Obama tells NAACP blacks must take responsibility

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

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!

RainDog wrote:

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.

But not too far from the rest of the pack...

RainDog wrote:

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?

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

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.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

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.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

But not too far from the rest of the pack...

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.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

my2hands

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

lgt

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

Rhinocerous Surprise

my2hands wrote:

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.

my2hands

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

If you take the time to read back, it was Its Evolution Baby who brought up Iran.

are you abooks second account?

lgt

RainDog wrote:

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.

my2hands

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

If you take the time to read back, it was Its Evolution Baby who brought up Iran.

by the way, the nader hijack happens in nearly every thread she posts in... coincidence? i think not

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Well, he didn't offer up any alternative route on this pressing issue that he claims to be so concerned with.

Did anybody? I honestly don't know.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

I'm skeptical of all politicians (hell, I'm skeptical of all people) so you're not really going to get a big argument from me there - despite the strawman argument that all Obama supporters think of him as some sort of holy messiah.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

I think that's why he voted against the bill - too much "screw you, no one cares." If he was owned by these contributors, you'd think he'd vote for it.

Rhinocerous Surprise

my2hands wrote:

are you abooks second account?

No, just pointing out that you were singling her out in the wrong. Is that a problem?

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I haven't liked him from the start for his hawkish ways. But he has said he is against the patriot act yet voted for it, against building the wall at the border yet voted for it, is against predatory lenders yet they make up a larger portion of his contributor's industries, against the war yet votes to fund it, against going to war with Iran but won't take it off the table yet he calls them a grave threat to us and is willing to preemptively strike them.

Not true. This is what made me bring up Iran.

Nice try there Rhinoceros!!!

my2hands

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

No, just pointing out that you were singling her out in the wrong. Is that a problem?

i never have a problem with irish people


i was just curious... wasnt sure if she created a ghost account. people do that you know

my2hands

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Not true. This is what made me bring up Iran.

Nice try there Rhinoceros!!!

thank you

Rhinocerous Surprise

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Not true. This is what made me bring up Iran.

Nice try there Rhinoceros!!!

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5659181&postcount=14
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5659202&postcount=15
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5659226&postcount=17

All before the post you quoted. It's nothing against you, I'm just saying it's not fair to pin this on Abook.

Rhinocerous Surprise

my2hands wrote:

i never have a problem with irish people


i was just curious... wasnt sure if she created a ghost account. people do that you know

If I was her ghost account, I wouldn't be Irish, would I?

RainDog

lgt wrote:

Let's not paint all Iranian leaders with the same brush though.

I'll admit, I fall into the "Discussion Board Generalizations Trap" as much as anybody. Still, overall, Iran has a pretty oppressive, theocratic system of government.

my2hands

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

If I was her ghost account, I wouldn't be Irish, would I?

do you like america?

Rhinocerous Surprise

my2hands wrote:

do you like america?

I loved America for the 2 weeks I spent there in March. My two favourite people in the world live in America. I can't claim to be madly in love with every aspect of the country, but who can?