dont try to spin it into something it's not, it is what it is, this woman is an airhead that knows nothing about politics, why would she, she governs a state with less than 700,000 people and wants to run a country with more than 303,000,000 people, what a joke!!
Imagine Palin in a Cuban Missile Crisis scenario. Palin thinks dinosaurs coexisted with humans....6,000 years ago! This is a person who is unequivocally unfit to serve as commander-in-chief: Since she believes in "the rapture", that leaders determine god's will, and that people act as instruments of god's will, she should never be allowed to govern military actions in a nuclear age; Moreover, since she states that the Iraq War is "god's task", any sensible exit is tantamount to failing god.
"Beware of the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. The leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, they will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." - Julius Caesar = CoCain/Palin
I think that the reason why many of these dangerous leaders should be dealt with directly from the very beginning is because they seek attention and attention is needed especially to show that they are being watched carefully!! We need a diplomat who is not arrogant and not short tempered.. I think we've had enough of this by now.
McCain and Palin lie about Kissinger's stand and then Katie turns around and lies about his stand the other direction. But the point is that Kissinger and Obama agree to talks with leaders in other countries like Iran, and the Republican side does not. So the American voter can decide whether they want a chance at peace or never ending war, a chance to regain respect and admiration from the rest of the world, or more fear and hatred.
My ears are clean! And what I hear Katie is putting her own little spin on things. Accurate but misleading.
Here's a quote from news anchor Megyn Kelly's interview with Kissinger:
"So, in other words, you favor negotiations at the lower level, perhaps all the way up to the Secretary of State, but you do not believe an American President should sit down without preconditions, as Barack Obama says he would like to do." Kissinger: "That is correct."
You lefties and many misguided democrats will buy, spin, or spread any lie, misrepresentation, or error as long as it seems to make your candidate look good. Then you will project your life philosophy, which seems to be to lie at all costs, onto your oponents. Apparently you think because you always lie, then everyone else must lie. So all you ever say is "he is lying ", she is lying ". Plug in your favorite names. sure there are your types on the other side too and they are no better. Grow up
It is sad that reporters of Couric's ilk get away with continually spreading half truths at best. A current example is she must have known that Kissinger also said in the same statement partially quoted in this video 'talks at the secretery of state level NOT the presidential level without preconditions'. But Couric spews her propaganda and you lefties think that observant thinking patriots are going to buy it. But only the lazy or dull minded will buy it until they see the real unspun facts.
Bush meet with Putin, and Putin is just as bad as who ever is in charge of Iran. The fact is to disarm Iran, you will need to talk to Putin, you will need to talk to Hu Jintao and Yes you will need to talk to who ever runs Iran.
Unlike the most of u, I like the fact the we will have a hands on president. I have trust that just about any where President Obama goes, he is the smartest guy in the room. In a meeting with Dinijad, he will make dinijad look small, unfortunate and silly. Nothing Lost.
Are you related to Joe Biden? You could certainly give him a run for his filibuster money.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you said. BO was trying to pull a Bill Clinton here with some misdirection.
HK clearly stated that he would support maybe a meeting of Secretaries of State, not Presidents.
JM should simply have said to BO, "You said you would meet, as President, with... without preconditions. Do you still stand by your statement?" Put BO on the spot.
our country is the model of ignorance and unoriginal thought. stop letting people tell you what/how to think. wake the fuck up. politics are meant to divide our country from realizing that the only terrorists you should be worried about is the ruling class in this country. how many terrorists have you met? before passing judgment on people that you know nothing about (only what you are told to believe) go to that country. unless you know "terrorists", kept their name out your fuckin mouth.
Moonsojung: I find so much to disagree with in your (presumably "original thought" ?) post that I just don't know where to begin ! You say "politics" are "meant" to divide our country, but aren't "politics", after all, simply a composite view of the myriad of political views of you, me, and all the other millions of Americans who wish to hold and/or express their own political views ? How many members of the U.S. "ruling class" (Whatever THAT is !) do YOU know personally ? It (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "It...") seems to me that you're trading one generalization for another, here. If Barack Obama wins this election (and I hope he doesn't ! :)), will he then be (and is he perhaps already now ?) a member of this U.S. ruling "class" ?, and I'm wondering if your general position would be to favor an "anarchy" (of "original thinkers" ? :)) over some form of comprehensive, (hopefully) fairly elected, representative government ? I agree that the terms "terrorist" (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "'terrorist'...") and "terrorist nation" are often thrown around indiscrimantly, and imprecisely, but please look at it this way, Moonsojung: If I were to travel to Iran, today, or to N. Korea, or Sudan, or had traveled to Afghanistan under the Taliban (presuming I could even "get in" to these countries, as simply an ordinary American with a passport, without "sneaking in" at major risk to my life)... and it seems to me that this IS what you're saying I should (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "should...") do, by your saying "how many terrorists have you met? before passing judgment on people that you know nothing about (only what you are told to believe) go to that country. unless you know 'terrorists', kept their name out your fuckin mouth."... but please tell me, M.: If and when I'm somehow able to GET to one or more of these places that I specified, what am I supposed to do THEN ?... Simply walk around and introduce myself to people in downtown (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "downtown...") Teheran, Pyongyang, Khartuom, etc., and say "Hi ! I'm an American, and I just got to this country, and I was interested in meeting and talking to someone like you, and asking you what you think about this country, and about its' government". OK, now, moonsojung, please tell me what you think the chances of me being able to pull THAT one off are, without, sooner or later, simply "quietly disappearing from the face of the earth, never to be heard (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "heard...") from, by any of my family and friends, ever again" ? But of course I COULD be a European, Asian, etc., national, choosing to spend time traveling around the U.S. with a backpack (and this of course HAPPENS ALL THE TIME !, without the parties in question "inexplicably disappearing"), and going up to individuals in downtown N.Y.C., or Chicago (or Wasilla, Alaska :)), etc., and saying "Hi ! I'm from Switzerland (or Cambodia, or Outer Mongolia, etc.), (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "etc],....") and I just was really hoping to get a chance to meet and talk to someone like you, to try to get a better idea of what life in this country is like, and about the opinions that different Americans might have about their government", and of course that'd be a perfectly fine thing to do, and the U.S. government "couldn't care less" about trying to stop you from doing such a thing. All I'm suggesting is that it's become all too commonplace, among (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "among...") HATE AMERICA FIRST "class" living here, to simply totally take for granted the numerous blessings and freedoms that come with living in this "model of ignorance" (as you call it) we all live in (despite, of course, our unarguable many flaws as a nation, which we'll hopefully be able to all work together to [at least somewhat]improve.). Since I do think you'd like to convince us you're an insightful person, moonsojung, and an "original thinker", your(to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "your...") statement asking "how many terrorists have you met?", that continues with "before passing judgment on people that you know nothing about..." seems hugely problematic, in that regard, for the following reason : Aren't you thereby telling me that if I, say, was an intelligent, informed American adult, living in 1941, I would've "had no right" to form an opinion about the Nazi regime in Germany, simply by virtue of the fact that (presumably) it would (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "would...") have been HIGLY unlikely that I, at the time, would've had the personal acquaintance of even just any of the ordinary, rank and file members of the German "wehrmacht" (military forces), LET ALONE have personally known (and taken the opportunity to have chatted with) Hitler, Himmler, or Goering ! Anyway, moonsojung, these are some thoughts on your post, and if you happen to read this, I'd be interested in reading any comments you might have in return. Thanks !
2 things I wish to add to my prior post; One is a correction: Where you see the word "HIGLY", I'd of course meant to have spelled it "HIGHLY", and secondly, moonsung, I'd wanted to mention to you that I'd "take a wild guess" and say that you've probably granted yourself the right to form an opinion about George W. Bush (I'd also guess it's probably "extremely negative", though that's not at issue here), and I'm wondering if you know him personally, and if not, "What gives you the right... ?" :)
McCain is actually still technically correct because he was talking at the Presidential level (but incidentaly his position does conflict with Kissingers on just about everything else)...but McCain knew that's not what Obama was talking about. He was being sneeky and completely misrepresenting what Obama was saying on purpose to make it look like Obama was "naive" or "didn't know" as was his mantra for the night.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Now, you have to wonder, is McCain simply lying, or is his memory failing. Neither of these is a quality our next president should have. OBAMA - BIDEN 08!
Miami, moriya, and tahoey: you're all 100 % WRONG on this one. Sen. McCain (who, by the way, absolutely "ate Obama's lunch !" last night, at least in the debate's for. pol. part, and we can now "leave it to the Amer. people" as to how "memory failing", "stupid", etc., John McCain is - He was totally "as sharp as a tack !" last night, and if you people wish to continue peddling the Obambot ("ageist") "old saw" about McCain's supposed "senility", then you can reap the electoral [to be continued)
(cont. from prev. post... "electoral...) "blowback" counter-reaction at the polls, in Nov., from fair-minded Amer. voters (incl. Independants, former Hill-supporting Dems, etc., as well as our NUMEROUS wonderful, clear thinking, so worthy of respect OLDER AMERICANS [who DO vote, you know, and in very large #s !, esp. in a key electoral state like Fla., and we'll let THEM react to all this Obamabot expressed contempt and bigotry towards our MOST worthy of respect seniors, ESPECIALLY (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev. post... "ESPECIALLY...") when they can "see with their own eyes, hear with their own ears, and process with their own intellects" how simply magnificently "on point", clear-headed, confident, intelligent, spontaneous, forceful,insightful, and EXPERIENCED Sen. McCain is, in direct debate vs. Barack (Is it any wonder, now, why J. Mc. was pushing for 10 T.H meetings with Obama, and Barack was running away from them ?!)... so we can now let U.S. seniors, and ALL (to be cont.)
(cont.from prev. post... "...ALL...") clear thinking, fair-minded American voters "decide for themselves !", in Nov. after seing this and future debates, and whatever other means they'll use to decide with. As to your contention, miami, moriya, and tahoey, that it was Sen. MCain who was "proved wrong" after the debate, in re the Kissinger statement, and not Sen. Obama, you're all EXACTLY 100 % WRONG, and K. Couric was ALSO EXACTLY 100 % WRONG, in her "follow-up confirmation" (to be continued)
(cont. from prev... "confirmation...") statement (to the Palin inter., I guess) because "non-Presidential" level meetings was NEVER the issue of this whole running subject, ever since Barack "stepped in it", way back early in the Dem primary, by introducing the issue of his willingness to meet the heads of Iran, N. Kor., Venez., etc. "without preconditions", and was "soundly thrashed !" by Hillary for it. Blue108 -- I just caught your post, and that leads me in to what I was (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "...what...")I want to say, here, and it's actually YOU who's trying to be "sneeky", here, Blue108, (and it's spelled "sneaky", by the way :)), in saying that Sen McCain was only being "technically" correct on this subject, last night... He was being COMPLETELY correct, in the context of what this entire discussion's ALWAYS BEEN !, ever since Sen. Obama unwittingly introduced it, way back in the early Dem primary, and "if it's any comfort to you" :), Blue, Sen. (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "...Sen.") Obama was ALSO being ENTIRELY "sneeky" in the "weasel-worded" way he attempted to introduce the subject into last night's debate (It looks certain he was prepared to do so ahead of time, knowing that the subject would inevitably come up, and be acutely embarrassing to him)... Barack "attempted to pull a fast one", last night, with his thoroughly deceptive "ruse" statement that (not an exact quote) "You know, John, actually one of your advisors, Henry (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "...Henry...") Kissinger, actually supports me on this", and I don't if Obama somehow expected to fool the entire American populace (INCLUDING Sec. Kissinger himself !), as well as "senile", "forgetful", "unable to clearly be able to discern what was actually being said", etc., Sen. McCain, last night, with his absolutely BRAZEN attempt at "verbal slight of hand", but of course J. Mc. was carefully listening to every word, and was TOTALLY on THAT one "like (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev. post... "...'like...") white on rice", immediately !, by CLEARLY and FORCEFULLY pointing out that neither he nor the American public was going to be fooled, last night, by his attempt to slyly twist the subject of that particular (running) discussion from what it'd ALWAYS been, ever since Obama himself had unwittingly introduced it, months back, in the form of Obama's willingness, if he were elected Pres. (and let's hope THAT never happens :)) to meet on the (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "on the...") PRESIDENTIAL level, without preconditions, with Ahmedenijad (sp. ?), Chavez, etc., because of the entirely unnecessary, totally counterproductive "instant credibility" that thereby immediately lends to such bastards, on the world stage... That's why Hillary "just totally chewed him up !" when Obama 1st came out with that, months ago, and correctly pegged that as a perfect example of Barack's extreme naivite on foreign policy, and McCain did exactly (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "exactly..."))exactly that, in last night's debate, by pointing out that Henry Kissinger would NEVER support Obama's original contention, about the desirability of the U.S. Pres. meeting top leaders of Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, etc., without preconditions (which H.K. totally confirmed !, in a very specific statement AFTER the debate; You can google it), and that Barack's attempt to "pull a fast one, on the Amer. public" last night, by shamelessly attempting to (to be cont.)
"twist words" in what'd always been the type of meeting, and between what parties, that had been introduced for discussion months ago, and what the import of Obama's position on this could clearly be analyzed as being, by various sides in the discussion ; But by Barack attempting to fool the American public, last night, by twisting the discussion into one involving low and mid-level reps, of the governments involved, and NOT the U.S. Pres and the various top leaders of these (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "these...) # of rogue regimes that U.S. for. policy is in extreme contention with... Well, Sen. McCain just immediately, clearly, and most forcefully CALLED HIM ON THAT, in the way of noting that Sen. Obama was so obviously attempting to engage in a rather transparent obfuscation attempt, on the subject... I can't exactly remember Sen. McCain's exact words in doing so, but to paraphrase : "That's ABSURD !, Barack, the U.S. has ALWAYS frequently engaged in (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "engaged in...") low and mid-level talks, between State Dep't. officials, from time to time, when it suits our purposes", but that that was a TOTAL IRRELEVANCY to the "completely apples and oranges" subject Obama had introduced months before (and "has been trying to weasel out of, ever since" :)), in re the desirability of a U.S. Pres. meeting, without pre-conditions, with someone like the Iranian "mini-Hitler wannabe", thereby lending that vicious, creepy (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "creepy...") little demagogue "instant credibility" on the world stage. Since, in this debate, Obama OF COURSE always actually knew that this discussion involved what had been his ORIGINAL contention, from back in the Dem primary, about the U.S. PRESIDENT meeting, without preconditions, with top leaders from the various rogue regimes, this set up what I thought was Sen McCain's SINGLE BEST MOMENT (among what I thought were MANY excellent moments last night ; I (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "night..."); I definitely thought "he won the debate" :)), which is when Sen. Obama said (and, again, I'm paraphrasing): "Well, you know, John, when we sit down across the table, with the leaders of these rogue and terrorist regimes, it doesn't mean we have to AGREE with them on everything." Sen. McCain, ENTIRELY appropriately (I believe), was absolute INCREDULOUS at that particulat comment of Obama's, saying "Well, Barack, what exactly is THAT supposed to (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "supposed to...) mean ?!... that you're sitting across from Ahmedenijad, and he says " 'We will absolutely destroy the rotting corpse of the terror state Israel', and you say 'No, I'm sorry, President Ahmedinajad, we're just unable to agree with that.'". Now THAT was simply an absolutely CLASSICALLY MAGNIFICENT debate moment !... "ONE FOR THE AGES !", as a matter of fact :), and I, a LIFETIME Democrat, who has never voted for someone of any other party, at the (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "at the...") top of the ticket, in any of the (many !) Pres. elections I've voted in, JUST CAN'T WAIT to vote for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin !, both of whom I've come to respect and admire tremendously, and I just can't recall being more enthusiastic about voting in a Pres. election, and any of you Obama supporters are most welcome to chime in with "Well, that only shows you were never really a Democrat... yaddi yaddi yadda", but "The facts are what they are, (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "are,...") and if you don't think there are HUGE #s of Dems like me (incl. former most enthusiastic Hillary backers, like I was) who've been "singularly unimpressed" (and much, MUCH worse !, in many cases) with Barack Obama, and will be absolutely THRILLED to vote for "senile" Senator John McCain, and "stupid" Governor Sarah Palin, in Nov., well... We shall see ! :). (And, oh, by the way, speaking of "stupid", I'll be MOST interested to see exactly how many of (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "many of...") you "Kool-Aid drinking" Obama supporters, even AFTER reading former Sec. of State Kissinger's POST-debate statement in regards to the relevant part of the McCain / Obama discussion, will CONTINUE to maintain that that interlude showed that Sen. McCain was "lying", was "stupid", "his mind must have been wandering", etc.. Actually, of all the Obama posters I've seen on this thread, thus far, only Blue108 had apparently taken the trouble to look up (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "look up...)) Sec. Kissinger's ENTIRELY clarifying post-debate statement on the issue, and I must add here, Blue, as I specifically pointed out to you earlier, that it was absolutely of no difficulty whatsoever to see that you attempted to use those accurate facts (you'd found) in an entirely "sneaky" ("sneeky" :) manner, to attempt to "spin" these facts, which were entirely unfavorable to Sen. Obama, in a way that could be seen as favorable to what Barack was (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "was...") STRAINING, last night, to attempt to verbally twist in such a fashion as to... I dunno... convince at least "some" of the American public (outside, of course, of those TOTALLY undiscerning Obama supporters who'll clearly just absolutely believe anything and everything that comesout of the man's mouth :)) that the original "unfortunate" position he'd encumbered himself with, when he 1st introduced it in the Dem primary, could somehow be "intellectually (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev... "intellectually...") transformed, into something that actually made sense". :). So, Blue108, "in an attempt to be positive, about all this", even though it seems clear to me that you attempted to "spin" the actual facts of the matter (that you HAD taken the trouble to locate) in a way favorable to Sen. Obama, which unfortunately "makes no sense whatsoever" in the context of what the actual "U.S. Pres. meeting with leaders of regimes antagonistic to the U.S." (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev.... "U.S....") discussion has always been... but "I've decided to lower my standards, somewhat, here" :), to offer you limited "props", for AT LEAST finding out what the actual facts WERE / ARE !, (before you went off on attempting to put your particular pro-Obama "spin" to them :)), unlike EVERY OTHER Obama supporter I've seen post on this thread, thus far, who gave every indication of being quite happy to remain COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to ANY of the actual relevant (to be cont.)
(cont. from prev... "relevant...") facts involved, before blithely setting out, in the now all too familiar "Ignorance is bliss" manner of such "totally and unthinkingly in the tank" Obama zealots, to commence with yet more of their just EMBARRASINGLY clueless discourses on how OF COURSE "whatever the video here is about" once more goes to show how "senile", "stupid", "incompetent", "crazy", "dumb", etc., that Sen. McCain (and/or Gov. Palin, as the case may (to be cont.)
"bam"
mashmaul 3 years ago
dont try to spin it into something it's not, it is what it is, this woman is an airhead that knows nothing about politics, why would she, she governs a state with less than 700,000 people and wants to run a country with more than 303,000,000 people, what a joke!!
jay8831 3 years ago 2
Barack Hussein Obama-the audacity of a bullshitting anti-american black supremacist
wcaste00 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Imagine Palin in a Cuban Missile Crisis scenario. Palin thinks dinosaurs coexisted with humans....6,000 years ago! This is a person who is unequivocally unfit to serve as commander-in-chief: Since she believes in "the rapture", that leaders determine god's will, and that people act as instruments of god's will, she should never be allowed to govern military actions in a nuclear age; Moreover, since she states that the Iraq War is "god's task", any sensible exit is tantamount to failing god.
speak4you 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Beware of the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. The leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, they will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." - Julius Caesar = CoCain/Palin
nebaioth 3 years ago
I think that the reason why many of these dangerous leaders should be dealt with directly from the very beginning is because they seek attention and attention is needed especially to show that they are being watched carefully!! We need a diplomat who is not arrogant and not short tempered.. I think we've had enough of this by now.
llVoskall 3 years ago
HA HA HA
llVoskall 3 years ago
EVERYONE! careful with your semantics
bylurhh 3 years ago
McCain and Palin lie about Kissinger's stand and then Katie turns around and lies about his stand the other direction. But the point is that Kissinger and Obama agree to talks with leaders in other countries like Iran, and the Republican side does not. So the American voter can decide whether they want a chance at peace or never ending war, a chance to regain respect and admiration from the rest of the world, or more fear and hatred.
sminersc 3 years ago
My ears are clean! And what I hear Katie is putting her own little spin on things. Accurate but misleading.
Here's a quote from news anchor Megyn Kelly's interview with Kissinger:
"So, in other words, you favor negotiations at the lower level, perhaps all the way up to the Secretary of State, but you do not believe an American President should sit down without preconditions, as Barack Obama says he would like to do." Kissinger: "That is correct."
bazana46 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Some of you need to get your ears checked, because Couric did not imply that Palin OR McCain were incorrect.
psiven 3 years ago
You lefties and many misguided democrats will buy, spin, or spread any lie, misrepresentation, or error as long as it seems to make your candidate look good. Then you will project your life philosophy, which seems to be to lie at all costs, onto your oponents. Apparently you think because you always lie, then everyone else must lie. So all you ever say is "he is lying ", she is lying ". Plug in your favorite names. sure there are your types on the other side too and they are no better. Grow up
mearthling 3 years ago
It is sad that reporters of Couric's ilk get away with continually spreading half truths at best. A current example is she must have known that Kissinger also said in the same statement partially quoted in this video 'talks at the secretery of state level NOT the presidential level without preconditions'. But Couric spews her propaganda and you lefties think that observant thinking patriots are going to buy it. But only the lazy or dull minded will buy it until they see the real unspun facts.
mearthling 3 years ago
What a TERRIBLE man is mccain
missycop133 3 years ago
Bush meet with Putin, and Putin is just as bad as who ever is in charge of Iran. The fact is to disarm Iran, you will need to talk to Putin, you will need to talk to Hu Jintao and Yes you will need to talk to who ever runs Iran.
Unlike the most of u, I like the fact the we will have a hands on president. I have trust that just about any where President Obama goes, he is the smartest guy in the room. In a meeting with Dinijad, he will make dinijad look small, unfortunate and silly. Nothing Lost.
thehku 3 years ago 2
Sweetparvardi,
Are you related to Joe Biden? You could certainly give him a run for his filibuster money.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you said. BO was trying to pull a Bill Clinton here with some misdirection.
HK clearly stated that he would support maybe a meeting of Secretaries of State, not Presidents.
JM should simply have said to BO, "You said you would meet, as President, with... without preconditions. Do you still stand by your statement?" Put BO on the spot.
MummyheadMusic 3 years ago 3
our country is the model of ignorance and unoriginal thought. stop letting people tell you what/how to think. wake the fuck up. politics are meant to divide our country from realizing that the only terrorists you should be worried about is the ruling class in this country. how many terrorists have you met? before passing judgment on people that you know nothing about (only what you are told to believe) go to that country. unless you know "terrorists", kept their name out your fuckin mouth.
moonsojung 3 years ago
Moonsojung: I find so much to disagree with in your (presumably "original thought" ?) post that I just don't know where to begin ! You say "politics" are "meant" to divide our country, but aren't "politics", after all, simply a composite view of the myriad of political views of you, me, and all the other millions of Americans who wish to hold and/or express their own political views ? How many members of the U.S. "ruling class" (Whatever THAT is !) do YOU know personally ? It (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
(cont. from prev.... "It...") seems to me that you're trading one generalization for another, here. If Barack Obama wins this election (and I hope he doesn't ! :)), will he then be (and is he perhaps already now ?) a member of this U.S. ruling "class" ?, and I'm wondering if your general position would be to favor an "anarchy" (of "original thinkers" ? :)) over some form of comprehensive, (hopefully) fairly elected, representative government ? I agree that the terms "terrorist" (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
(cont. from prev.... "'terrorist'...") and "terrorist nation" are often thrown around indiscrimantly, and imprecisely, but please look at it this way, Moonsojung: If I were to travel to Iran, today, or to N. Korea, or Sudan, or had traveled to Afghanistan under the Taliban (presuming I could even "get in" to these countries, as simply an ordinary American with a passport, without "sneaking in" at major risk to my life)... and it seems to me that this IS what you're saying I should (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
(cont. from prev.... "should...") do, by your saying "how many terrorists have you met? before passing judgment on people that you know nothing about (only what you are told to believe) go to that country. unless you know 'terrorists', kept their name out your fuckin mouth."... but please tell me, M.: If and when I'm somehow able to GET to one or more of these places that I specified, what am I supposed to do THEN ?... Simply walk around and introduce myself to people in downtown (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
(cont. from prev.... "downtown...") Teheran, Pyongyang, Khartuom, etc., and say "Hi ! I'm an American, and I just got to this country, and I was interested in meeting and talking to someone like you, and asking you what you think about this country, and about its' government". OK, now, moonsojung, please tell me what you think the chances of me being able to pull THAT one off are, without, sooner or later, simply "quietly disappearing from the face of the earth, never to be heard (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
(cont. from prev.... "heard...") from, by any of my family and friends, ever again" ? But of course I COULD be a European, Asian, etc., national, choosing to spend time traveling around the U.S. with a backpack (and this of course HAPPENS ALL THE TIME !, without the parties in question "inexplicably disappearing"), and going up to individuals in downtown N.Y.C., or Chicago (or Wasilla, Alaska :)), etc., and saying "Hi ! I'm from Switzerland (or Cambodia, or Outer Mongolia, etc.), (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
(cont. from prev.... "etc],....") and I just was really hoping to get a chance to meet and talk to someone like you, to try to get a better idea of what life in this country is like, and about the opinions that different Americans might have about their government", and of course that'd be a perfectly fine thing to do, and the U.S. government "couldn't care less" about trying to stop you from doing such a thing. All I'm suggesting is that it's become all too commonplace, among (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
(cont. from prev.... "among...") HATE AMERICA FIRST "class" living here, to simply totally take for granted the numerous blessings and freedoms that come with living in this "model of ignorance" (as you call it) we all live in (despite, of course, our unarguable many flaws as a nation, which we'll hopefully be able to all work together to [at least somewhat]improve.). Since I do think you'd like to convince us you're an insightful person, moonsojung, and an "original thinker", your(to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
(cont. from prev.... "your...") statement asking "how many terrorists have you met?", that continues with "before passing judgment on people that you know nothing about..." seems hugely problematic, in that regard, for the following reason : Aren't you thereby telling me that if I, say, was an intelligent, informed American adult, living in 1941, I would've "had no right" to form an opinion about the Nazi regime in Germany, simply by virtue of the fact that (presumably) it would (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
(cont. from prev.... "would...") have been HIGLY unlikely that I, at the time, would've had the personal acquaintance of even just any of the ordinary, rank and file members of the German "wehrmacht" (military forces), LET ALONE have personally known (and taken the opportunity to have chatted with) Hitler, Himmler, or Goering ! Anyway, moonsojung, these are some thoughts on your post, and if you happen to read this, I'd be interested in reading any comments you might have in return. Thanks !
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
2 things I wish to add to my prior post; One is a correction: Where you see the word "HIGLY", I'd of course meant to have spelled it "HIGHLY", and secondly, moonsung, I'd wanted to mention to you that I'd "take a wild guess" and say that you've probably granted yourself the right to form an opinion about George W. Bush (I'd also guess it's probably "extremely negative", though that's not at issue here), and I'm wondering if you know him personally, and if not, "What gives you the right... ?" :)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
Just another McCain Lie. His nose should grow.
donnyclinton 3 years ago
McCain is actually still technically correct because he was talking at the Presidential level (but incidentaly his position does conflict with Kissingers on just about everything else)...but McCain knew that's not what Obama was talking about. He was being sneeky and completely misrepresenting what Obama was saying on purpose to make it look like Obama was "naive" or "didn't know" as was his mantra for the night.
Blue108 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Now, you have to wonder, is McCain simply lying, or is his memory failing. Neither of these is a quality our next president should have. OBAMA - BIDEN 08!
miami383 3 years ago
Miami, moriya, and tahoey: you're all 100 % WRONG on this one. Sen. McCain (who, by the way, absolutely "ate Obama's lunch !" last night, at least in the debate's for. pol. part, and we can now "leave it to the Amer. people" as to how "memory failing", "stupid", etc., John McCain is - He was totally "as sharp as a tack !" last night, and if you people wish to continue peddling the Obambot ("ageist") "old saw" about McCain's supposed "senility", then you can reap the electoral [to be continued)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev. post... "electoral...) "blowback" counter-reaction at the polls, in Nov., from fair-minded Amer. voters (incl. Independants, former Hill-supporting Dems, etc., as well as our NUMEROUS wonderful, clear thinking, so worthy of respect OLDER AMERICANS [who DO vote, you know, and in very large #s !, esp. in a key electoral state like Fla., and we'll let THEM react to all this Obamabot expressed contempt and bigotry towards our MOST worthy of respect seniors, ESPECIALLY (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev. post... "ESPECIALLY...") when they can "see with their own eyes, hear with their own ears, and process with their own intellects" how simply magnificently "on point", clear-headed, confident, intelligent, spontaneous, forceful,insightful, and EXPERIENCED Sen. McCain is, in direct debate vs. Barack (Is it any wonder, now, why J. Mc. was pushing for 10 T.H meetings with Obama, and Barack was running away from them ?!)... so we can now let U.S. seniors, and ALL (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont.from prev. post... "...ALL...") clear thinking, fair-minded American voters "decide for themselves !", in Nov. after seing this and future debates, and whatever other means they'll use to decide with. As to your contention, miami, moriya, and tahoey, that it was Sen. MCain who was "proved wrong" after the debate, in re the Kissinger statement, and not Sen. Obama, you're all EXACTLY 100 % WRONG, and K. Couric was ALSO EXACTLY 100 % WRONG, in her "follow-up confirmation" (to be continued)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev... "confirmation...") statement (to the Palin inter., I guess) because "non-Presidential" level meetings was NEVER the issue of this whole running subject, ever since Barack "stepped in it", way back early in the Dem primary, by introducing the issue of his willingness to meet the heads of Iran, N. Kor., Venez., etc. "without preconditions", and was "soundly thrashed !" by Hillary for it. Blue108 -- I just caught your post, and that leads me in to what I was (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev.... "...what...")I want to say, here, and it's actually YOU who's trying to be "sneeky", here, Blue108, (and it's spelled "sneaky", by the way :)), in saying that Sen McCain was only being "technically" correct on this subject, last night... He was being COMPLETELY correct, in the context of what this entire discussion's ALWAYS BEEN !, ever since Sen. Obama unwittingly introduced it, way back in the early Dem primary, and "if it's any comfort to you" :), Blue, Sen. (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev.... "...Sen.") Obama was ALSO being ENTIRELY "sneeky" in the "weasel-worded" way he attempted to introduce the subject into last night's debate (It looks certain he was prepared to do so ahead of time, knowing that the subject would inevitably come up, and be acutely embarrassing to him)... Barack "attempted to pull a fast one", last night, with his thoroughly deceptive "ruse" statement that (not an exact quote) "You know, John, actually one of your advisors, Henry (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev.... "...Henry...") Kissinger, actually supports me on this", and I don't if Obama somehow expected to fool the entire American populace (INCLUDING Sec. Kissinger himself !), as well as "senile", "forgetful", "unable to clearly be able to discern what was actually being said", etc., Sen. McCain, last night, with his absolutely BRAZEN attempt at "verbal slight of hand", but of course J. Mc. was carefully listening to every word, and was TOTALLY on THAT one "like (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
in my immediately prev. post., "...I don't if Obama..." was supposed to be "I don't know if Obama..."
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 2
(cont. from prev. post... "...'like...") white on rice", immediately !, by CLEARLY and FORCEFULLY pointing out that neither he nor the American public was going to be fooled, last night, by his attempt to slyly twist the subject of that particular (running) discussion from what it'd ALWAYS been, ever since Obama himself had unwittingly introduced it, months back, in the form of Obama's willingness, if he were elected Pres. (and let's hope THAT never happens :)) to meet on the (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev.... "on the...") PRESIDENTIAL level, without preconditions, with Ahmedenijad (sp. ?), Chavez, etc., because of the entirely unnecessary, totally counterproductive "instant credibility" that thereby immediately lends to such bastards, on the world stage... That's why Hillary "just totally chewed him up !" when Obama 1st came out with that, months ago, and correctly pegged that as a perfect example of Barack's extreme naivite on foreign policy, and McCain did exactly (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev.... "exactly..."))exactly that, in last night's debate, by pointing out that Henry Kissinger would NEVER support Obama's original contention, about the desirability of the U.S. Pres. meeting top leaders of Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, etc., without preconditions (which H.K. totally confirmed !, in a very specific statement AFTER the debate; You can google it), and that Barack's attempt to "pull a fast one, on the Amer. public" last night, by shamelessly attempting to (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
"twist words" in what'd always been the type of meeting, and between what parties, that had been introduced for discussion months ago, and what the import of Obama's position on this could clearly be analyzed as being, by various sides in the discussion ; But by Barack attempting to fool the American public, last night, by twisting the discussion into one involving low and mid-level reps, of the governments involved, and NOT the U.S. Pres and the various top leaders of these (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev.... "these...) # of rogue regimes that U.S. for. policy is in extreme contention with... Well, Sen. McCain just immediately, clearly, and most forcefully CALLED HIM ON THAT, in the way of noting that Sen. Obama was so obviously attempting to engage in a rather transparent obfuscation attempt, on the subject... I can't exactly remember Sen. McCain's exact words in doing so, but to paraphrase : "That's ABSURD !, Barack, the U.S. has ALWAYS frequently engaged in (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev.... "engaged in...") low and mid-level talks, between State Dep't. officials, from time to time, when it suits our purposes", but that that was a TOTAL IRRELEVANCY to the "completely apples and oranges" subject Obama had introduced months before (and "has been trying to weasel out of, ever since" :)), in re the desirability of a U.S. Pres. meeting, without pre-conditions, with someone like the Iranian "mini-Hitler wannabe", thereby lending that vicious, creepy (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev.... "creepy...") little demagogue "instant credibility" on the world stage. Since, in this debate, Obama OF COURSE always actually knew that this discussion involved what had been his ORIGINAL contention, from back in the Dem primary, about the U.S. PRESIDENT meeting, without preconditions, with top leaders from the various rogue regimes, this set up what I thought was Sen McCain's SINGLE BEST MOMENT (among what I thought were MANY excellent moments last night ; I (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev.... "night..."); I definitely thought "he won the debate" :)), which is when Sen. Obama said (and, again, I'm paraphrasing): "Well, you know, John, when we sit down across the table, with the leaders of these rogue and terrorist regimes, it doesn't mean we have to AGREE with them on everything." Sen. McCain, ENTIRELY appropriately (I believe), was absolute INCREDULOUS at that particulat comment of Obama's, saying "Well, Barack, what exactly is THAT supposed to (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev.... "supposed to...) mean ?!... that you're sitting across from Ahmedenijad, and he says " 'We will absolutely destroy the rotting corpse of the terror state Israel', and you say 'No, I'm sorry, President Ahmedinajad, we're just unable to agree with that.'". Now THAT was simply an absolutely CLASSICALLY MAGNIFICENT debate moment !... "ONE FOR THE AGES !", as a matter of fact :), and I, a LIFETIME Democrat, who has never voted for someone of any other party, at the (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev.... "at the...") top of the ticket, in any of the (many !) Pres. elections I've voted in, JUST CAN'T WAIT to vote for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin !, both of whom I've come to respect and admire tremendously, and I just can't recall being more enthusiastic about voting in a Pres. election, and any of you Obama supporters are most welcome to chime in with "Well, that only shows you were never really a Democrat... yaddi yaddi yadda", but "The facts are what they are, (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev.... "are,...") and if you don't think there are HUGE #s of Dems like me (incl. former most enthusiastic Hillary backers, like I was) who've been "singularly unimpressed" (and much, MUCH worse !, in many cases) with Barack Obama, and will be absolutely THRILLED to vote for "senile" Senator John McCain, and "stupid" Governor Sarah Palin, in Nov., well... We shall see ! :). (And, oh, by the way, speaking of "stupid", I'll be MOST interested to see exactly how many of (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 4
(cont. from prev.... "many of...") you "Kool-Aid drinking" Obama supporters, even AFTER reading former Sec. of State Kissinger's POST-debate statement in regards to the relevant part of the McCain / Obama discussion, will CONTINUE to maintain that that interlude showed that Sen. McCain was "lying", was "stupid", "his mind must have been wandering", etc.. Actually, of all the Obama posters I've seen on this thread, thus far, only Blue108 had apparently taken the trouble to look up (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
(cont. from prev.... "look up...)) Sec. Kissinger's ENTIRELY clarifying post-debate statement on the issue, and I must add here, Blue, as I specifically pointed out to you earlier, that it was absolutely of no difficulty whatsoever to see that you attempted to use those accurate facts (you'd found) in an entirely "sneaky" ("sneeky" :) manner, to attempt to "spin" these facts, which were entirely unfavorable to Sen. Obama, in a way that could be seen as favorable to what Barack was (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
(cont. from prev.... "was...") STRAINING, last night, to attempt to verbally twist in such a fashion as to... I dunno... convince at least "some" of the American public (outside, of course, of those TOTALLY undiscerning Obama supporters who'll clearly just absolutely believe anything and everything that comesout of the man's mouth :)) that the original "unfortunate" position he'd encumbered himself with, when he 1st introduced it in the Dem primary, could somehow be "intellectually (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
(cont. from prev... "intellectually...") transformed, into something that actually made sense". :). So, Blue108, "in an attempt to be positive, about all this", even though it seems clear to me that you attempted to "spin" the actual facts of the matter (that you HAD taken the trouble to locate) in a way favorable to Sen. Obama, which unfortunately "makes no sense whatsoever" in the context of what the actual "U.S. Pres. meeting with leaders of regimes antagonistic to the U.S." (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 5
(cont. from prev.... "U.S....") discussion has always been... but "I've decided to lower my standards, somewhat, here" :), to offer you limited "props", for AT LEAST finding out what the actual facts WERE / ARE !, (before you went off on attempting to put your particular pro-Obama "spin" to them :)), unlike EVERY OTHER Obama supporter I've seen post on this thread, thus far, who gave every indication of being quite happy to remain COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to ANY of the actual relevant (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 6
(cont. from prev... "relevant...") facts involved, before blithely setting out, in the now all too familiar "Ignorance is bliss" manner of such "totally and unthinkingly in the tank" Obama zealots, to commence with yet more of their just EMBARRASINGLY clueless discourses on how OF COURSE "whatever the video here is about" once more goes to show how "senile", "stupid", "incompetent", "crazy", "dumb", etc., that Sen. McCain (and/or Gov. Palin, as the case may (to be cont.)
sweetparvardi 3 years ago 6
heh, Mccain looks pretty stupid now, doesn't he?
moriya2k2 3 years ago
Kissinger backs direct U.S. talks with Iran "without conditions".
Thanks for clearing this up.
tahoety 3 years ago