so liberals don't have an understanding of the issues? But you do? That's a bit condescending. I'm not one to make condescending remarks toward others, but if I were, I would ask how I, someone far more educated and schooled in the issues than you, does not have an understanding of the issues? I would also ask you to explain why the more educated in this country are more liberal? I can already guess your answer.
Wow, make many assumptions? Don’t you know what happens when you make assumptions?
You’ve displayed a couple typical liberal behaviors here. You turn to insults when you can’t make a rational argument. You believe everything you read or hear on TV, no matter how ridiculous the claim, if it fits your ideology. I could use Google and find some random article that supported my opinion too. What you have to wonder is why liberals feel the need to defend their intelligence so often?
I never made any assumptions. I was responding to a condescending post that you made with zero evidence to support it
And I'm not sure why posting a poll is "typical liberal behavior." I never made an insult. Don't watch TV. I'm not sure why you talk as your are an authority on the issues when none of us are. Its a discussion. By bringing in absolutes and inferring that the person you are arguing with is an intellectual midget, you are doing everything you just accused me of.
And as i've asked before, if nixon proposed universal health care, a guaranteed living wage, negotiated with his enemies, and doubled down on environmental protections (all of which he did), does that also make him a socialist?
And I’m still waiting to hear why liberals think healthcare is a right when it is clearly not. But to answer your question, a conservative claim to the Constitution is generally more valid because we don’t interpret it. There is no need for interpretation. For example, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It’s written to need no interpretation. Liberals interpret (twist) it to fit their needs. It’s funny you assume conservatives do the same.
You are really one of the funniest people on this board!
Curious to see whether Ed would cheer on that war since the Obama administration is the one pushing it. Would seem rather hypocritical since it's exactly like Iraq, except perhaps worse.
Still waiting for you to explain why a conservative interpretive claim to the Constitution is any more valid or historically accurate than a liberal one.
And I’m still waiting to hear why liberals think healthcare is a right when it is clearly not. But to answer your question, a conservative claim to the Constitution is generally more valid because we don’t interpret it. There is no need for interpretation. For example, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It’s written to need no interpretation. Liberals interpret (twist) it to fit their needs. It’s funny you assume conservatives do the same.
No need for interpretation? Funny...200+ years of SCOTUS case law - with liberal and conservative justices - would disagree with you. Vehemently. Its simply impossible (and quite frankly ridiculous) to argue that the Constitution needs no interpretation. Take the 4th Amendment...in an age of cell phones, GPS, heat sensitive cameras (cops use them), the internet, IP addresses etc, what does the Amendment mean? What's a search? What's a seizure? Is it reasonable to use a GPS device without a warrant to track a suspect? What does "privacy" mean under the Constitution? Oh wait...you say the Constitution needs no interpretation. Those terms of our modern world should be abundantly defined and outlined by our heralded document, right?
Funny how the Supreme Court and your buddy Scalia just took up that very issue and has repeatedly interpreted what the Amendment means today. Funny how even a strict constructionist like Scalia has written reams of opinions giving interpretation to the document you say needs none.
But you sound like an expert; far be it that I should argue with you.
Your problem here is that you can't even begin a debate without attacking, name-calling or misrepresenting someone's claims. I personally have nothing against you, but you make yourself a very hard person to respect (in a debate) when you come across so damn caustically.
Try a more respectful tone; who knows? Maybe you'll find yourself in the middle of a respectful debate.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I wonder which country we will go to war with if a Republican gets into office?
Curious to see whether Ed would cheer on that war since the Obama administration is the one pushing it. Would seem rather hypocritical since it's exactly like Iraq, except perhaps worse.
Without getting into whether I agree with this war or not, I wouldn't say its exactly like Iraq. Iran has had a secret nuclear weapons program up until at least 2002 (they claimed to have stopped it), confirmed by the IAEA. Iraq had none; confirmed by the IAEA. Iran continues to produce enriched uranium toward levels that could be used for nuclear weapons; Iraq did not. Its believed that Iran does not currently possess uranium beyond 20% enrichment (needs to be about 90% for a warhead), but on an almost annual basis, they have increased that percentage amount.
I'm not a supporter of war with Iran, but to be fair, Iran's situation is not exactly like Iraq.
Post edited by vant0037 on
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
That's funny but DD has the WORST coffee....it sucks!
Like most Presidents he could be much better but looking back as to what he stepped into (main reason he got elected) he's cleaned off his well worned shoes pretty good. If there was a viable opponent come this November we may not see him again but that's not the case so be ready for another 4 years.
peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Curious to see whether Ed would cheer on that war since the Obama administration is the one pushing it. Would seem rather hypocritical since it's exactly like Iraq, except perhaps worse.
do you really honestly believe that Ed would entertain the possibility of cheerleading a war just because obama is in office? really????
really, what indication has Ed ever given you that he would support ANY war, let alone a war launched by someone he may or may not have voted for??
the leaps in logic on here are amazing sometimes...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I wonder which country we will go to war with if a Republican gets into office?
Curious to see whether Ed would cheer on that war since the Obama administration is the one pushing it. Would seem rather hypocritical since it's exactly like Iraq, except perhaps worse.
Without getting into whether I agree with this war or not, I wouldn't say its exactly like Iraq. Iran has had a secret nuclear weapons program up until at least 2002 (they claimed to have stopped it), confirmed by the IAEA. Iraq had none; confirmed by the IAEA. Iran continues to produce enriched uranium toward levels that could be used for nuclear weapons; Iraq did not. Its believed that Iran does not currently possess uranium beyond 20% enrichment (needs to be about 90% for a warhead), but on an almost annual basis, they have increased that percentage amount.
I'm not a supporter of war with Iran, but to be fair, Iran's situation is not exactly like Iraq.
Is anything in life ever really exactly alike? One could argue "no". But, are these issues pretty damn similar? Yes. The similarities between Iraq situation and Iran are endless.
Your own post says that it is not known that they have uranium necessary to produce a warhead. In other words, it's an unknown whether they can or they can't. The IAEA says given what they know, they can't. Our Secretary of Defense has admitted they aren't trying to build a bomb this January. But, we're giving them ultimatums? Moreover, the uranium enriched may be used for peaceful purposes and they are permitted to do such according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I ask you to ask yourself this question: If Bush was in office, would you be saying the same thing in this thread? I can't answer that, only you can.
do you really honestly believe that Ed would entertain the possibility of cheerleading a war just because obama is in office? really????.
No, I don't believe Ed would cheerlead a war just because Obama is in office. I think he'd be less critical or perhaps silent on the issue, however.
No offense meant by what follows, but I feel the need to say it:
You, on the other hand, I honestly believe you would try to argue that this war is somehow "just" simply because Obama is in office. I've read many of your posts and I think you pretty much side with what ever Democrats or the current administration say, 99.99% of the time. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I read whenever I read your posts.
really, what indication has Ed ever given you that he would support ANY war, let alone a war launched by someone he may or may not have voted for??
the leaps in logic on here are amazing sometimes...
Ed's been awfully silent since President Obama took over. I recall us bombing Libya and didn't really hear a peep out of Ed.
I'm just saying for a guy who was so outspoken about the folly of war, it's kinda odd he shut up on these issues as soon as the Democrat took the throne.
Will we drop bombs on Iran? What will happen here? And if we do something, will Ed (or people like him) continue to be quiet? Who knows. Only time will tell. My hope is that people, who agree with Obama on other issues, will have the courage to outright vocally disagree with him on this issue, and acknowledge that if we did this Obama would be no different than Bush.
I can't speak for anyone else, including Eddie, and regardless of what Tyler Durden is reporting from Russia , I don't believe the Obama administration is pushing us towards war with Iran. I think there are certainly forces at work that are attempting to push us into an armed conflict with Iran but I have a hard time believing that is on Obama's list of objectives.
I can't speak for anyone else, including Eddie, and regardless of what Tyler Durden is reporting from Russia , I don't believe the Obama administration is pushing us towards war with Iran. I think there are certainly forces at work that are attempting to push us into an armed conflict with Iran but I have a hard time believing that is on Obama's list of objectives.
It's not Tyler Durden (he's a blogger who quoted it), it's a Russian newspaper -
do you really honestly believe that Ed would entertain the possibility of cheerleading a war just because obama is in office? really????.
No, I don't believe Ed would cheerlead a war just because Obama is in office. I think he'd be less critical or perhaps silent on the issue, however.
No offense meant by what follows, but I feel the need to say it:
You, on the other hand, I honestly believe you would try to argue that this war is somehow "just" simply because Obama is in office. I've read many of your posts and I think you pretty much side with what ever Democrats or the current administration say, 99.99% of the time. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I read whenever I read your posts.
really, what indication has Ed ever given you that he would support ANY war, let alone a war launched by someone he may or may not have voted for??
the leaps in logic on here are amazing sometimes...
Ed's been awfully silent since President Obama took over. I recall us bombing Libya and didn't really hear a peep out of Ed.
I'm just saying for a guy who was so outspoken about the folly of war, it's kinda odd he shut up on these issues as soon as the Democrat took the throne.
Will we drop bombs on Iran? What will happen here? And if we do something, will Ed (or people like him) continue to be quiet? Who knows. Only time will tell. My hope is that people, who agree with Obama on other issues, will have the courage to outright vocally disagree with him on this issue, and acknowledge that if we did this Obama would be no different than Bush.
:roll: :roll:
i am opposed to all war, and it does not matter what hawk occupies the white house.
anybody who cheerleads a war needs to have their head examined by a professional...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I can't speak for anyone else, including Eddie, and regardless of what Tyler Durden is reporting from Russia , I don't believe the Obama administration is pushing us towards war with Iran. I think there are certainly forces at work that are attempting to push us into an armed conflict with Iran but I have a hard time believing that is on Obama's list of objectives.
It's not Tyler Durden (he's a blogger who quoted it), it's a Russian newspaper -
I assume you don't believe an ultimatum was given by the US then, and you think this paper is printing lies? Fair enough.
I don't see why a paper in a country fairly unexposed to this issue would feel the need to print this if it's fabricated, but I could be mistaken.
I do not believe that an ultimatum was made. You are correct. But even if I thought it likely that an ultimatum had been made, I would not believe that it carried a deadline of the end of this calendar (and election) year.
Is anything in life ever really exactly alike? One could argue "no". But, are these issues pretty damn similar? Yes. The similarities between Iraq situation and Iran are endless.
Your own post says that it is not known that they have uranium necessary to produce a warhead. In other words, it's an unknown whether they can or they can't. The IAEA says given what they know, they can't. Our Secretary of Defense has admitted they aren't trying to build a bomb this January. But, we're giving them ultimatums? Moreover, the uranium enriched may be used for peaceful purposes and they are permitted to do such according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I ask you to ask yourself this question: If Bush was in office, would you be saying the same thing in this thread? I can't answer that, only you can.
My only point was that saying Iran = Iraq in terms of war, isn't really accurate because the point we were sold on with the Iraq war was that they had weapons of mass destruction. At the time, this was unsupported by any evidence (sans a box of cake mix ) and ran counter to what independent inspections had concluded.
With Iran, there are serious concerns that (1) Iran has enriched uranium, (2) is producing more enriched uranium by the year, (3) is not being completely honest about its nuclear weapons program, and (4) did have a program within the last 10 years.
None of that was present with Iraq. The Iraq war was premised on a lie. Period.
To say Iran is the same thing isn't accurate, because if anything, there are far more legitimate concerns about Iran's desire and capability with regards to nuclear weapons than there ever was with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. THAT's all I'm saying.
I'm not trying to justify a war, I would not support a war with Iran, and for the most part am against all war (although there are usually historical examples of wars that must occur). I just want Iraq to stand alone as a stinking beacon of the illegitimacy that was the George W. Bush era. We should not go to war with Iran and I think it would be an international disaster of untold proportions if we did. But let's be clear: Iran is not Iraq.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
And as i've asked before, if nixon proposed universal health care, a guaranteed living wage, negotiated with his enemies, and doubled down on environmental protections (all of which he did), does that also make him a socialist?
This question is irrelevant. It's like saying they both like apples, and thus is Nixon socialist. And that is assuming that they actually do both like apples. What are you trying to do, prove that Obama is like Nixon? That's a great strategy! The only real place Obama and Nixon can be compared is that they are both corrupt and failed presidents.
No need for interpretation? Funny...200+ years of SCOTUS case law - with liberal and conservative justices - would disagree with you. Vehemently. Its simply impossible (and quite frankly ridiculous) to argue that the Constitution needs no interpretation. Take the 4th Amendment...in an age of cell phones, GPS, heat sensitive cameras (cops use them), the internet, IP addresses etc, what does the Amendment mean? What's a search? What's a seizure? Is it reasonable to use a GPS device without a warrant to track a suspect? What does "privacy" mean under the Constitution? Oh wait...you say the Constitution needs no interpretation. Those terms of our modern world should be abundantly defined and outlined by our heralded document, right?
Funny how the Supreme Court and your buddy Scalia just took up that very issue and has repeatedly interpreted what the Amendment means today. Funny how even a strict constructionist like Scalia has written reams of opinions giving interpretation to the document you say needs none.
But you sound like an expert; far be it that I should argue with you.
I like how you completely ignore the second amendment discussion; you know the black and white amendment that liberals have been trying to interpret for years. Yet you want to talk about an amendment that literally has the word “unreasonable” in it. Of course an amendment with the word unreasonable in it would be open for debate, it’s meant to be that way or the word wouldn’t be in it. But of course you know that, and you know it’s not even worth discussing, but you want to draw attention from the fact that liberals want to interpret the entire document to meet their needs. At least I hope you were putting up that smoke screen on purpose, because the alternative isn’t pretty.
Your problem here is that you can't even begin a debate without attacking, name-calling or misrepresenting someone's claims. I personally have nothing against you, but you make yourself a very hard person to respect (in a debate) when you come across so damn caustically.
Try a more respectful tone; who knows? Maybe you'll find yourself in the middle of a respectful debate.
Pot, meet Kettle. You’re projecting, your own behaviors... but if that helps you sleep at night, that’s fine by me.
Is anything in life ever really exactly alike? One could argue "no". But, are these issues pretty damn similar? Yes. The similarities between Iraq situation and Iran are endless.
Your own post says that it is not known that they have uranium necessary to produce a warhead. In other words, it's an unknown whether they can or they can't. The IAEA says given what they know, they can't. Our Secretary of Defense has admitted they aren't trying to build a bomb this January. But, we're giving them ultimatums? Moreover, the uranium enriched may be used for peaceful purposes and they are permitted to do such according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I ask you to ask yourself this question: If Bush was in office, would you be saying the same thing in this thread? I can't answer that, only you can.
My only point was that saying Iran = Iraq in terms of war, isn't really accurate because the point we were sold on with the Iraq war was that they had weapons of mass destruction. At the time, this was unsupported by any evidence (sans a box of cake mix ) and ran counter to what independent inspections had concluded.
With Iran, there are serious concerns that (1) Iran has enriched uranium, (2) is producing more enriched uranium by the year, (3) is not being completely honest about its nuclear weapons program, and (4) did have a program within the last 10 years.
None of that was present with Iraq. The Iraq war was premised on a lie. Period.
To say Iran is the same thing isn't accurate, because if anything, there are far more legitimate concerns about Iran's desire and capability with regards to nuclear weapons than there ever was with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. THAT's all I'm saying.
I'm not trying to justify a war, I would not support a war with Iran, and for the most part am against all war (although there are usually historical examples of wars that must occur). I just want Iraq to stand alone as a stinking beacon of the illegitimacy that was the George W. Bush era. We should not go to war with Iran and I think it would be an international disaster of untold proportions if we did. But let's be clear: Iran is not Iraq.
This may be the one of the silliest posts I've ever read here. Once again, the similarities are endless. We invaded Iraq on the notion that they had weapons of mass destruction. Did they? If they did, we didn't really find any. We potentially would bomb Iran or engage in warfare with them under the assumption that they are enriching uranium beyond what's used for peaceful measures. Every source out there is saying there's ZERO evidence that they are enriching uranium beyond what's needed for peaceful measures. The line is, "but ummm what happens if they do?". Are we even f'ing serious?
Similarities? Yes.... ABSOLUTELY!
P.S. News flash: Just because you like President Obama doesn't mean you should side with everything he or his administration sides with. If we go to war with Iran, or even bomb them.... he's NO BETTER than Bush. In fact, I'd argue he's worse. He actually has the knowledge of what happened with Iraq, where clearly Bush didn't.
Is anything in life ever really exactly alike? One could argue "no". But, are these issues pretty damn similar? Yes. The similarities between Iraq situation and Iran are endless.
Your own post says that it is not known that they have uranium necessary to produce a warhead. In other words, it's an unknown whether they can or they can't. The IAEA says given what they know, they can't. Our Secretary of Defense has admitted they aren't trying to build a bomb this January. But, we're giving them ultimatums? Moreover, the uranium enriched may be used for peaceful purposes and they are permitted to do such according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I ask you to ask yourself this question: If Bush was in office, would you be saying the same thing in this thread? I can't answer that, only you can.
My only point was that saying Iran = Iraq in terms of war, isn't really accurate because the point we were sold on with the Iraq war was that they had weapons of mass destruction. At the time, this was unsupported by any evidence (sans a box of cake mix ) and ran counter to what independent inspections had concluded.
With Iran, there are serious concerns that (1) Iran has enriched uranium, (2) is producing more enriched uranium by the year, (3) is not being completely honest about its nuclear weapons program, and (4) did have a program within the last 10 years.
None of that was present with Iraq. The Iraq war was premised on a lie. Period.
To say Iran is the same thing isn't accurate, because if anything, there are far more legitimate concerns about Iran's desire and capability with regards to nuclear weapons than there ever was with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. THAT's all I'm saying.
I'm not trying to justify a war, I would not support a war with Iran, and for the most part am against all war (although there are usually historical examples of wars that must occur). I just want Iraq to stand alone as a stinking beacon of the illegitimacy that was the George W. Bush era. We should not go to war with Iran and I think it would be an international disaster of untold proportions if we did. But let's be clear: Iran is not Iraq.
1) Israel enriches uranium, 2) i bet they produce more than iran, 3) has never been honest about their secret, undeclared nuclear weapons program 4) at least iran allows inspections and the IAEA in to see the facilities....all of which israel refuses to do
so why don't we talk about bombing their facilities?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
1) Israel enriches uranium, 2) i bet they produce more than iran, 3) has never been honest about their secret, undeclared nuclear weapons program 4) at least iran allows inspections and the IAEA in to see the facilities....all of which israel refuses to do
so why don't we talk about bombing their facilities?
Because Israel doesn't host "Death to America" days. :ugeek:
1) Israel enriches uranium, 2) i bet they produce more than iran, 3) has never been honest about their secret, undeclared nuclear weapons program 4) at least iran allows inspections and the IAEA in to see the facilities....all of which israel refuses to do
so why don't we talk about bombing their facilities?
"they are our staunch allies in the middle east", and we are their lapdog and we are easy to manipulate, remember that? if they were not our ally and if we were not beholden to them and if they were a muslim country you can bet that we would talk about it...
then again, on second thought, we know they have nukes, just like we know pakistan has nukes. we will threaten the guys that are trying to get them, but we don't say a single peep to the countries that actually have them... we are essentially pussies.... or the schoolyard bully, whichever way you want to look at it...either way it is true...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
1) Israel enriches uranium, 2) i bet they produce more than iran, 3) has never been honest about their secret, undeclared nuclear weapons program 4) at least iran allows inspections and the IAEA in to see the facilities....all of which israel refuses to do
so why don't we talk about bombing their facilities?
Because Israel doesn't host "Death to America" days. :ugeek:
when does iran?? israel has attacked us twice, though
Post edited by Pepe Silvia on
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
1) Israel enriches uranium, 2) i bet they produce more than iran, 3) has never been honest about their secret, undeclared nuclear weapons program 4) at least iran allows inspections and the IAEA in to see the facilities....all of which israel refuses to do
so why don't we talk about bombing their facilities?
Because Israel doesn't host "Death to America" days. :ugeek:
when does iran?? they have attacked us twice, though
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Well these are mostly Orthodox Jews; it would be unfair to see the whole Isreali State like this. In the same it would be unfair to see State manufactured protests in Iran as a true representation of the opinions of the citizens of Iran. We seem to forget this, but Isreal is politically very divided. This makes it also very volatile. Most foreign policies of Isreal has more to do with internal politics, than with foreign politics. That there are countries out there - lik Iran - that don't help matters by denying the Holocaust and wanting to wipe Isreal from the map, has a great influence on the internal politics in Israel. I don't think that Iran will do this, but these statements alone will help the Right (and the Hawks) in Office in Israel; and they are the ones that will try to keep the Ortodox and their endless settlements happy.
Calling Hitler "far left" and Obama (like conservatists in the US love to point out) a ""communist" show nothing more than a blatant ignorance of these political extremes and a complete misunderstanding of the basic ideologies...
Actually, we love to point out that he is a socialist. You do know there is a difference?
The political spectrum is based on government control. With Anarchy, the complete absense of government being at the far right. Fascism and Socialism are to the far left, for complete government control. Not understanding this shows nothing more than a blatant ignorance of these political extremes and a complete misunderstanding of the basic ideologies...
Dear MG, I know the difference perfectly clear. I studied and teach this at the University; as a matter of fact I have published on genocides and and genocidal violence. "Government control" is not at the basis of these ideologies. The basis of the Marxist ideology is "equality", which in extent implies government control. "Government control" is therefore the by-product of the ideological basis; not the goal. There is furthermore a difference between Communisme and Socialism. Socialism believes in some form of government control but also privatization. Communism believes in complete government control. (And even here the opinions differ.) The plan economy of Communism in Europe has failed dramatically...
The basis of the Right is ideologically "inequality" / "Survival of the fittest" - it is on these ideals that the Right is built. And here there are also gradations. To the extreme side of this, Fascism, there is as a matter of fact complete government control (dictatorship); also as a side product, to implent the "survival of the fittest", may this be racial (Nazi Germany), ethnicity etc.
Placing "goverment control" at the basis of these ideologies is therefore manufacturing the historical basis of the Left (Socialism/ theories of Marx) and Right. Governmental control is always the outcome (and not the basis) of the implementations of these ideologies. I am not sure what your sources are, but it seems to me it is a pile of propeganda, which uses the present day obsessions of the United States to manufacture the past. My advice: don't read it or push the delete button. Go out there and read (real) books from true and established historians and get informed.
Anarchism btw is not "extreme right"", as a matter of fact, it is on the left side of the spectrum...
Calling Hitler "far left" and Obama (like conservatists in the US love to point out) a ""communist" show nothing more than a blatant ignorance of these political extremes and a complete misunderstanding of the basic ideologies...
Actually, we love to point out that he is a socialist. You do know there is a difference?
The political spectrum is based on government control. With Anarchy, the complete absense of government being at the far right. Fascism and Socialism are to the far left, for complete government control. Not understanding this shows nothing more than a blatant ignorance of these political extremes and a complete misunderstanding of the basic ideologies...
Dear MG, I know the difference perfectly clear. I studied and teach this at the University; as a matter of fact I have published on genocides and and genocidal violence. "Government control" is not at the basis of these ideologies. The basis of the Marxist ideology is "equality", which in extent implies government control. "Government control" is therefore the by-product of the ideological basis; not the goal. There is furthermore a difference between Communisme and Socialism. Socialism believes in some form of government control but also privatization. Communism believes in complete government control. (And even here the opinions differ.) The plan economy of Communism in Europe has failed dramatically...
The basis of the Right is ideologically "inequality" / "Survival of the fittest" - it is on these ideals that the Right is built. And here there are also gradations. To the extreme side of this, Fascism, there is as a matter of fact complete government control (dictatorship); also as a side product, to implent the "survival of the fittest", may this be racial (Nazi Germany), ethnicity etc.
Placing "goverment control" at the basis of these ideologies is therefore manufacturing the historical basis of the Left (Socialism/ theories of Marx) and Right. Governmental control is always the outcome (and not the basis) of the implementations of these ideologies. I am not sure what your sources are, but it seems to me it is a pile of propeganda, which uses the present day obsessions of the United States to manufacture the past. My advice: don't read it or push the delete button. Go out there and read (real) books from true and established historians and get informed.
Anarchism btw is not "extreme right"", as a matter of fact, it is on the left side of the spectrum...
This is your opinion, which you are free to have. Just note that your opinion is built on your specific experiences. This includes where you live, and your career and education, which most likely was heavily influenced by someone else's (professors) opinion while you were in school.
I don't understand the need to bring back a thread that died 1.5 months ago. I understand being busy, I have a family and an extremely challenging career that require a decent amount of travel. I've replied to a thread a week, maybe two late, due to my hectic schedule. But I eventually made it back in a relatively timely manner to do so if I thought it was an important point to make. I don't know what to take from the long time it took for your reply. People don't get so busy that something you feel strongly enough about to reply to 1.5 months later can't be fit in sooner. Especially if you are such an expert on the topic, a reply should have been relatively simple, and not required any real thought or research.
Actually, we love to point out that he is a socialist. You do know there is a difference?
The political spectrum is based on government control. With Anarchy, the complete absense of government being at the far right. Fascism and Socialism are to the far left, for complete government control. Not understanding this shows nothing more than a blatant ignorance of these political extremes and a complete misunderstanding of the basic ideologies...
Dear MG, I know the difference perfectly clear. I studied and teach this at the University; as a matter of fact I have published on genocides and and genocidal violence. "Government control" is not at the basis of these ideologies. The basis of the Marxist ideology is "equality", which in extent implies government control. "Government control" is therefore the by-product of the ideological basis; not the goal. There is furthermore a difference between Communisme and Socialism. Socialism believes in some form of government control but also privatization. Communism believes in complete government control. (And even here the opinions differ.) The plan economy of Communism in Europe has failed dramatically...
The basis of the Right is ideologically "inequality" / "Survival of the fittest" - it is on these ideals that the Right is built. And here there are also gradations. To the extreme side of this, Fascism, there is as a matter of fact complete government control (dictatorship); also as a side product, to implent the "survival of the fittest", may this be racial (Nazi Germany), ethnicity etc.
Placing "goverment control" at the basis of these ideologies is therefore manufacturing the historical basis of the Left (Socialism/ theories of Marx) and Right. Governmental control is always the outcome (and not the basis) of the implementations of these ideologies. I am not sure what your sources are, but it seems to me it is a pile of propeganda, which uses the present day obsessions of the United States to manufacture the past. My advice: don't read it or push the delete button. Go out there and read (real) books from true and established historians and get informed.
Anarchism btw is not "extreme right"", as a matter of fact, it is on the left side of the spectrum...
This is your opinion, which you are free to have. Just note that your opinion is built on your specific experiences. This includes where you live, and your career and education, which most likely was heavily influenced by someone else's (professors) opinion while you were in school.
I don't understand the need to bring back a thread that died 1.5 months ago. I understand being busy, I have a family and an extremely challenging career that require a decent amount of travel. I've replied to a thread a week, maybe two late, due to my hectic schedule. But I eventually made it back in a relatively timely manner to do so if I thought it was an important point to make. I don't know what to take from the long time it took for your reply. People don't get so busy that something you feel strongly enough about to reply to 1.5 months later can't be fit in sooner. Especially if you are such an expert on the topic, a reply should have been relatively simple, and not required any real thought or research.
Dear MG,
The reason why I respond so late is because I have other obligations than TenClub: among them teaching and publishing. But more importantly: being a father. Tenclub is not my life - and thank God for that.
Regarding your comment that this is "my opinion". It is not "only" my opinion: it based is on *true* scientific and well-established research - from historians to social scientists - for example, just to name a few: Proctor, Bringa, Taylor, Van de Port, Turner, Scheper-Hughes, Scott and even the classics Gramsci, Weber, Durkheim and in the end Marx himself. (These writers are both left, right etc.; they are not driven by a political goal or orientation.) This is a scientific basis that the right seem to have a lack of; their books and arguments seem to be nothing more than political bias and party propeganda. As a matter of fact: they reinterpret Marx as they like and miss the point what he was trying to say. "Governmental control" (read interpretation of the far-right in the US) was not his main focus. His main focus was in understanding the industrialization of the 19th century. Nothing more and nothing less. And you should understand his academic output in that light... That he "predicted" Communism was not uncommon for social scientists in his time/age. Weber made predictions, Durkheim made predictions etc. I do not think that Marx would have agreed with dictorial govermental dictatorship. The Communism in Russia did this and it failed.
My "opinion" is therefore not only based "on the place I live in", but by being well informed.
Regarding your comment about me being influenced by "professors" is, to be very honest, paternalizing at best. I am not sure if you meant it this way. (BTW I am rather influenced by "professors" than nonsense writers sponsored by the Republican party.) I can think for myself, thank you. But if you are able to think for yourself at least do it on basis of true scientific work and not on the basis of right propeganda. My advice: read *real* books, have an openmind, read *real* information instead of the ludecrice that the right seem to express through party programs and certain networks like Fox News, who is in the hands of the Tea Party mastermind Murdoch. The information is out there. And I think it is you civic duty to get it and read it, instead of being brainswashed by the stupid and ahistorical right-wing nonsense. "Anarchism" right? Hitler far-left? Please give me break... Please teach yourself the true political spectrums and get your head out of the propeganda nonsense that you seem to be stuck into...
Calling Hitler far-left is an insult to all Europeans who have suffered his policies and the 6 million who died in his hands (not to mention the millions of "communists" that fough Hitler for four years!) is unsetteling at best...Not-having-an-historical knowledge at worst...
Listen, I don't want to bash you. (And if I did, I apologize.) I just think that it important that people get well informed before making Hitler and/or Anarchism exactly what it is not.
Edit: I softened my tone of my original response, for it was written from a primary reaction and didn't do MG or myself any justice.
The reason why I respond so late is because I have other obligations than TenClub: among them teaching and publishing. But more importantly: being a father. Tenclub is not my life - and thank God for that.
Regarding your comment that this is "my opinion". It is not "only" my opinion: it based is on *true* scientific and well-established research - from historians to social scientists - for example, just to name a few: Proctor, Bringa, Taylor, Van de Port, Turner, Scheper-Hughes, Scott and even the classics Gramsci, Weber, Durkheim and in the end Marx himself. (These writers are both left, right etc.; they are not driven by a political goal or orientation.) This is a scientific basis that the right seem to have a lack of; their books and arguments seem to be nothing more than political bias and party propeganda. As a matter of fact: they reinterpret Marx as they like and miss the point what he was trying to say. "Governmental control" (read interpretation of the far-right in the US) was not his main focus. His main focus was in understanding the industrialization of the 19th century. Nothing more and nothing less. And you should understand his academic output in that light... That he "predicted" Communism was not uncommon for social scientists in his time/age. Weber made predictions, Durkheim made predictions etc. I do not think that Marx would have agreed with dictorial govermental dictatorship. The Communism in Russia did this and it failed.
My "opinion" is therefore not only based "on the place I live in", but by being well informed.
Regarding your comment about me being influenced by "professors" is, to be very honest, paternalizing at best. I am not sure if you meant it this way. (BTW I am rather influenced by "professors" than nonsense writers sponsored by the Republican party.) I can think for myself, thank you. But if you are able to think for yourself at least do it on basis of true scientific work and not on the basis of right propeganda. My advice: read *real* books, have an openmind, read *real* information instead of the ludecrice that the right seem to express through party programs and certain networks like Fox News, who is in the hands of the Tea Party mastermind Murdoch. The information is out there. And I think it is you civic duty to get it and read it, instead of being brainswashed by the stupid and ahistorical right-wing nonsense. "Anarchism" right? Hitler far-left? Please give me break... Please teach yourself the true political spectrums and get your head out of the propeganda nonsense that you seem to be stuck into...
Calling Hitler far-left is an insult to all Europeans who have suffered his policies and the 6 million who died in his hands (not to mention the millions of "communists" that fough Hitler for four years!) is unsetteling at best...Not-having-an-historical knowledge at worst...
Listen, I don't want to bash you. (And if I did, I apologize.) I just think that it important that people get well informed before making Hitler and/or Anarchism exactly what it is not.
Edit: I softened my tone of my original response, for it was written from a primary reaction and didn't do MG or myself any justice.
Wow, long post. Maybe I'll get around to reading it in a month or two, or maybe not. Keep checking back for my possible reply!
Replying to this post has such a high level of impotance to me that I will remember in a month or two, yet it's not important enough to find time sooner. I realize that makes zero sense, but you understand.
Comments
I never made any assumptions. I was responding to a condescending post that you made with zero evidence to support it
And I'm not sure why posting a poll is "typical liberal behavior." I never made an insult. Don't watch TV. I'm not sure why you talk as your are an authority on the issues when none of us are. Its a discussion. By bringing in absolutes and inferring that the person you are arguing with is an intellectual midget, you are doing everything you just accused me of.
And as i've asked before, if nixon proposed universal health care, a guaranteed living wage, negotiated with his enemies, and doubled down on environmental protections (all of which he did), does that also make him a socialist?
You are really one of the funniest people on this board!
8/15/92, 9/28/96, 8/28/98, 8/29/98, 9/18/98, 8/3/00, 8/9/00, 8/10/00, 8/23/00, 8/25/00, 9/1/00, 9/2/00, 4/28/03, 6/18/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 10/1/04, 10/3/05, 6/19/08, 10/27/09, 10/31/09, 5/21/10, 9/3/11, 9/4/11, 10/21/13
More to Come....
Pretty sure President Obama's administration is deciding the next war as we speak, in fact, they already gave an ultimatum...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/russia-di ... d-year-end
...decision = Iran.
Curious to see whether Ed would cheer on that war since the Obama administration is the one pushing it. Would seem rather hypocritical since it's exactly like Iraq, except perhaps worse.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
No need for interpretation? Funny...200+ years of SCOTUS case law - with liberal and conservative justices - would disagree with you. Vehemently. Its simply impossible (and quite frankly ridiculous) to argue that the Constitution needs no interpretation. Take the 4th Amendment...in an age of cell phones, GPS, heat sensitive cameras (cops use them), the internet, IP addresses etc, what does the Amendment mean? What's a search? What's a seizure? Is it reasonable to use a GPS device without a warrant to track a suspect? What does "privacy" mean under the Constitution? Oh wait...you say the Constitution needs no interpretation. Those terms of our modern world should be abundantly defined and outlined by our heralded document, right?
Funny how the Supreme Court and your buddy Scalia just took up that very issue and has repeatedly interpreted what the Amendment means today. Funny how even a strict constructionist like Scalia has written reams of opinions giving interpretation to the document you say needs none.
But you sound like an expert; far be it that I should argue with you.
Your problem here is that you can't even begin a debate without attacking, name-calling or misrepresenting someone's claims. I personally have nothing against you, but you make yourself a very hard person to respect (in a debate) when you come across so damn caustically.
Try a more respectful tone; who knows? Maybe you'll find yourself in the middle of a respectful debate.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Without getting into whether I agree with this war or not, I wouldn't say its exactly like Iraq. Iran has had a secret nuclear weapons program up until at least 2002 (they claimed to have stopped it), confirmed by the IAEA. Iraq had none; confirmed by the IAEA. Iran continues to produce enriched uranium toward levels that could be used for nuclear weapons; Iraq did not. Its believed that Iran does not currently possess uranium beyond 20% enrichment (needs to be about 90% for a warhead), but on an almost annual basis, they have increased that percentage amount.
I'm not a supporter of war with Iran, but to be fair, Iran's situation is not exactly like Iraq.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
That's funny but DD has the WORST coffee....it sucks!
Like most Presidents he could be much better but looking back as to what he stepped into (main reason he got elected) he's cleaned off his well worned shoes pretty good. If there was a viable opponent come this November we may not see him again but that's not the case so be ready for another 4 years.
peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
really, what indication has Ed ever given you that he would support ANY war, let alone a war launched by someone he may or may not have voted for??
the leaps in logic on here are amazing sometimes...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Is anything in life ever really exactly alike? One could argue "no". But, are these issues pretty damn similar? Yes. The similarities between Iraq situation and Iran are endless.
Your own post says that it is not known that they have uranium necessary to produce a warhead. In other words, it's an unknown whether they can or they can't. The IAEA says given what they know, they can't. Our Secretary of Defense has admitted they aren't trying to build a bomb this January. But, we're giving them ultimatums? Moreover, the uranium enriched may be used for peaceful purposes and they are permitted to do such according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I ask you to ask yourself this question: If Bush was in office, would you be saying the same thing in this thread? I can't answer that, only you can.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
No, I don't believe Ed would cheerlead a war just because Obama is in office. I think he'd be less critical or perhaps silent on the issue, however.
No offense meant by what follows, but I feel the need to say it:
You, on the other hand, I honestly believe you would try to argue that this war is somehow "just" simply because Obama is in office. I've read many of your posts and I think you pretty much side with what ever Democrats or the current administration say, 99.99% of the time. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I read whenever I read your posts.
Ed's been awfully silent since President Obama took over. I recall us bombing Libya and didn't really hear a peep out of Ed.
I'm just saying for a guy who was so outspoken about the folly of war, it's kinda odd he shut up on these issues as soon as the Democrat took the throne.
Will we drop bombs on Iran? What will happen here? And if we do something, will Ed (or people like him) continue to be quiet? Who knows. Only time will tell. My hope is that people, who agree with Obama on other issues, will have the courage to outright vocally disagree with him on this issue, and acknowledge that if we did this Obama would be no different than Bush.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It's not Tyler Durden (he's a blogger who quoted it), it's a Russian newspaper -
http://rt.com/news/iran-last-chance-war-517/
Here's the CSM covering the same story:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2 ... um-to-Iran
I assume you don't believe an ultimatum was given by the US then, and you think this paper is printing lies? Fair enough.
I don't see why a paper in a country fairly unexposed to this issue would feel the need to print this if it's fabricated, but I could be mistaken.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
i am opposed to all war, and it does not matter what hawk occupies the white house.
anybody who cheerleads a war needs to have their head examined by a professional...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Fair enough.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I do not believe that an ultimatum was made. You are correct. But even if I thought it likely that an ultimatum had been made, I would not believe that it carried a deadline of the end of this calendar (and election) year.
I do not think this story is true.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
My only point was that saying Iran = Iraq in terms of war, isn't really accurate because the point we were sold on with the Iraq war was that they had weapons of mass destruction. At the time, this was unsupported by any evidence (sans a box of cake mix
With Iran, there are serious concerns that (1) Iran has enriched uranium, (2) is producing more enriched uranium by the year, (3) is not being completely honest about its nuclear weapons program, and (4) did have a program within the last 10 years.
None of that was present with Iraq. The Iraq war was premised on a lie. Period.
To say Iran is the same thing isn't accurate, because if anything, there are far more legitimate concerns about Iran's desire and capability with regards to nuclear weapons than there ever was with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. THAT's all I'm saying.
I'm not trying to justify a war, I would not support a war with Iran, and for the most part am against all war (although there are usually historical examples of wars that must occur). I just want Iraq to stand alone as a stinking beacon of the illegitimacy that was the George W. Bush era. We should not go to war with Iran and I think it would be an international disaster of untold proportions if we did. But let's be clear: Iran is not Iraq.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
This may be the one of the silliest posts I've ever read here. Once again, the similarities are endless. We invaded Iraq on the notion that they had weapons of mass destruction. Did they? If they did, we didn't really find any. We potentially would bomb Iran or engage in warfare with them under the assumption that they are enriching uranium beyond what's used for peaceful measures. Every source out there is saying there's ZERO evidence that they are enriching uranium beyond what's needed for peaceful measures. The line is, "but ummm what happens if they do?". Are we even f'ing serious?
Similarities? Yes.... ABSOLUTELY!
P.S. News flash: Just because you like President Obama doesn't mean you should side with everything he or his administration sides with. If we go to war with Iran, or even bomb them.... he's NO BETTER than Bush. In fact, I'd argue he's worse. He actually has the knowledge of what happened with Iraq, where clearly Bush didn't.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
1) Israel enriches uranium, 2) i bet they produce more than iran, 3) has never been honest about their secret, undeclared nuclear weapons program 4) at least iran allows inspections and the IAEA in to see the facilities....all of which israel refuses to do
so why don't we talk about bombing their facilities?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
then again, on second thought, we know they have nukes, just like we know pakistan has nukes. we will threaten the guys that are trying to get them, but we don't say a single peep to the countries that actually have them... we are essentially pussies.... or the schoolyard bully, whichever way you want to look at it...either way it is true...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
when does iran?? israel has attacked us twice, though
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
they don't hate us, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P7XTbm9ED0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WvZ-6mOutU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOFzb8ym6CE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QiV9xn0 ... re=related
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Well these are mostly Orthodox Jews; it would be unfair to see the whole Isreali State like this. In the same it would be unfair to see State manufactured protests in Iran as a true representation of the opinions of the citizens of Iran. We seem to forget this, but Isreal is politically very divided. This makes it also very volatile. Most foreign policies of Isreal has more to do with internal politics, than with foreign politics. That there are countries out there - lik Iran - that don't help matters by denying the Holocaust and wanting to wipe Isreal from the map, has a great influence on the internal politics in Israel. I don't think that Iran will do this, but these statements alone will help the Right (and the Hawks) in Office in Israel; and they are the ones that will try to keep the Ortodox and their endless settlements happy.
Dear MG, I know the difference perfectly clear. I studied and teach this at the University; as a matter of fact I have published on genocides and and genocidal violence. "Government control" is not at the basis of these ideologies. The basis of the Marxist ideology is "equality", which in extent implies government control. "Government control" is therefore the by-product of the ideological basis; not the goal. There is furthermore a difference between Communisme and Socialism. Socialism believes in some form of government control but also privatization. Communism believes in complete government control. (And even here the opinions differ.) The plan economy of Communism in Europe has failed dramatically...
The basis of the Right is ideologically "inequality" / "Survival of the fittest" - it is on these ideals that the Right is built. And here there are also gradations. To the extreme side of this, Fascism, there is as a matter of fact complete government control (dictatorship); also as a side product, to implent the "survival of the fittest", may this be racial (Nazi Germany), ethnicity etc.
Placing "goverment control" at the basis of these ideologies is therefore manufacturing the historical basis of the Left (Socialism/ theories of Marx) and Right. Governmental control is always the outcome (and not the basis) of the implementations of these ideologies. I am not sure what your sources are, but it seems to me it is a pile of propeganda, which uses the present day obsessions of the United States to manufacture the past. My advice: don't read it or push the delete button. Go out there and read (real) books from true and established historians and get informed.
Anarchism btw is not "extreme right"", as a matter of fact, it is on the left side of the spectrum...
This is your opinion, which you are free to have. Just note that your opinion is built on your specific experiences. This includes where you live, and your career and education, which most likely was heavily influenced by someone else's (professors) opinion while you were in school.
I don't understand the need to bring back a thread that died 1.5 months ago. I understand being busy, I have a family and an extremely challenging career that require a decent amount of travel. I've replied to a thread a week, maybe two late, due to my hectic schedule. But I eventually made it back in a relatively timely manner to do so if I thought it was an important point to make. I don't know what to take from the long time it took for your reply. People don't get so busy that something you feel strongly enough about to reply to 1.5 months later can't be fit in sooner. Especially if you are such an expert on the topic, a reply should have been relatively simple, and not required any real thought or research.
Dear MG,
The reason why I respond so late is because I have other obligations than TenClub: among them teaching and publishing. But more importantly: being a father.
Regarding your comment that this is "my opinion". It is not "only" my opinion: it based is on *true* scientific and well-established research - from historians to social scientists - for example, just to name a few: Proctor, Bringa, Taylor, Van de Port, Turner, Scheper-Hughes, Scott and even the classics Gramsci, Weber, Durkheim and in the end Marx himself. (These writers are both left, right etc.; they are not driven by a political goal or orientation.) This is a scientific basis that the right seem to have a lack of; their books and arguments seem to be nothing more than political bias and party propeganda. As a matter of fact: they reinterpret Marx as they like and miss the point what he was trying to say. "Governmental control" (read interpretation of the far-right in the US) was not his main focus. His main focus was in understanding the industrialization of the 19th century. Nothing more and nothing less. And you should understand his academic output in that light... That he "predicted" Communism was not uncommon for social scientists in his time/age. Weber made predictions, Durkheim made predictions etc. I do not think that Marx would have agreed with dictorial govermental dictatorship. The Communism in Russia did this and it failed.
My "opinion" is therefore not only based "on the place I live in", but by being well informed.
Regarding your comment about me being influenced by "professors" is, to be very honest, paternalizing at best. I am not sure if you meant it this way. (BTW I am rather influenced by "professors" than nonsense writers sponsored by the Republican party.) I can think for myself, thank you. But if you are able to think for yourself at least do it on basis of true scientific work and not on the basis of right propeganda. My advice: read *real* books, have an openmind, read *real* information instead of the ludecrice that the right seem to express through party programs and certain networks like Fox News, who is in the hands of the Tea Party mastermind Murdoch. The information is out there. And I think it is you civic duty to get it and read it, instead of being brainswashed by the stupid and ahistorical right-wing nonsense. "Anarchism" right? Hitler far-left? Please give me break... Please teach yourself the true political spectrums and get your head out of the propeganda nonsense that you seem to be stuck into...
Calling Hitler far-left is an insult to all Europeans who have suffered his policies and the 6 million who died in his hands (not to mention the millions of "communists" that fough Hitler for four years!) is unsetteling at best...Not-having-an-historical knowledge at worst...
Listen, I don't want to bash you. (And if I did, I apologize.) I just think that it important that people get well informed before making Hitler and/or Anarchism exactly what it is not.
Edit: I softened my tone of my original response, for it was written from a primary reaction and didn't do MG or myself any justice.
Wow, long post. Maybe I'll get around to reading it in a month or two, or maybe not. Keep checking back for my possible reply!
Replying to this post has such a high level of impotance to me that I will remember in a month or two, yet it's not important enough to find time sooner. I realize that makes zero sense, but you understand.