo-political goals and control of valuable resources.

    Complain about this comment

  • 474. At 3:19pm on 27 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 472

    Pat Robertson made public the sentiment shared by most "Christian" leaders in the US. "Bump off", a euphemism for assasination, should not be part of the vocabulary of a man who purports to be a champion of the teaching of a man whose life was devoted to helping others and having compassion for our fellow man, no matter how many apologies he utters for his despicable remark.

    The last thing Iran wants is a war against the USA, or even Israel. They understand very well that their arsenal and military skills are no match for either adversary. I don't doubt that they have helped groups who embraces causes that include, among other things, the expulsion of foreign invaders from their land, pretty much the same we would under similar circumstances. Let's not forget that Iranians have not invaded and are not operating in Western lands, it is us who have occupied their homelands, interferre in their internal affairs, and exploit their resources.

    To remain a superpower we must keep and expand our interests abroad, but shouldn't we try to accomplish that without infringing on the values and traditions of other nations and in a way that benefits both sides?

    Will be back later, my boss wants to go shopping.

    Complain about this comment

  • 475. At 3:20pm on 27 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    DominickVila,

    I see that our comments crossed. Your 469 has all the standard left wing, pro-Palestinian sound bites and reduces this complex conflict to a simplistic and incorrect assessment, comforting to the aforementioned but not based on reality.

    Israel was not established on "divinity rights." Britain was mandated to facilitate the country's establishment by the then League of Nations. Israel is a legally-constituted state under the United Nations, immediately recognised by the major powers of the time, namely Russia (that should throw Israel's left wing critics) and the US.

    To regard Muslims as "eradicated" and "displaced" is also simplistic since it ignores the tens of thousands who left willingly, under the impression that they would be able to return once their Arab brothers had "driven the Jews into the sea." It also ignores the fact that the early settlers bought much of the land and also developed vacant land that nobody wanted.

    But I note that you don't mention Palestinian Christians. Did you think they were all Muslims?

    Yes, there were Palestinian Arabs who were displaced. But how do we now disentangle those from the ones who left of their own accord? Israel-haters talk about millions of Palestinians having an alleged right of return. Where do they get these figures? And do Jews have the right of return to the Arab countries whence they were expelled - or does this "morality" only apply to Palestinians?

    If you think that the media is against the Palestinians you have somehow missed decades of one of the most powerful and relentless propaganda machines in history, which is ably assisted by the left wing media and now has otherwise intelligent people believing that the conflict is all Israel's fault and that the Palestinians are the David to Israel's Goliath.

    In fact, Palestine is simply the point of the sword with which the Arab and Muslim world and their allies among the blinkered left wing "intellectuals" of the "enlightened" West threaten Israel.


    Complain about this comment

  • 476. At 3:28pm on 27 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    468 & 470 Truetoo
    Spot on target. Well said. Not least highlighting Ahmadinejad's threats to Israel.

    To describe, as Dominick did and continues to be done by the left wing media, the very real War on Terror as "so called", is beyond the relms of political correctness absurdity and thoroughly irresponsible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 477. At 4:16pm on 27 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    476. robloop,

    Thanks for that. I see you also responded to
    nos. 426 by Dominickvila and 452 by allmymarbles. Good point about Iranian zealots swarming around Khomeini's body.

    Those who maintain that the Iranians are not a threat show a surprising reluctance to bring any concrete facts to the debate to support their argument.

    473. DominickVila wrote:

    Ref 470

    TrueToo,

    Are you insinuating that we should forget the slaughter of innocent civilians in Sabra and Shatila but should condemn desperate Palestinians for launching rockets and killing some Israelis living in occupied territories?


    I try not to insinuate, but rather to state facts. I find it interesting that those who insist on making a case against Israel revert endlessly to Shabra and Shatilla. That atrocity was carried out by Lebanese Phalangists. Yes, they were Israel's allies in the war to stop Palestinian terrorists infiltrating Israel from Lebanon, but Israel did not condone the atrocity and was not aware of the plan to carry it out. Even so, Ariel Sharon paid the price by losing his post as Defence Minister.

    Ariel Sharon brought a case against Time for falsely stating that he had discussed revenge with the Lebanese against the Palestinians for the assassination of a Lebanese leader, Bashir. Time lost the case, the New York court finding its article was defamatory.

    I don't know if you are aware of the strange contradiction in your comment. You say both sides have committed "unspeakable atrocities" but you regard the Palestinians sympathetically as "desperate."

    The Israelis attacked from Gaza are not living in the "occupied territories" but in Israel proper. You should study up a bit more about this conflict.

    Complain about this comment

  • 478. At 4:19pm on 27 Dec 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    ref #473

    There is no moral equivilency between the Israelis and the Palestinian who choose to be ruled by Hams.

    You live in FL what would be the response if Cuba fired missles daily into Miami?
    What would be UK if France did?
    What would be the UAE if Kuwait did.

    The blatant double standard is shown in news reports. A Hamas member is called a millitant instead of a terrorist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 479. At 4:21pm on 27 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    474 DominickVila
    You have absolutely no idea that Pat Robertson "expressed the sentiments shared by most "Christian" leaders in the U.S.", so please don't cook up things to re-inforce your fabricated point of view. That it was wrong for someone in Robertson's position to say what he said is almost needless to say.
    Pray tell me, which Iranian "homelands" has the U.S. occupied, or did you simply mis-express that? As to exploiting Iran's resources, nowadays how?
    As I stated previously, no doubt Iran does not want war on its territory, but it has made significant efforts to antagonize the U.S., not least by assisting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, various terrorist and insurgency groups in Iraq, Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and Palestinian territories.
    I marvel at the way some American liberals are more quick to find fault with their own country than with their country's enemies.
    Shades of the atmosphere that existed during the Vietnam War. To me that is troubling.

    Complain about this comment

  • 480. At 4:32pm on 27 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    Reviewing the points:

    More than 70 years ago, there were people who were serious Communists and sympathisers. They sought to undermine the policies of Britain and the USA in favor of the interests of the Soviet Union.

    Today, there is another such "international",
    and we see the postings of such here and have observed their effects in generating the invasion of Iraq and in doing everything possible to foster hatred toward Iran and the Palestinians.

    Reviewing this thread, the same individuals have changed from vitriolic abuse of the President of Iran to pretexts involving Throne Speech tradition. Their purpose remains the same and honest folk are not likely to be deceived.

    Iran has been offering an olive branch to the USA and Britain for several years. Bush/Blair/Milliband have rebuffed these overtures. Let us hope that the new administration in Washington will have the political strength to overcome the domestic subversion of which Ariel Sharon boasted.

    The evangelicals in the United States are as intolerant as are the fundamentalists of Israel and Islam. In addition, they have been convinced that their Salvation is dependent upon the well-being of Israel. (Israel gave the evangelical leader Jerry Falwell a Learjet).

    The people of Iran are favorably disposed toward the United States (see reports from Tehran in the Christian Science Monitor), and have Mullah fatigue. Iran has oil, a perfect strategic location, and has been an ally of both Israel and the USA in the past.
    With intelligent handling, Iran could make a
    an excellent strategic ally.

    The present policy of threatening, boycotting and surrounding Iran, making special forces incursions and urging air strikes forces Iran to take defensive measures and is totally counter-productive.

    Dialog, trade and interchange are the way forward. Israel is convinced that Iran represents an existential threat. Thus it and its helpers here do everything possible to create hatred toward Iran and frustrate any peaceful interchange- such as the overture from Ahmadadinijad.

    Complain about this comment

  • 481. At 5:37pm on 27 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #480. AlSearcher: "Reviewing this thread, the same individuals have changed from vitriolic abuse of the President of Iran to pretexts involving Throne Speech tradition."

    When you have answered the two questions asked of you at #417, then perhaps we shall take note of your views - but not until then.

    Incidentally, since by your spelling you appear to be an American, Tony Blair has not been involved in British politics for over two years. Apparently that news hasn't filtered down to your part of the world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 482. At 5:38pm on 27 Dec 2008, hms_shannon wrote:

    ~480

    If it is as you say ,WHY the I.E.Ds...

    Complain about this comment

  • 483. At 6:00pm on 27 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    480, AlSearcher.

    Apparently those who objected to the speech by Ahmadinejad have succeeded in having it removed from Channel 4. I wanted my husband to hear it, and lo and behold, it was no longer there. Viva censorship!

    I thought it was those mad Middle Eastern zealots who suppressed free speech. Could I have gotten it wrong?

    Complain about this comment

  • 484. At 6:13pm on 27 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    480 Alsearcher
    Like most here, I suspect, I don't have a jaundiced view of the Iranian people generally, just their radical leadership, and therein lies the problem. However, having watched those demented scenes after Ayatollah Komeini's death I seriously wonder how much we would have in common with those particular individuals.
    Apart from other thoroughly questionable assertions you've made here, to say that "evangelicals in the United States are as intolerant as are the fundamentalist of Israel and Iran" is patently absurd. Even fundamentists in Israel are not generally as extreme as those of Iran who, other unjust actions, execute women, even teenage girls in public - using a mobile crane, for having what the fundamentalists regard as illicit sex. I can think of women in other Muslim societies who were executed for
    'adultery' AFTER being raped. Sick minds conspire such sickly actions!
    You display some peculiarly lop-sided thinking, Iran involved itself in the Iraq war and has reaped some consequences. Iran has been threatening Israel, not vice-versa, so if some people in the U.S. utter some hostile things toward Iran why should anyone be surprised?
    Further, evangelicals have not "been convinced that their Salvation is dependent upon the well-being of Israel." They regard the Jews of Israel as God's chosen people and recognize that ultimately it was the Jews who gave Christians their religion. Just because you 'think' the things you do doesn't make them fact, but you seem to think it does. Behind that is your own deep-seated bias. Possibly you are what is regarded as a 'secular fundamentalist'.
    And by the way, Al - on a lighter note - you can give up that version of spelling Ahmadinejad, I too got sucked into using it!

    Complain about this comment

  • 485. At 6:22pm on 27 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    483 allmymarbles
    May I suggest that rather than censorship Channel 4 got cold feet over it grossly stupid conduct. Anyway, if you want your husband to hear Ahmadinejad's speech you can always return to the blog containing it. I tried it a moment ago and it's still there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 486. At 6:22pm on 27 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    471, robloop.
    "... on t.v. I watched the wild scenes after the death of Ayatollah Komeini, his body on a stretcher of sorts being tossed about, eventually falling off and having to be pushed back as people tried to touch or grab it. "Crazed Zealots" was a thought that came to mind."

    All people share the emotions of grief, joy, passion and misfortune, but different cultures express them differently. In parts of North Africa it is a sign of weakness to cry or express your grief openly. In the Middle East to control such emotions is a sign of stone-heartedness.

    In my early days in Iran I was taken to a religious meeting of women who were giving thanks for good fortune. I knew many of the people there and as they listened to the religious improvisation of the leader they wept and cried out and generally made a lot of noise. The ceremony went on and on, and at nine-months pregnant I was getting very tired. When I asked the friend next to me when it would end, she stopped her wailing, and said to me dry eyed, " This woman really likes to hear herself talk. I wish she would shut up." She turned around and continued her wailing.

    My point is that we are talking about customs. These can easily be misinterpreted if you don't understand the culture.

    Complain about this comment

  • 487. At 6:44pm on 27 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    486 allmymarbles
    Thanks for your comments. Not always easy to understand when you've been brought up in a stocial tradition. Your account of that woman's comment before she began wailing once more gave me quite a smile.

    Complain about this comment

  • 488. At 6:46pm on 27 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #483. allmymarbles: "Apparently those who objected to the speech by Ahmadinejad have succeeded in having it removed from Channel 4. I wanted my husband to hear it, and lo and behold, it was no longer there. Viva censorship!"

    Rubbish! Perhaps you didn't follow the links at Channel4.com but both the message (video plus transcript) and background information are still there. Check this link and both you and your husband can see President Ahmadinejad. It's also on YouTube.

    So much for censorship!

    Complain about this comment

  • 489. At 6:54pm on 27 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    Was the interview removed from Channel 4?

    If so, let us ask them to explain why.

    If the interview is still available, what is the URL?

    Those who have seen the seven minute Christmas message will know that that it was utterly reasonable.

    If Channel 4 has been intimidated, then we should identify the exact contacts that caused the intimidation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 490. At 6:56pm on 27 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    480. Xie_Ming/Al Searcher,

    Nobody here is doing everything possible to foster hatred toward Iran and the Palestinians just stating facts - something with which you have considerable difficulty. Your attempt to turn reality on its head and paint Iran as the wide-eyed innocent is transparent and fools nobody here, except the ones who are keen to be fooled.

    Still, I'm impressed by your comment. Seems that a mother-tongue English speaker has been coaching you to express yourself a bit more fluently.

    By the way, what happened to your Watson_Sherlock, who commented at 451 and earlier? Can't you get access anymore to the other computer?

    This is your fifth identity change in a month, that I know of. At this rate, you are going to forget who you are.

    482. ukwales,

    Xie_Ming/Al Searcher doesn't enter into dialogue, but simply pumps out propaganda. My questions to him/them are therefore rhetorical.

    483. allmymarbles,

    As you well know, those mad Middle Eastern zealots in Iran suppress a helluvah lot more than just free speech.

    Complain about this comment

  • 491. At 7:05pm on 27 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    Those who want to go more deeply into US fundamentalism can pose questions, rather than make assertions. Do you suppose that Israel gave Falwell a Learject because they have converted to Christianity?

    It is the USA and the UK who have invanded Muslim lands.

    It is the USA and Israel who are threatening Iran.

    Iran's leaders have a DUTY to do everything possible to offfoot the aggressors.

    The rejection of Iran's efforts at dialog and accomodation tend to confirm the aggresive intentions of the USA and the UK.

    The objections orchestrated against Amadajiidad's Christmas Message give evidence of the subversion of the interests of the UK by the Embassy and local friends of Israel.

    Complain about this comment

  • 492. At 7:20pm on 27 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    489. Xie_Ming/AlSearcher wrote:

    If Channel 4 has been intimidated, then we should identify the exact contacts that caused the intimidation.

    You mean so that you can intimidate them?

    Anyway, as David_Cunard just pointed out, allmymarbles is mistaken, as usual. Ahmadinejad is free to spread propaganda on a TV station in the West. The reverse, of course, is not the case.

    Complain about this comment

  • 493. At 7:34pm on 27 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #489. AlSearcher: "Was the interview removed from Channel 4?"

    No, and the Channel 4 URL is shown at #488. You could also go directly to Channel4.com and follow the links there. It's so easy for you to make implications of wrong-doing, a technique honed by the late Senator Joseph McCarthy.

    By the way, as you should know, having supposedly already seen the broadcast, it was not an "interview" but rather a message or address, presented as alternative to that given by The Queen - and which is not a "Throne Speech" as you erroneously called it at #480.

    And I'm still waiting for your response to the questions at #417, but you don't have the nerve to reply; in my childhood there was a derisive chant for those like you: "Cowardy, cowardy custard!" Now be a man, step up to the plate and give us those answers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 494. At 7:42pm on 27 Dec 2008, robloop wrote:

    491 AlSearcher
    Please don't make oblique reference to a subject, such as U.S. fundamentalism, then not respond.
    Just in case you hadn't noticed it was a Muslim aggressor, Iraq, that "invanded" Kuwait. That caused the U.S., U.K. and a number of other allies to invade Iraq. And no, in that action they did not threaten Iran.
    For heaven's sake scroll back and read Truetoo's account of Ahmadinejad's threats to Israel. I remember them well and he has given a good account. Or is this a case of:
    'There there are none so blind as those who will not see?'
    Your last paragraph regarding
    "orchestration" and "subversion" involving the U.K. was a real gem! Thanks for giving me a hearty chuckle. Did you get this nonsense from Ahmadinejad?

    Complain about this comment

  • 495. At 7:46pm on 27 Dec 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    488, David.
    The speech went back on Channel 4, and now it is off again. They might be having a technical problem. We picked it up on YouTube. Thanks for that information.

    Complain about this comment

  • 496. At 8:20pm on 27 Dec 2008, U13758298 wrote:

    The tactics of the "friends of Israel" become evident on this blog. When one see the BBC report from the Israeli Embassy, the orchestration and even the wording are obvious.

    The criminal Israeli abuse of the Palestinians (land theft, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, genocide) are the principal fundament of jihadism.

    The manipulated US support for this implicates the USA in these crimes.

    Perhaps a new government in the UK will be willing to explore dialog with Iran and give up the attitude of hate and threat engendered by the "friends of Israel".

    Whether the USA can overcome this influence will be a real test of the intelligent folk in America.

    Complain about this comment

  • 497. At 8:35pm on 27 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    Ref 479

    "Pray tell me, which Iranian "homelands" has the U.S. occupied, or did you simply mis-express that? As to exploiting Iran's resources, nowadays how?"

    I don't recall saying that we invaded the Iranian homeland, but if I did I was mistaken and should have said Muslim lands which, obviously, refer to our presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the provocative military bases in Saudi Arabia, not far from Mecca. The latter infuriates Islamic fundamentalists, who consider it a sacrilege, and it is a major contributor to the violence that exists in that part of the world.

    Concerning the suggestion that it was OK for us to start the first Gulf War because Saddam Hussein invaded neighboring Kuwait, I understand the logic of that argument from an economic (potential disruption of oil supplies to the global market) and geopolitical considerations, but justifying military intervention in a country 7,000 miles from ours because they invaded their neighbor in what was should have been a regional dispute to be addressed at the UN level or with an economic embargo is a bit perplexing. It is particularly interesting that we did not object to Saddam invading the Shatt al Arab region and, in fact, provided him with WMDs and military intelligence when he did, while at the same time negotiating a despicable transaction in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. I reckon the reason for the latter is because in those days foreign policy was planned and implemented by Lt. Colonels...

    Pat Robertson original suggestion was on national TV, as well as his subsequent retraction. I simply think that it is highly inappropriate and hypocritical for a religious leader to call for, or even insinuate, the assassination of anyone when he pretends to be a champion of the causes spoused by one of the most tolerant and compassionate men in the history of mankind. Moreover, I think it is cynical to demonize foreign religious nuts for their speeches and actions, when ours do almost the same.

    Complain about this comment

  • 498. At 8:44pm on 27 Dec 2008, SaintDominick wrote:

    I can not add anything meaningful to the wonderful expose written by Allmymarbles in post 486, other than say that it is, indeed, dangerous to form opinions and draw conclusions of other cultures based on their religious beliefs, customs and traditions.

    As a Westerner, I am appalled by the way women are treated in the Islamic world, but it is not clear to me that they object to their role in their society and, incredibly, they appear to be quite content with their lives. I suspect homosexuals in that part of the world are not as complacent...

    Perhaps we should consider the fact that our way of life is probably as offensive to them as theirs is to us.

    Complain about this comment

  • 499. At 9:10pm on 27 Dec 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #496. AlSearcher: "Perhaps a new government in the UK will be willing to explore dialog with Iran . . ."

    There will be no new government until a General Election is scheduled and which does not have to held until any time before 3 June 2010. If you're going to make comment on anything British, at least go to the trouble of checking your facts first. And who knows, Labour may be returned for a further term, so the present policies may not change - and I very much doubt that a Conservative administration would vary that much from the present occupant of 10 Downing Street.


    Complain about this comment

  • 500. At 9:15pm on 27 Dec 2008, TrueToo wrote:

    493. David_Cunard,

    494. robloop,

    It's pointless to try to enter into dialogue with Xie_Ming/AlSearcher. That's not what he's here for.

    When he claims, The criminal Israeli abuse of the Palestinians ... are [sic] the principal fundament [sic] of jihadism, he's not aiming at a discussion, but would like everyone to simply accept such an ignorant comment.

    As if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has any impact on:

    *Jihadists in Indonesia beheading Christian schoolgirls
    *Jihadists in Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan and other countries too numerous to mention killing Christians and destroying churches.

    You get the drift.

    497. DominickVila wrote:

    Moreover, I think it is cynical to demonize foreign religious nuts for their speeches and actions, when ours do almost the same.

    I like the almost. It's almost a concession to the fact that there is in fact no comparison between the two. I seriously doubt that anyone is in danger of being beheaded by a radical Christian preacher.

    You should pop over to the MEMRI site for translations of Imams spewing their hatred of the infidel at their congregations.

    Moral equivalence is a disease that has struck the "liberal" intellectuals of the left really hard. But all is not lost. It's not incurable.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.