Obama has been consistant on all the major issues, for example, the economy, war on terror, the environment and even issues concerning the poor and minorities.
“Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened.”
Obama has been consistant on all the major issues, for example, the economy, war on terror, the environment and even issues concerning the poor and minorities.
I never even said he was inconsistent.. his policies suck in general.
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
The only difference I see is with him saying he will talk to Iran. I haven't even looked at McCain's position on this but am assuming the worst which is that he won't talk with them at all.
If this was the end of it then you'd have a point. But Obama is taking the same stance as McCain in regards to taking action against Iran if they don't comply with our demands and he has used threatening language just the same as McCain...and has no qualms with attacking Iran, he demonizes even further on the campaign trail picking right up where Bush left off. It's all part of a build up to war! What else does he want to expand the military by 90,000 troops for? He's supposed to be bringing the ones in Iraq home, correct? Him saying he will talk with Iran is just a throw to the left to make him appear different than the republicans. Everything else he has said on the matter echoes their rhetoric. How well do you think these talks of his are going to play out when he is calling them a radical theocracy who is a grave danger to our security before he has even sat down with them to hear their side? Would you be eager and willing to comply with a person who 'is willing to talk with you' but when in front of large crowds kept telling everyone how you were the enemy and a great threat to them? That willingness to talk comes off as a show, to me. Seems like he already has his mind made up.
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
The only difference I see is with him saying he will talk to Iran. I haven't even looked at McCain's position on this but am assuming the worst which is that he won't talk with them at all.
If this was the end of it then you'd have a point. But Obama is taking the same stance as McCain in regards to taking action against Iran if they don't comply with our demands and he has used threatening language just the same as McCain...and has no qualms with attacking Iran, he demonizes even further on the campaign trail picking right up where Bush left off. It's all part of a build up to war! What else does he want to expand the military by 90,000 troops for? He's supposed to be bringing the ones in Iraq home, correct? Him saying he will talk with Iran is just a throw to the left to make him appear different than the republicans. Everything else he has said on the matter echoes their rhetoric. How well do you think these talks of his are going to play out when he is calling them a radical theocracy who is a grave danger to our security before he has even sat down with them to hear their side? Would you be eager and willing to comply with a person who 'is willing to talk with you' but when in front of large crowds kept telling everyone how you were the enemy and a great threat to them? That willingness to talk comes off as a show, to me. Seems like he already has his mind made up.
Well, they are a radical theocracy - and their leaders say the same things about us that we say about them, right down to the same general caveats that they don't hate Americans, just our leaders. Pretty old hat, actually.
Seriously, Obama won't be pre-emptively invading Iran.
Well, they are a radical theocracy - and their leaders say the same things about us that we say about them, right down to the same general caveats that they don't hate Americans, just our leaders. Pretty old hat, actually.
Seriously, Obama won't be pre-emptively invading Iran.
So, you're saying that their leaders are as sorry as ours so we should continue to perpetuate this cycle by voting for a guy who will keep playing this same old, tired game? Sounds like progress to me!
And what makes you so sure he won't attack Iran?
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
Apparently "last resort" means "I won't do it" now.
What's absolutely hilarious to me is that the Bush admin ALSO said that military action is a "last resort"...
just cause Obama said he'll open diplomatic talks with Iran (while pushing for tougher sanctions at the same time), his supporters ignore everything else...
I'd say no, it doesn't. If it did, he would have voted for the bill.
He voted No on a bad bill, and No on a weak attempt at making a bad bill seem better. That's O.K. with me.
Yes, I know you are OK with it. Some of us however have concerns about why not? I mean 30% is better than nothing which is exactly what he proposed in place of his nay vote against it....no better number offered up or an amendment from him with better language that he found more acceptable...nada. At least the 30% would have been some relief...you guys are always the ones to come on here and talk about how we need to take baby steps but when Obama continuously refuses to take any that might upset the establishment...you're quick to rationalize it away (just like the rationalizations of why he wouldn't sign the letter from Congress to Bush asking him to get Congressional approval before taking action in Iran). And suuuure, it has nothing at all to do with the rather large portion of his contributors coming from the financial sector....of course not! Just another Bama coinkydink!
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
So, you're saying that their leaders are as sorry as ours so we should continue to perpetuate this cycle by voting for a guy who will keep playing this same old, tired game? Sounds like progress to me!
No, actually they're far, far worse than ours. And direct talks between the White House and Tehran is exactly like progress - considering it's never been done before.
Honestly? I don't see any of the candidates - realistic chance of winning or otherwise - ordering an invasion of Iran. On top of that, though, Obama's the only one suggesting direct diplomacy. So, yeah, I'm voting for that guy.
Apparently "last resort" means "I won't do it" now.
What's absolutely hilarious to me is that the Bush admin ALSO said that military action is a "last resort"...
just cause Obama said he'll open diplomatic talks with Iran (while pushing for tougher sanctions at the same time), his supporters ignore everything else...
That's what I've been screaming! It's the exact same things the Bush admin has been saying. They always say something is the 'last resort' and how they wish to solve these things without military involvement....riiiight. I guess if it's a Democrat it is believable but if it's a Republican, it's warmongering. Go figure.
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
Yes, I know you are OK with it. Some of us however have concerns about why not? I mean 30% is better than nothing which is exactly what he proposed in place of his nay vote against it....no better number offered up or an amendment from him with better language that he found more acceptable...nada. At least the 30% would have been some relief...you guys are always the ones to come on here and talk about how we need to take baby steps but when Obama continuously refuses to take any that might upset the establishment...you're quick to rationalize it away (just like the rationalizations of why he wouldn't sign the letter from Congress to Bush asking him to get Congressional approval before taking action in Iran). And suuuure, it has nothing at all to do with the rather large portion of his contributors coming from the financial sector....of course not! Just another Bama coinkydink!
Actually, I'm not so sure it would have been any relief at all, as I don't think credit card rates tend to hit 30%. So adding the cap is sort of like Nader saying he wouldn't run for President if Edwards got the nomination - long after it was apparent that Edwards wouldn't.
As for rationalizations, you seem to be doing a bit yourself; at least in this post.
No, actually they're far, far worse than ours. And direct talks between the White House and Tehran is exactly like progress - considering it's never been done before.
Oh really? What countries have they invaded and destroyed recently?
Honestly? I don't see any of the candidates - realistic chance of winning or otherwise - ordering an invasion of Iran. On top of that, though, Obama's the only one suggesting direct diplomacy. So, yeah, I'm voting for that guy.
Looks like the Bush admin is willing to listen, even. And Obama has said the same as him that Iran must halt their nuclear program. So how is he so promising to you? That he will make a show of it and talk to them face to face but still threaten them with attacks if they don't comply? When are we going to comply and follow the rules ourselves?
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
That's what I've been screaming! It's the exact same things the Bush admin has been saying. They always say something is the 'last resort' and how they wish to solve these things without military involvement....riiiight. I guess if it's a Democrat it is believable but if it's a Republican, it's warmongering. Go figure.
The same Bush administration that said Obama was naive for wanting to have direct talks with Iran?
That's more than a baby step. Hell, that's a 12 year old's gait right there.
That's what I've been screaming! It's the exact same things the Bush admin has been saying. They always say something is the 'last resort' and how they wish to solve these things without military involvement....riiiight. I guess if it's a Democrat it is believable but if it's a Republican, it's warmongering. Go figure.
How is McCain going to handle Iran if he refuses to even deal with them diplomatically?
It's one thing to jump to conclusions and claim Obama is lying when he says he will seek diplomacy with Iran, but there is no "evidence" that he's lying. It's just your own distrust of the man and his policies. Which is why you aren't voting for him. I get all that.
With McCain there is no conclusions to jump to because he will not speak diplomatically with Iran. So I don't see how he will get this issue resolved without military action.
With Obama I still have hope. And if everyone is right on this board and he turns out to be a liar then he will lose in 2012 like Bush Sr. lost in 1992 after his no new taxes line was run into the ground by democrats.
But I don't see that happening since he has not wavered on his stance on Iran despite all of his criticisms from the right.
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!!!)
Actually, I'm not so sure it would have been any relief at all, as I don't think credit card rates tend to hit 30%. So adding the cap is sort of like Nader saying he wouldn't run for President if Edwards got the nomination - long after it was apparent that Edwards wouldn't.
As for rationalizations, you seem to be doing a bit yourself; at least in this post.
Interest on outstanding balances
Interest charges vary widely from card issuer to card issuer. Often, there are "teaser" rates in effect for initial periods of time (as low as zero percent for, say, six months), whereas regular rates can be as high as 40 percent. In the U.S. there is no federal limit on the interest or late fees credit card issuers can charge; the interest rates are set by the states, with some states such as South Dakota, having no ceiling on interest rates and fees, inviting some banks to establish their credit card operations there. Other states, for example Delaware, have very weak usury laws. The teaser rate no longer applies if the customer doesn't pay his bills on time, and is replaced by a penalty interest rate (for example, 24.99%) that applies retroactively. So customers should be wary of these offers, that usually contain some traps.
How is McCain going to handle Iran if he refuses to even deal with them diplomatically?
It's one thing to jump to conclusions and claim Obama is lying when he says he will seek diplomacy with Iran, but there is no "evidence" that he's lying. It's just your own distrust of the man and his policies. Which is why you aren't voting for him. I get all that.
With McCain there is no conclusions to jump to because he will not speak diplomatically with Iran. So I don't see how he will get this issue resolved without military action.
With Obama I still have hope. And if everyone is right on this board and he turns out to be a liar then he will lose in 2012 like Bush Sr. lost in 1992 after his no new taxes line was run into the ground by democrats.
But I don't see that happening since he has not wavered on his stance on Iran despite all of his criticisms from the right.
So these talks = no military action in your mind despite the strong language Obama has used when addressing the matter of Iran being a 'grave threat to our security'? And how are they a grave threat to our security, again?
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
Oh really? What countries have they invaded and destroyed recently?
Well, how recent is recent? And for per capita human rights abuses, there's no comparison. Last I heard, we don't have public executions at all, let alone for simply being a homosexual. They're theocrats. They are not nice people.
Looks like the Bush admin is willing to listen, even. And Obama has said the same as him that Iran must halt their nuclear program. So how is he so promising to you? That he will make a show of it and talk to them face to face but still threaten them with attacks if they don't comply? When are we going to comply and follow the rules ourselves?
I heard on the news yesterday that Bush was laying the groundwork for a diplomatic mission, if that's what you're referring to. I'm certainly not going to blame Obama for being ahead of the curve.
Most of the world thinks Iran should halt their nuclear program, so, well there you go. I thought you were opposed to nuclear power, anyway.
The same Bush administration that said Obama was naive for wanting to have direct talks with Iran?
That's more than a baby step. Hell, that's a 12 year old's gait right there.
Bush with his wonderful legacy and tons of support and approval couldn't have done Obama a bigger favor than to criticize him. It's hard to understand how anyone would have thought that would be a good idea...it makes no logical sense for the republicans. I swear, them picking John McCain and then things like this...it's like they are purposely throwing the election. It just makes no sense.
Still the point stands...both are willing to talk now.
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
Well, how recent is recent? And for per capita human rights abuses, there's no comparison. Last I heard, we don't have public executions at all, let alone for simply being a homosexual. They're theocrats. They are not nice people.
I have a hard time believing they have us beat on human rights abuses. We are not nice people, either but our dirty work is far from the public eye, done in remote locations all over the place. And we don't even count the civilians we massacre in the countries we've leveled. But we are the good guys!
I heard on the news yesterday that Bush was laying the groundwork for a diplomatic mission, if that's what you're referring to. I'm certainly not going to blame Obama for being ahead of the curve.
Most of the world thinks Iran should halt their nuclear program, so, well there you go. I thought you were opposed to nuclear power, anyway.
I sure am and that includes ours! (I know we have to use it for energy now but should be waaay more focused on alternatives and that is another discussion) Does the rest of the world think it's okay for us and Israel to have a nuclear program? Iran must not have gotten the secret password!
And I am just as against attacking Iran over this as I am against nuclear weapons, themselves. Does the rest of the world think we should threaten Iran and then attack them if they don't comply?
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
Interest charges vary widely from card issuer to card issuer. Often, there are "teaser" rates in effect for initial periods of time (as low as zero percent for, say, six months), whereas regular rates can be as high as 40 percent. In the U.S. there is no federal limit on the interest or late fees credit card issuers can charge; the interest rates are set by the states, with some states such as South Dakota, having no ceiling on interest rates and fees, inviting some banks to establish their credit card operations there. Other states, for example Delaware, have very weak usury laws. The teaser rate no longer applies if the customer doesn't pay his bills on time, and is replaced by a penalty interest rate (for example, 24.99%) that applies retroactively. So customers should be wary of these offers, that usually contain some traps.
I'm not rationalizing anything here. I think some relief would have been better than nothing and a good start towards a huge problem.
The rationalizing bit was about your take on Obama's motives, not the cap itself. And I said "tend" to hit 30%. They don't tend to hit 30%. I had a 25% one once - mainly because I didn't pay it for a couple months. Now that it's paid off, I won't touch it. Smart move on my part.
The rationalizing bit was about your take on Obama's motives, not the cap itself. And I said "tend" to hit 30%. They don't tend to hit 30%. I had a 25% one once - mainly because I didn't pay it for a couple months. Now that it's paid off, I won't touch it. Smart move on my part.
Well, he didn't offer up any alternative route on this pressing issue that he claims to be so concerned with. And it's not like he is going to come out and say those were his motives if indeed they were and I am right. I just find it a bit hard to swallow is all. You know, like how Bush wouldn't say the war was for oil yet we're not seeing any other benefits coming out of this mess. I'm not saying this analogy is even close to the same level or even close but I AM saying the money trails are more telling of the truth than these politicians mouths.
And those people who happen to not make such smart moves like you do will continue to be raped over it. Oh well, suckers...hit a bind or make mistakes and screw you, no one cares.
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 have a hard time believing they have us beat on human rights abuses. We are not nice people, either but our dirty work is far from the public eye, done in remote locations all over the place. And we don't even count the civilians we massacre in the countries we've leveled. But we are the good guys!
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said we were "the good guys" as I don't tend to look at things in black and white like that. But I do know that we have a more open and progressive government than Iran - and I have a hard time believing you think otherwise.
I sure am and that includes ours! (I know we have to use it for energy now but should be waaay more focused on alternatives and that is another discussion) Does the rest of the world think it's okay for us and Israel to have a nuclear program? Iran must not have gotten the secret password!
And I am just as against attacking Iran over this as I am against nuclear weapons, themselves. Does the rest of the world think we should threaten Iran and then attack them if they don't comply?
The rest of the world thinks that it would be bad if Iran acquired nuclear weapons. Beyond that, it probably depends on who you're talking about.
My guess it that, like Obama, the rest of the world would rather avoid a fight; but aren't afraid of a little tough talk.
i love how the nader supporters... aka abook... jump into a thread about his speech about self responsibility to the NAACP and try and turn it into a discussion about Iran and how they think Obama is a war monger that cant wait to nuke iran :rolleyes:
some folks seem to have a 1 track mind with blinders on
The only difference I see is with him saying he will talk to Iran. I haven't even looked at McCain's position on this but am assuming the worst which is that he won't talk with them at all.
If this was the end of it then you'd have a point. But Obama is taking the same stance as McCain in regards to taking action against Iran if they don't comply with our demands and he has used threatening language just the same as McCain...and has no qualms with attacking Iran, he demonizes even further on the campaign trail picking right up where Bush left off. It's all part of a build up to war! What else does he want to expand the military by 90,000 troops for? He's supposed to be bringing the ones in Iraq home, correct? Him saying he will talk with Iran is just a throw to the left to make him appear different than the republicans. Everything else he has said on the matter echoes their rhetoric. How well do you think these talks of his are going to play out when he is calling them a radical theocracy who is a grave danger to our security before he has even sat down with them to hear their side? Would you be eager and willing to comply with a person who 'is willing to talk with you' but when in front of large crowds kept telling everyone how you were the enemy and a great threat to them? That willingness to talk comes off as a show, to me. Seems like he already has his mind made up.
I strongly disagree it's a build-up to war with Iran. His rhetoric would be much different, and more belligerent. I mean, he had the perfect occasion with long-range missile a few days ago and he did not raise to the bait.
In international politics, there is a lot of posturing and grand speeches according to whatever audience you're in front of - from both sides of the fence, including Iran too. Bear in mind the radical theocracy is not a monolithic government either: there is the Republican Guard on one side, the Mullahs, and the more reformist religious fringes. There are debates going on in there too. Not to mention Ahmadinejad is unpopular due to rising economic difficulties, etc.
War can never be taken out of the options available, especially with the other opponents go on in public about annihilating Israel, etc etc and in an election year where your position is questioned as commander-in-chief.
i love how the nader supporters... aka abook... jump into a thread about his speech about self responsibility to the NAACP and try and turn it into a discussion about Iran and how they think Obama is a war monger that cant wait to nuke iran :rolleyes:
some folks seem to have a 1 track mind with blinders on
If you take the time to read back, it was Its Evolution Baby who brought up Iran.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
No, actually they're far, far worse than ours. And direct talks between the White House and Tehran is exactly like progress - considering it's never been done before.
Honestly? I don't see any of the candidates - realistic chance of winning or otherwise - ordering an invasion of Iran. On top of that, though, Obama's the only one suggesting direct diplomacy. So, yeah, I'm voting for that guy.
Let's not paint all Iranian leaders with the same brush though.
Comments
Obama has been consistant on all the major issues, for example, the economy, war on terror, the environment and even issues concerning the poor and minorities.
Exactly. And that's why I will not vote for him.
Gibson Amphitheatre (Los Angeles): 10/7/09
The only difference I see is with him saying he will talk to Iran. I haven't even looked at McCain's position on this but am assuming the worst which is that he won't talk with them at all.
If this was the end of it then you'd have a point. But Obama is taking the same stance as McCain in regards to taking action against Iran if they don't comply with our demands and he has used threatening language just the same as McCain...and has no qualms with attacking Iran, he demonizes even further on the campaign trail picking right up where Bush left off. It's all part of a build up to war! What else does he want to expand the military by 90,000 troops for? He's supposed to be bringing the ones in Iraq home, correct? Him saying he will talk with Iran is just a throw to the left to make him appear different than the republicans. Everything else he has said on the matter echoes their rhetoric. How well do you think these talks of his are going to play out when he is calling them a radical theocracy who is a grave danger to our security before he has even sat down with them to hear their side? Would you be eager and willing to comply with a person who 'is willing to talk with you' but when in front of large crowds kept telling everyone how you were the enemy and a great threat to them? That willingness to talk comes off as a show, to me. Seems like he already has his mind made up.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Right. And I'm sure it has nothing to do with this:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
He voted No on a bad bill, and No on a weak attempt at making a bad bill seem better. That's O.K. with me.
Seriously, Obama won't be pre-emptively invading Iran.
So, you're saying that their leaders are as sorry as ours so we should continue to perpetuate this cycle by voting for a guy who will keep playing this same old, tired game? Sounds like progress to me!
And what makes you so sure he won't attack Iran?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
What's absolutely hilarious to me is that the Bush admin ALSO said that military action is a "last resort"...
just cause Obama said he'll open diplomatic talks with Iran (while pushing for tougher sanctions at the same time), his supporters ignore everything else...
oh, and: http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=294841
Yes, I know you are OK with it. Some of us however have concerns about why not? I mean 30% is better than nothing which is exactly what he proposed in place of his nay vote against it....no better number offered up or an amendment from him with better language that he found more acceptable...nada. At least the 30% would have been some relief...you guys are always the ones to come on here and talk about how we need to take baby steps but when Obama continuously refuses to take any that might upset the establishment...you're quick to rationalize it away (just like the rationalizations of why he wouldn't sign the letter from Congress to Bush asking him to get Congressional approval before taking action in Iran). And suuuure, it has nothing at all to do with the rather large portion of his contributors coming from the financial sector....of course not! Just another Bama coinkydink!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Honestly? I don't see any of the candidates - realistic chance of winning or otherwise - ordering an invasion of Iran. On top of that, though, Obama's the only one suggesting direct diplomacy. So, yeah, I'm voting for that guy.
That's what I've been screaming! It's the exact same things the Bush admin has been saying. They always say something is the 'last resort' and how they wish to solve these things without military involvement....riiiight. I guess if it's a Democrat it is believable but if it's a Republican, it's warmongering. Go figure.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
As for rationalizations, you seem to be doing a bit yourself; at least in this post.
Oh really? What countries have they invaded and destroyed recently?
Looks like the Bush admin is willing to listen, even. And Obama has said the same as him that Iran must halt their nuclear program. So how is he so promising to you? That he will make a show of it and talk to them face to face but still threaten them with attacks if they don't comply? When are we going to comply and follow the rules ourselves?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That's more than a baby step. Hell, that's a 12 year old's gait right there.
How is McCain going to handle Iran if he refuses to even deal with them diplomatically?
It's one thing to jump to conclusions and claim Obama is lying when he says he will seek diplomacy with Iran, but there is no "evidence" that he's lying. It's just your own distrust of the man and his policies. Which is why you aren't voting for him. I get all that.
With McCain there is no conclusions to jump to because he will not speak diplomatically with Iran. So I don't see how he will get this issue resolved without military action.
With Obama I still have hope. And if everyone is right on this board and he turns out to be a liar then he will lose in 2012 like Bush Sr. lost in 1992 after his no new taxes line was run into the ground by democrats.
But I don't see that happening since he has not wavered on his stance on Iran despite all of his criticisms from the right.
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!!!)
Interest on outstanding balances
Interest charges vary widely from card issuer to card issuer. Often, there are "teaser" rates in effect for initial periods of time (as low as zero percent for, say, six months), whereas regular rates can be as high as 40 percent. In the U.S. there is no federal limit on the interest or late fees credit card issuers can charge; the interest rates are set by the states, with some states such as South Dakota, having no ceiling on interest rates and fees, inviting some banks to establish their credit card operations there. Other states, for example Delaware, have very weak usury laws. The teaser rate no longer applies if the customer doesn't pay his bills on time, and is replaced by a penalty interest rate (for example, 24.99%) that applies retroactively. So customers should be wary of these offers, that usually contain some traps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card#Interest_charges
I'm not rationalizing anything here. I think some relief would have been better than nothing and a good start towards a huge problem.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So these talks = no military action in your mind despite the strong language Obama has used when addressing the matter of Iran being a 'grave threat to our security'? And how are they a grave threat to our security, again?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Most of the world thinks Iran should halt their nuclear program, so, well there you go. I thought you were opposed to nuclear power, anyway.
Bush with his wonderful legacy and tons of support and approval couldn't have done Obama a bigger favor than to criticize him. It's hard to understand how anyone would have thought that would be a good idea...it makes no logical sense for the republicans. I swear, them picking John McCain and then things like this...it's like they are purposely throwing the election. It just makes no sense.
Still the point stands...both are willing to talk now.
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 have a hard time believing they have us beat on human rights abuses. We are not nice people, either but our dirty work is far from the public eye, done in remote locations all over the place. And we don't even count the civilians we massacre in the countries we've leveled. But we are the good guys!
But not too far from the rest of the pack...
I sure am and that includes ours! (I know we have to use it for energy now but should be waaay more focused on alternatives and that is another discussion) Does the rest of the world think it's okay for us and Israel to have a nuclear program? Iran must not have gotten the secret password!
And I am just as against attacking Iran over this as I am against nuclear weapons, themselves. Does the rest of the world think we should threaten Iran and then attack them if they don't comply?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well, he didn't offer up any alternative route on this pressing issue that he claims to be so concerned with. And it's not like he is going to come out and say those were his motives if indeed they were and I am right. I just find it a bit hard to swallow is all. You know, like how Bush wouldn't say the war was for oil yet we're not seeing any other benefits coming out of this mess. I'm not saying this analogy is even close to the same level or even close but I AM saying the money trails are more telling of the truth than these politicians mouths.
And those people who happen to not make such smart moves like you do will continue to be raped over it. Oh well, suckers...hit a bind or make mistakes and screw you, no one cares.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Far enough. Actually, pretty damn far if you ask me. Still, it's good to hear you admit he was ahead of the curve there - even if just a little.
The rest of the world thinks that it would be bad if Iran acquired nuclear weapons. Beyond that, it probably depends on who you're talking about.
My guess it that, like Obama, the rest of the world would rather avoid a fight; but aren't afraid of a little tough talk.
some folks seem to have a 1 track mind with blinders on
I strongly disagree it's a build-up to war with Iran. His rhetoric would be much different, and more belligerent. I mean, he had the perfect occasion with long-range missile a few days ago and he did not raise to the bait.
In international politics, there is a lot of posturing and grand speeches according to whatever audience you're in front of - from both sides of the fence, including Iran too. Bear in mind the radical theocracy is not a monolithic government either: there is the Republican Guard on one side, the Mullahs, and the more reformist religious fringes. There are debates going on in there too. Not to mention Ahmadinejad is unpopular due to rising economic difficulties, etc.
War can never be taken out of the options available, especially with the other opponents go on in public about annihilating Israel, etc etc and in an election year where your position is questioned as commander-in-chief.
are you abooks second account?
Let's not paint all Iranian leaders with the same brush though.
by the way, the nader hijack happens in nearly every thread she posts in... coincidence? i think not