OT: does obama bring change?

[KC Elbows]

KC, you're above this.

We've all seen the 'Obama voter' clips. Hell, even the liberals here are upset he never said a word about the Goverment running GM, yet he jumped right in and did this. Polls coming out now show over 65% of people are AGAINST this Government Motors plan.

As to keeping people ignorant and uninformed, which party takes money from, and passes legislation to help the NEA and Teacher's Unions?

It's a fact that Democrats, especialy ones running in inner-city areas rely almost solely on ignorance (and sadly race as well) to win Congressional seats.

I did not say other politicians do not do the same practices as the neocons. I'm saying that the neocon view has obfuscation as a necessary tool, is not against a welfare state, and they have traditionally not been concerned about government becoming too large. If one does not hold any of these views, they probably are not a neocon, because being a neocon is not entirely about a group of specific names who, if you are with them, you're in the club, but a political viewpoint.

But yes, Republicans and Democrats screw the people and get paid for it, and most of the time, their supposed political beliefs seem to be the first thing out the window.

Agreed. Now can I get back to my morning crack?

[1bad65]

I did not say other politicians do not do the same practices as the neocons.

Can you be more specific instead of using "Neocon", please. You sound like BD.

Seriously, it is confusing. Like me, I know there are differences in Democrats. You have some, like Senator Webb of VA who are more middle-of-the road. Then you have socialists like Obama and Pelosi. I make the distinction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "neocon", so it gets hard to debate. Like we can all agree that Reagan was quite different than GW Bush. And Gingrich is different than Powell. And Ron Paul is different than most elected Republicans. They don't all march to the beat of the same exact drum.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Canadians also freed the slaves, defeated Nazi Germany, and rescued 1000 puppies at Pearl Harbor...

When you have a frighteningly high moose to human ratio, you'll say whatever it takes to stay relevant...

First of all, that is a beaver-to-human ratio, not moose.
Second, outside of the PH thing, you are quite correct.

[BoulderDawg]

Not totally. Reagan did compromise on some issues, but on some issues he refused to budge...........He refused to raise income taxes.

That's a f'ing laugh!

I think you need to reread history.

[KC Elbows]

Can you be more specific instead of using "Neocon", please. You sound like BD.

Seriously, it is confusing. Like me, I know there are differences in Democrats. You have some, like Senator Webb of VA who are more middle-of-the road. Then you have socialists like Obama and Pelosi. I make the distinction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "neocon", so it gets hard to debate. Like we can all agree that Reagan was quite different than GW Bush. And Gingrich is different than Powell. And Ron Paul is different than most elected Republicans. They don't all march to the beat of the same exact drum.

I'm being specific by saying neocon. Neoconservatives, the movement begun in the democratic party, influenced by Trotskyites, which championed cold war spending, Reaganomics, and after the cold war championed increased military spending to ostensibly support Israel.

Neoconservatives are not averse to the welfare state, et al.

Reagan worked with neoconservatives, but was not one himself to my knowledge. Same with W. Cheney is one in the sense that he favors Kristol's ideas. Wolfowitz is one, and his written ideas on the topic of Iraq compared with justifications such as Iraqi complicity in 9-11 provide a good demonstration of the neoconservative principle of appropriate truths for appropriate ears.

I'm not actually trying to demonize neocons by this description, it is a fair description. Many of the neocon positions raise interesting questions. It is true that leaders must coach their words to achieve results, but does making this a desired trait set up shadow government removed from the people, and, if so, does that take away the relevance of elections to creating representative government?

The neocon positions are often quite pragmatic, but their ends over means approach ultimately erodes trust in them, so that they are often having to piggyback on the careers of more mainstream conservatives in order to achieve their goals. It also means that, if they felt they were more likely to achieve their goals in another party, they would likely do so.

[1bad65]

What about this guy who went on a shooting spree at a recruiting station?

He HATED the military. He HATED those who served. He acted out on his HATE. Will he be charged with a 'Hate Crime'?

Why not, after all he acted on HATE?

[KC Elbows]

What about this guy who went on a shooting spree at a recruiting station?

He HATED the military. He HATED those who served. He acted out on his HATE. Will he be charged with a 'Hate Crime'?

Why not, after all he acted on HATE?

I'm pretty sure a treason charge is in order, and would be stiffer than a murder or murder with hate crime charge.

[David Jamieson]

Better read your history then. Your completely wrong on this one.

nuh uh.

the hostage crisis was during the carter admin, and several were saved by a canadian diplomat who got them out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_ho...Canadian_Caper

the american military incursion failed and the algiers agreement was made ready before reagan took office.

he really had nothing to do with it besides pushing the pen as his first act. but that's kind of like setting the table and making a huge dinner and then giving dad the credit for it all because he cut the first piece of turkey.

it was one day after he took office that the rest were freed.

reagan had nothing to do with the policy that made it so.

I believe it is you who need the history lesson?

I happened to watch it all unfold on tv! lol

[BoulderDawg]

I'm pretty sure a treason charge is in order, and would be stiffer than a murder or murder with hate crime charge.

There is no treason.....shooting up an army recuiting office hardly equates to taking over the government.

Anyway we have been told by the neos for years now that we are at war with the Muslims and terrorist. Since this guy was charged with 15 acts of terrorism I'm wondering how he could be charged at all. Would not the deaths of the military personnel just be classified as casualities of war? Shoud he not be held as a POW with all of the protections of the Geneva convention?

[1bad65]

I believe it is you who need the history lesson?

I happened to watch it all unfold on tv! lol

Read the hostages accounts. They were freed because the Iranians knew Reagan wasn't a buffoon like Carter was. He meant business, and the terrorists knew it.

[BoulderDawg]

Read the hostages accounts. They were freed because the Iranians knew Reagan wasn't a buffoon like Carter was. He meant business, and the terrorists knew it.

So, Reagan was willing to start a war over these 50 hostages?

Truth is they were in the middle of Tehran. There would have been no way to rescue these hostages short of some sort of inside cooperation.

Truth is had Reagan decided to push the plunger (so to speak) he would have probably gooten them back.....of course they would have all been dead. Then count the casualties from trying to take a major city in enemy terrority...not to mention all the innocent people that would have been killed in the attack.

Reagan would have done this.......I doubt it but you never knew. Also, let's remember that the story of the shah was just coming out and it looked like there was a lot of justification for the taking of the hostages.

[1bad65]

"President Obama backed Iran's claim that it has a right to nuclear energy -- but only if the country proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.

Obama told the BBC in an interview broadcast Tuesday that he believes "Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...itical-stakes/

This is insanity. Haven't the liberals learned anything from North Korea's nuclear programs? It's the same story! Maybe even worse. After all, that maniac running Iran has publicly stated Israel has no right to exist. Yeah, he sounds like a real peacemaker.

I sure hope Israel deals with them the way they deserve to be dealt with. Because if they do achieve the ability to use nukes, it will not end pretty.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I sure hope Israel deals with them the way they deserve to be dealt with. Because if they do achieve the ability to use nukes, it will not end pretty.

I'll be honest with you, most of those that are in the military or served kind of fall into the view that, when "talks" of nuclear arms come up, it usually means "they" have them already or are too **** close to getting them.
Not saying that is THIS case, just saying...

[David Jamieson]

"President Obama backed Iran's claim that it has a right to nuclear energy -- but only if the country proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.

Obama told the BBC in an interview broadcast Tuesday that he believes "Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...itical-stakes/

This is insanity. Haven't the liberals learned anything from North Korea's nuclear programs? It's the same story! Maybe even worse. After all, that maniac running Iran has publicly stated Israel has no right to exist. Yeah, he sounds like a real peacemaker.

I sure hope Israel deals with them the way they deserve to be dealt with. Because if they do achieve the ability to use nukes, it will not end pretty.

that's crazy talk.

Persia is an ancient society and Iran is an amazing country populated with an amazing people with terrific culture.

There is no reason why Iran shouldn't have nuclear energy like anywhere else? Why should they only rely on a dying resource and teh empty promises of the USA?

you do realize that US foreign policy in Iran has been dismal for years.

their current president gets censured by the Ayatollah everytime he whips out a hell and brimstone speech.

Israel will have to deal with everyone in the region in a normalize manner eventually and they will have to do better at smoothing things over with the neighbours. After all, the ARE the new kid on the block.

war helps no one, everybody knows that and if Obama can move away from that way of thinking, that is excellent!

the real problems are the fundamentalists who definitely need to be taken out, period. Hamas and Hezzbollah are fear groups and terrorists. Iran would be a huge ally in removing them and their ideologies. The Saudis are useless in that respect politically speaking.

It is wrong to paint whole countries with a wide stroke. It is not only wrong, but it is infantile to do so.

why should only some countries benefit from nuclear power?

Canada is poised to make a lot of money selling reactors and we want to move forward with it.

[KC Elbows]

This is insanity. Haven't the liberals learned anything from North Korea's nuclear programs?

There is a bit of a difference. Iranian political processes have some legitimacy, whereas North Korean ones are merely tools of one crazy man.

Not to mention that we have probably forever lost the ability to claim that we have some right to police Iran due to the nature of what happened in the lead up to '79, which makes legitimizing our attempts to do so near impossible.