Well look at us! What have we done? We are told Iran is a grave threat and what have we done? Justify building up our military even larger! How big does it need to be! Jeezus! We could already destroy 100 Irans! But somehow threatening Iran will cause the opposite to happen?!
So you're gonna sit here and tell me that us threatening them is going to cause them to cease their 'whatever it is they are doing that is a threat to us'? But when we feel threatened we need to do the EXACT SAME THING that we have a problem with them doing?
Perpetual cycle of fear. See how this isn't working out guys? Oh wait, it IS working out for the defense contractors and war profiteers!
You promote peace through good will and practicing what you preach....period
It's not a threat. He's not saying its either Diplomacy or else. He is refusing to eliminate the possibility of war is all.
Let's say he opens talks by saying Iran we won't go to war with you no matter what. Now let's negotiate a resolution to our countries issues. In this scenario Iran would have no reason to negotiate with us. They could agree to our terms with no intention of keeping them.
I can tell you one thing War is not off the table on Iran's side either. If they were so peaceful then why are they developing and testing long range missiles especially with Bush in charge who is so damn trigger happy.
And one last thing my Girlfriend's family is from Armenia and many of them were forced to come to the US in the 1970's due to the Iranian gov't. A lot of her family is still there and they have nothing but awful things to say about the current gov't in Iran.
So while I don't promote War with any country, Iran is not necessarily the innocent misunderstood country that some of you paint them as.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Well look at us! What have we done? We are told Iran is a grave threat and what have we done? Justify building up our military even larger! How big does it need to be! Jeezus! We could already destroy 100 Irans! But somehow threatening Iran will cause the opposite to happen?!
So you're gonna sit here and tell me that us threatening them is going to cause them to cease their 'whatever it is they are doing that is a threat to us'? But when we feel threatened we need to do the EXACT SAME THING that we have a problem with them doing?
Perpetual cycle of fear. See how this isn't working out guys? Oh wait, it IS working out for the defense contractors and war profiteers!
You promote peace through good will and practicing what you preach....period
On the issue of Iran, Obama has been the only candidate (Ok, I admit ignorance of Nader's position on this) to actually advocate direct talks and diplomacy with Iran. This is a huge step forward from previous US foreign policy not to mention a glaring difference from the republican candidate.
Just on this issue they are NOT the same.
As a reminder, he reiterated his position even after Iran fired that missile a few days ago.
I just realized the topic was Obama and the NAACP.
But since I'm an Obama sheep I will just say I agree with him on this too.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
It's not a threat. He's not saying its either Diplomacy or else. He is refusing to eliminate the possibility of war is all.
Let's say he opens talks by saying Iran we won't go to war with you no matter what. Now let's negotiate a resolution to our countries issues. In this scenario Iran would have no reason to negotiate with us. They could agree to our terms with no intention of keeping them.
Why would Iran want to attack us then? The reason to negotiate is that their people just like our people want peace. Why would they keep agreeing to our terms after we threaten them? It hasn't worked to damn well in any case I've seen.
I can tell you one thing War is not off the table on Iran's side either. If they were so peaceful then why are they developing and testing long range missiles especially with Bush in charge who is so damn trigger happy.
Exactly!!!!! Ding ding ding! We have a winner. See how threats aren't working?
And one last thing my Girlfriend's family is from Armenia and many of them were forced to come to the US in the 1970's due to the Iranian gov't. A lot of her family is still there and they have nothing but awful things to say about the current gov't in Iran.
So while I don't promote War with any country, Iran is not necessarily the innocent misunderstood country that some of you paint them as.
Who painted them as anything? I'm saying they pose no serious threat to us and to think otherwise is laughable...you need not go any further than to compare our already existing capabilities.
Threatening use of force, esp preemptive force is indeed promoting war. I can't say I'm anti-violence while going around threatening to shoot everybody. That's not how it works and then I would come across as the bad guy waving the gun when no one has done anything to me.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
On the issue of Iran, Obama has been the only candidate (Ok, I admit ignorance of Nader's position on this) to actually advocate direct talks and diplomacy with Iran. This is a huge step forward from previous US foreign policy not to mention a glaring difference from the republican candidate.
Just on this issue they are NOT the same.
As a reminder, he reiterated his position even after Iran fired that missile a few days ago.
But just saying that he will talk to them isn't too much when he has been so prone to saying one thing and doing another.
The big issue for me is that he keeps trying to pin Iran as some grave threat to our nation's security and that is pure bologna.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm not going to post all of your quotes Abooks but I will say this, not taking war of the table does not equate to a preemptive strike. A preemptive strike is what occurred in Iraq. Obama has never claimed that this would happen with Iran.
If he does go to war with Iran he better have a very good reason for doing so or he has failed as leader. That said it should not be off the table until a resolution to our two countries issues is met.
And since you agree with me that Iran doesn't have it off the table on there side either then I really don't see an issue here.
Especially since Nader and Obama are the only 2 people who will be on the ballot in November who will even talk to Iran. That is a drastic difference to the Conservative party who are blasting Obama for still saying he will be diplomatic with Iran after they tested the missiles last week.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
You will never see the other side of this argument, but defunding a war that an administration refuses to end would be nothing short of a disaster. I am against the Iraq war, but I understand and agree that taking the money away isn't the best way to end it.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Voted for a compromise of it... I don't agree with him on this one, but voting against it would have ended any chance of him winning this election.
Pandering - came out against it before Texas primary (after voting for it). Can't defend that....
BIG reach... And even if contributors work in that industry, how on earth does that constitute a change in policy?
You will never see the other side of this argument, but defunding a war that an administration refuses to end would be nothing short of a disaster. I am against the Iraq war, but I understand and agree that taking the money away isn't the best way to end it.
Yes, he is very much pro-war, pro-military buildup, pro-threatening other countries, pro-ignoring the constitution to allow our civil liberties to be stripped away....need I go on?
Voted for a compromise of it... I don't agree with him on this one, but voting against it would have ended any chance of him winning this election.
That is your opinion....looks to me like shit like this might cost him the election. You need to realize that just because you see things this way doesn't make it the truth....just mere speculation so you can continue on excusing everything Obama does that contradicts his rhetoric. If you're against something you don't support it period....no matter how you try to squirm around it.
BIG reach... And even if contributors work in that industry, how on earth does that constitute a change in policy?
His vote against capping the credit card rates at 30% seems pretty indicative to me....a vote in which he went against his fellow democrats to side with the republicans, actually.
You will never see the other side of this argument, but defunding a war that an administration refuses to end would be nothing short of a disaster. I am against the Iraq war, but I understand and agree that taking the money away isn't the best way to end it.
What a surprise! Here we are again, denying the facts in an attempt to claim your opinion is the only valid perspective to take.
How is it a joke? He has been quoted as calling Iran a grave threat and would consider attacking them if they don't comply with our demands. No jump needed just had to read it.
I'm not going to post all of your quotes Abooks but I will say this, not taking war of the table does not equate to a preemptive strike. A preemptive strike is what occurred in Iraq. Obama has never claimed that this would happen with Iran.
If he does go to war with Iran he better have a very good reason for doing so or he has failed as leader. That said it should not be off the table until a resolution to our two countries issues is met.
And since you agree with me that Iran doesn't have it off the table on there side either then I really don't see an issue here.
Especially since Nader and Obama are the only 2 people who will be on the ballot in November who will even talk to Iran. That is a drastic difference to the Conservative party who are blasting Obama for still saying he will be diplomatic with Iran after they tested the missiles last week.
Nader's not the one dancing in front of AIPAC about how Iran is the great danger to our national security.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Should I join in, or is this echo chamber already full?
Says the Nader echo chamber, but I guess that is your talking point...
A bunch of Nader supporters patting each other on the back = free thinkers
A bunch of Obama supporters patting each other on the back = echo chamber
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Says the Nader echo chamber, but I guess that is your talking point...
A bunch of Nader supporters patting each other on the back = free thinkers
A bunch of Obama supporters patting each other on the back = echo chamber
We're just making fun of the fact that we've been called an echo chamber countless times. Except usually, we said something more than "bingo", or "homerun".
Says the Nader echo chamber, but I guess that is your talking point...
See Rhino's post ..ost...stt...
And since when am I a Nader supporter? I don't know anything about the dude. My concern is as a human being, and as an ethicist.
Somehow people like to slant that as though I have a bias that I don't in this situation. Unless you call a bias towards expecting people to live up to their stated standards and ethics and to the boundaries of reason a bias.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
We're just making fun of the fact that we've been called an echo chamber countless times. Except usually, we said something more than "bingo", or "homerun".
Not only have we been called an echo chamber numerous times...but it's been by my2hands!!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
the whole forum will be locked soon if people don't take note of kats post the other day.
didn't she already warn about chit chatting in threads.
She warned people to talk politely too, but I saw some pretty juvenile attacks coming from a certain poster, which were quickly supported, I might add. I think light-hearted banter is a little less worrisome. Not talking about you, though.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
But just saying that he will talk to them isn't too much when he has been so prone to saying one thing and doing another.
The big issue for me is that he keeps trying to pin Iran as some grave threat to our nation's security and that is pure bologna.
bologna?? never heard of this expression! only the city.
He cannot ignore Iran which has been on the political agenda for the past 30 years, especially recently with the current administration portraying it as a grave threat - not Obama (the axis of evil speech by Bush). He's just outlining a different way to deal with the situation and to advocate direct diplomacy is a HUGE positive difference. Compare it with McCain and notice the glaring discrepancy of approach!
And he has been consistent on the diplomatic approach towards Iran, so no flip-flopping here or pandering to the masses, and that should be reassuring
His vote against capping the credit card rates at 30% seems pretty indicative to me....a vote in which he went against his fellow democrats to side with the republicans, actually.
Once again, he voted against the entire bill, so he actually sided with neither.
haha. I haven't had time to read the entire thing, but I briefly skimmed it and:
I think that's a bit extreme to think that ALL he's saying is that we can ONLY move forward as a nation when blacks take responsibility.
For one, I don't think he's talking only about moving forward as a nation, but more particularly towards blacks moving forward, socially. This is clearly indirectly a response to Nader calling him out for him avoiding this issue, and I'm happy to see Obama decide to tackle it, but I REALLY hope this doesn't mean that he's going to blame black people for being irresponsible and not necessarily give them the help they need... And this isn't just for black people, but for poverty all over America... If 60-75% of Obama's plan revolves around people "taking responsibility" THEN he plans on giving them the help they need, then that just sounds like he's saying anything so he can delay the issue even more...
Nader called no one out. Obama has been talking about these issues since day one. Nader has selective hearing and wanted air time. Obama has discussed poverty affecting all Americans not just black. He is running for President of the United States not only for Black America.
As Obama talks about responsibility McCain is trying to pander by touting more government handouts. Obama has been consistant on 98% of his stances but it's people like Nader and the conservative right that have made a desperate effort to smear and distort his record.
“Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened.”
Nader called no one out. Obama has been talking about these issues since day one. Nader has selective hearing and wanted air time. Obama has discussed poverty affecting all Americans not just black. He is running for President of the United States not only for Black America.
As Obama talks about responsibility McCain is trying to pander by touting more government handouts. Obama has been consistant on 98% of his stances but it's people like Nader and the conservative right that have made a desperate effort to smear and distort his record.
Comments
It's not a threat. He's not saying its either Diplomacy or else. He is refusing to eliminate the possibility of war is all.
Let's say he opens talks by saying Iran we won't go to war with you no matter what. Now let's negotiate a resolution to our countries issues. In this scenario Iran would have no reason to negotiate with us. They could agree to our terms with no intention of keeping them.
I can tell you one thing War is not off the table on Iran's side either. If they were so peaceful then why are they developing and testing long range missiles especially with Bush in charge who is so damn trigger happy.
And one last thing my Girlfriend's family is from Armenia and many of them were forced to come to the US in the 1970's due to the Iranian gov't. A lot of her family is still there and they have nothing but awful things to say about the current gov't in Iran.
So while I don't promote War with any country, Iran is not necessarily the innocent misunderstood country that some of you paint them as.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
On the issue of Iran, Obama has been the only candidate (Ok, I admit ignorance of Nader's position on this) to actually advocate direct talks and diplomacy with Iran. This is a huge step forward from previous US foreign policy not to mention a glaring difference from the republican candidate.
Just on this issue they are NOT the same.
As a reminder, he reiterated his position even after Iran fired that missile a few days ago.
But since I'm an Obama sheep I will just say I agree with him on this too.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Why would Iran want to attack us then? The reason to negotiate is that their people just like our people want peace. Why would they keep agreeing to our terms after we threaten them? It hasn't worked to damn well in any case I've seen.
Exactly!!!!! Ding ding ding! We have a winner. See how threats aren't working?
Who painted them as anything? I'm saying they pose no serious threat to us and to think otherwise is laughable...you need not go any further than to compare our already existing capabilities.
Threatening use of force, esp preemptive force is indeed promoting war. I can't say I'm anti-violence while going around threatening to shoot everybody. That's not how it works and then I would come across as the bad guy waving the gun when no one has done anything to me.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But just saying that he will talk to them isn't too much when he has been so prone to saying one thing and doing another.
The big issue for me is that he keeps trying to pin Iran as some grave threat to our nation's security and that is pure bologna.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If he does go to war with Iran he better have a very good reason for doing so or he has failed as leader. That said it should not be off the table until a resolution to our two countries issues is met.
And since you agree with me that Iran doesn't have it off the table on there side either then I really don't see an issue here.
Especially since Nader and Obama are the only 2 people who will be on the ballot in November who will even talk to Iran. That is a drastic difference to the Conservative party who are blasting Obama for still saying he will be diplomatic with Iran after they tested the missiles last week.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Hawkish ways? Seriously?
Voted for a compromise of it... I don't agree with him on this one, but voting against it would have ended any chance of him winning this election.
Pandering - came out against it before Texas primary (after voting for it). Can't defend that....
BIG reach... And even if contributors work in that industry, how on earth does that constitute a change in policy?
You will never see the other side of this argument, but defunding a war that an administration refuses to end would be nothing short of a disaster. I am against the Iraq war, but I understand and agree that taking the money away isn't the best way to end it.
That claim is just a joke... I got a present for you
http://www.flickr.com/photos/htomren/70384439/
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
homerun
Yes, he is very much pro-war, pro-military buildup, pro-threatening other countries, pro-ignoring the constitution to allow our civil liberties to be stripped away....need I go on?
That is your opinion....looks to me like shit like this might cost him the election. You need to realize that just because you see things this way doesn't make it the truth....just mere speculation so you can continue on excusing everything Obama does that contradicts his rhetoric. If you're against something you don't support it period....no matter how you try to squirm around it.
His vote against capping the credit card rates at 30% seems pretty indicative to me....a vote in which he went against his fellow democrats to side with the republicans, actually.
What a surprise! Here we are again, denying the facts in an attempt to claim your opinion is the only valid perspective to take.
Oh lookie! Here's some people who disagree with your take:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=N10eIKLLc3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkWavm8VelM
How is it a joke? He has been quoted as calling Iran a grave threat and would consider attacking them if they don't comply with our demands. No jump needed just had to read it.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5346996&postcount=5
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nader's not the one dancing in front of AIPAC about how Iran is the great danger to our national security.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
sounds like an echo chamber in here.... :rolleyes:
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Grand Slam
Oh snap!
Angelica, you shouldn't encourage me...well...yeah, you should. I needed the giggles.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Enter at your own risk.
Obama told NAACP that blacks must take responsibility and so should you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Says the Nader echo chamber, but I guess that is your talking point...
A bunch of Nader supporters patting each other on the back = free thinkers
A bunch of Obama supporters patting each other on the back = echo chamber
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
You know me - responsibility washes over me like water over a shaven seal.
Nah, but some of us have never had a problem with it and then go around echoing ourselves the next day.
just sayin'
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And since when am I a Nader supporter? I don't know anything about the dude. My concern is as a human being, and as an ethicist.
Somehow people like to slant that as though I have a bias that I don't in this situation. Unless you call a bias towards expecting people to live up to their stated standards and ethics and to the boundaries of reason a bias.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I know! I thought that would have been obvious.
I say echoes for all!
But I don't understand: 'echoes are good for me but not for Nader Raiders and their buddy angelica.'
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
didn't she already warn about chit chatting in threads.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
...and their buddy angelica!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
bologna??
He cannot ignore Iran which has been on the political agenda for the past 30 years, especially recently with the current administration portraying it as a grave threat - not Obama (the axis of evil speech by Bush). He's just outlining a different way to deal with the situation and to advocate direct diplomacy is a HUGE positive difference. Compare it with McCain and notice the glaring discrepancy of approach!
And he has been consistent on the diplomatic approach towards Iran, so no flip-flopping here or pandering to the masses, and that should be reassuring
Nader called no one out. Obama has been talking about these issues since day one. Nader has selective hearing and wanted air time. Obama has discussed poverty affecting all Americans not just black. He is running for President of the United States not only for Black America.
As Obama talks about responsibility McCain is trying to pander by touting more government handouts. Obama has been consistant on 98% of his stances but it's people like Nader and the conservative right that have made a desperate effort to smear and distort his record.
Obama consistent?
sure.