Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by lee635, Jun 18, 2004.
So your defending funny money for Kerry,, Sad :nono2:
And it is sad that you don't even read the articles you post about.
I didn't say anything about Kerry, I simply asked if you scrutinize the donor list for Bush in the same manner. Why do you avoid the question?
According to sources at Election Commission, "...While certainly embarrassing, it is not unusual for a campaign to send back contributions. To date, Kerry has returned $538,531.40 to individuals while Bush has returned $1,123,983.34. Those getting their money back can be people who have given more than the $2,000 individual limit, or those who are ineligible to give, such as foreign nationals, or those with whom the candidate chooses not to affiliate himself."
I wonder who was the donors that Bush turned away? I wonder which ones he hasn't turned away? What CEOs and lobbyists and corporations are among the top donors to Bush?
Oh really? From my POV, it appears all of us prior to 9/11, including the current administration and the Clinton and Reagan/Bush administrations before them, grossly underestimated "the terrorists" and the threat they posed. And it appears the current administration(the only one that counts right now), and you, STILL underestimates them, relegating them to second place as a threat. Instead focusing on their favorite bogyman(no offense Bogy), a relatively impotent petty dictator with extremely limited power and influence outside his own borders and minimal connections to terrorism in general or 9/11 in particular.
There is no doubt there has been some resentment and hatred of the US in the Arab/Islamic world for decades. However, I don't believe it has ever been at the level we find today. And you are on the right track with Israel. The situation in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories is inextricibly linked to the resentment and hatred you cite AND the wave of terrorism we have recently experienced. However, this administration wants to divorce the issues and treat them as entirely separate problems. AND the "liberal" media reports it in exactly the same manner. Events in Israel and events in Iraq and elsewhere are reported as separate and unrelated incidents.
Until recently, in the Israel/Palestinian issue, although the Arabs considered the US was biased towards Israel(generating some of the aforementioned resentment and hatred), they viewed the US as still most able to negotiate a just settlement. That qualified faith is now largely gone. Our unqualified support for virtually every action Israel takes, and again, our refusal to recognize the connection between what happens there and international terrorism has caused them to lose all confidence the US can be trusted to push for an equitable resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Given the extremely strong influence of pro-Israel lobbies, I don't imagine John Kerry will significantly change US policy. But even the perception of a change will do much to gain back some of the trust the Bush administration has squandered. If nothing else, it will show the US people are not happy with our current course.
I guess you've forgotten the hostages in IRAN taken from our embassy under Carter admin, earlier terrorist attacks,...
I don't underestimate the terrorist ability to kill - that's relatively easy. I say some overestimate their ability deliberately get results, rally nations to their cause by planning these attacks. They are no more successful than the KKK or the Nazis were in accomplishing their program during the 20 century.
And yes, Israel is the focal point - and the US will not and should not abandon their support of Israel.
Iran? That was totally different. A better comparison would have been Beirut, but either way that was one or a couple countries against us. Now we have the whole damn area against us.
Supporting Israel has what benefit for me? Tell me how my life is better because a bunch of Palestinians are in refugee camps for 40 years?
then please tell me what part of the area was actually for us then and against us now. Syria??? uh, no. Iran?? no. Libya?? Sorry. The ones who supported us still do, the ones who were luke-warm supporters are the same mix and the ones dancing in the streets the day of 9/11 would have done in 10 years ago and are doing it today.
The Palestinians didn't need to be in refugee camps for 40 years - the arabs themselves didn't want them. So you blame the US for supporting Israel so the one race hated by so many people could live and having the audacity to survive one unprovoked war after another?
And how does supporting Israel benefit you? There isn't enough time to explain that one to you but the best reason is because its the right thing to do.
OK, let's take Iran for example.
Why were the hostages taken? Because the Shah, the brutal, repressive abolute monarch the CIA had installed in Iran in 1951(or 2?) had taken refuge in the USA and was being protected by US so he could live in the lap of luxury off the money he had stolen from the Iranian people. For some odd reason, they wanted him back to hang by his heels or some other appropriate punishment just as his secret police, the Savak, had tortured and murdered untold thousands of Iranians during the Shah's reign.
The last bit is just to show our "intelligence" agencies were just as clueless then as they are now. It seems the CIA is good at overthrowing regimes but not so good at detecting when one will be overthrown.:shrug:
And we've done the same with many of our pet despots over the years once they've been tossed out by the will of their own people. Often we'll make an effort to reinstate them.:nono:
Now I'm not saying the current Iranian regime is perfect or even reflects the will of most of its people. But I bet you'd be hard pressed to find anyone wanting to return to a regime anything like the Shah's, especially anyone old enough to have lived through it.
If we had "done the right thing" and turned the Shah over to his people to be tried for his crimes against them(we could have extracted assurances he would receive a fair trial and humane treatment, something he probably didn't deserve), we might have had some influence over the direction of the Ayatollah and the new regime. As it was, we throughly alienated them to this day.
As an analogy, what do you suppose Iraqis would think if we removed Saddam to the US, set him up in a nice cushy compound with round the clock protection in say, Miami, and allowed him to draw off whatever secret funds he may still have in Swiss or other offshore accounts? Would that make for a smooth transition? Would a new Iraqi regime be more likely to be friendly towards US?
And I am not suggesting we do. But could there be a difference between "supporting" Israel and accepting every crackpot scheme they come up with to crush the Palestinians into the dust? A WALL, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!! When's the last time that worked? Maybe it's time to reanimate Reagan, send him over to stand in front of it and say "Mr. Sharon! Tear down this wall!"
Or maybe we should reconsider funding and equipping the longest miltary occupation in modern history? Ya know, it's not lost on the Palestinians, nor other Arabs, nor the rest of the world that when a missile or shell lands on some Palestinians, it's an American missile or shell fired from an American jet, helicopter gunship or tank. And guess what? Often paid for by American taxpayers!
Oh, excuse me. Am I being anti-semitic again? Sometimes I forget that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic Jew hating. Because after all, once a people has been persecuted, they never, ever persecute another people. That's not human nature, is it?
Just for reference.
The Berlin Wall was constructed to keep innocent people from escaping.
The Israeli Wall is being constructed to stop terrorists from attacking.
The Mexican Wall - well it doesn't do any good anyway.
Unh - and their wall is for Mose's sake, not Christ's. :lol:
why not dig a 100 feet deep and 50 feet wide ditch spred from texas to western arizona and so they cant get out. If theyre caught they get sent back.
Steve: I'll supply the shovel if you wanna go start digging.
Should keep you busy for a while.
This is one of the many reasons Kerry will not win. In order to win a campaign of this magnitude, you need to have supporters who believe in something, not against something. Positive passion will always beat negative passion. Negativity over the length of time that it takes to run a campaign turns into apathy.
Well telling people everything is OK when it isn't doesn't work either. Going from a well paid job to a greater at Wal-Mart isn't a good idea, but these are the kinds of jobs people are getting these days. If Positive passion creates low paying jobs, what is the point?
Actually some of the more one sided presidential elections have been based more on a rejection of one candidate than the voters embracing another. Look no further than the '72 election to see that. I don't think that the electorate was that enraptured by Nixon but they did reject McGovern.
And the Great Wall of China was constructed to keep the Mongols out. None of them were terribly effective at what they were supposed to accomplish and in the end turned out to be counterproductive to the goals of the builders.
The hope that Israelis will be able to live in safety behind their wall, totally surrounded by the people they wish to ignore, or that it will ever lead to a lasting peace, is a false premise and an act of desperation.
And BTW, I'll chose the mythical figure I use in my expletives, thank you!
If Kerry picks John Edwards it will be even easier. I agree with you on positive passion. Kerry is being told to be quite for now but when he speaks at the DNC Convention America will see the truth. Dick Cheney really cleaned Libermans clock in the debates so I can only imagine what he will do to Edwards.
What? I watched those debates and they were respectful of each other and I thought Leiberman did just fine. Of course, it's no surprise that each liked our man in the elections, but that's ok, it's a free country.
Quite right - which is why I mentioned the Mexican Wall. Maybe it'll buy them some breathing room. I doubt it, but maybe.
And love them mythical figures - we could have a lot of fun on that road.
You must have never heard Edwards speak. You must forget that Edwards is an exceptionally talented and successful lawyer. Cheney will be far outclassed. But then, Sharpton would do that, too.