Carter Blasts Israeli Oppression

[Xavier_Onassis]

Interestingly, this many years after the fall of communism, some of the Eastern European nations have yet to match the GDP they had under "communist" regimes. Parts of Russia and the former USSR struggle to reach 40% of their former standard of living.

=====================================================
Romania seems to be qite a bit worse off, and Bulgaria is not far behind. Mildova, Ukrane, Byelorus and the "stans" are all a lot worse off.

The idea that every nation will prosper under some sort of free capitalism is basically a myth. The culture and the economic system are clearly related. The best capitalism has done in a Hispanic country is Puerto Rico, which is far below Mississippi, and half of its citizens live in the States.

Spain, which is mildly Eurosocialist, has far and away gthe strongest and most equitable economy in the Hispanic world. It makes more sense therefore, for Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela and Central America to emulkate Spain than to trust their fortunes in the hands of guys like Milton Friedman.

[Amianthus]

trying to outspend the US "Star Wars" fiasco (it seems they believed this thing was actually possible, which it clearly wasn't)

If it isn't possible, the one would have to wonder why the program was continued under Clinton - it was even expanded in 1998. It continues to this day, having a series of takedowns of test enemy missles.

[Plane]

<<Two articles of faith.

<<Bush stole the election , no proof nor indication but lots of faith.>>

Vanity Fair ran an excellent investigative article which proved in detail HOW the election was stolen in Florida and how the Supreme court divided straight down partisan lines to throw the result to Bush.  The conservatives had to depart from their previous judicial philosophy of allowing the states to decide their own procedural problems in order to deprive the Florida state courts of jurisdiction so there is no question that they were acting out of pure partisanship.

When I referred to the print issue of Vanity Fair, Lanya took the trouble to find the on-line version of the article and post it here.  DESPITE the article, the lie is still published that the allegations are without proof.  The election WAS stolen, there IS proof but the Democrats do not have the balls to take on the issue.

<<Gore would have been a adequate president , no proof or indication but lots of faith.>>

No indication?  I would say his public pronouncements, his defence of the environment, his condemnation of torture, these surely are SOME indications.  How adequate, I admit we don't know.  Just as Bush gave every indication of being a lousy president, just we didn't know HOW lousy the guy was till he actually got his hands on the wheel.

I don't know Vanity fairs argument , but I do know tha tAl Gore is pretty stupid.
He would have been recounting till he came out the winner even if we were recounting till the subsequent election.
All the while squelching mail in votes from the military and claiming he wanted every vote to count.


I consider it proven past any reasonable argument that Gore was attempting to steal a legitamately lost election.

If the Supreme court split on ideological or partizen lines and found "for" President Bush , then how has it reached an even balence of ideology now that President Bush has selected two of its members?

The effort to suppress Democratic voteing is mythical , I can say this with confidence because there are plenty of lawyers competant and eager to make a case of this and there is no case to be made that they can find.

The third Recount was superfluous and if a fourth recount had given to Gore a three vote victory would a Bizzaro and stupid version of Bush not have the ability to ask for another recount ?

Bush would not have been so rediculous , he does not suffer the emotional crippleing meglomainia or stupidity that Gore demonstrated.

[sirs]

I don't know Vanity fairs argument , but I do know tha tAl Gore is pretty stupid.  He would have been recounting till he came out the winner even if we were recounting till the subsequent election.  All the while sq

Strange thing is, Practically EVERY recount taken, by a myriad of newpaper and news organizations had Bush winning.  7, repeat 7 Supreme Court Judges deemed what Florida was doing was unconstitutional, not 5.  And only 3 of those judges can be considered "conservative".  2 of them are moderates, and 4, repeat 4 judges that can be considered liberal.  Hardly a "party line vote".  Yet you still have the "Elvis Factor" at work here, claiming the election was stolen.  Sad, when you consider how so many of those folks are supposedly intelligent

[Plane]

If gore had won the fourth recount would that really void the first three counts?


I would have supposed that it would then have to be given more recounts to see who would get the best four of seven.


Like a world series.


As far as I can see ,there is no reason to expect that a recount will be more accurate than a first count.


Nixon is a much better example than Gore is , when Kennedy was elected there was good reason to think that an investigation in Illinois would find ballot stuffing , but Nixon was a better man of principals than Gore (smarter too).

[sirs]

Anyone can make a list. I wasn't rationalizing, I was pointing out were your list was clearly wrong. The two issues I mentioned specifically was where I not only disagreed, but where you clearly lack any knowledge of the history of the specific situations.   A regime with Mandela? You do realize that South Africa was under apartheid until the early 1990's, don't you?

Yes.  And putting that aside, you do realize that Mandela is a socialist who apparently was a buddy of Libya's terrorist head of state, Muhmmar Quadafi?  Or were they not?  That was the point, & not some unconscious, under the radar support of apartheid

[Xavier_Onassis]

View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)
   
   
Re: Carter Blasts Israeli Oppression
« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2006, 04:27:24 PM »
   Reply with quote
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on December 01, 2006, 03:51:33 PM
trying to outspend the US "Star Wars" fiasco (it seems they believed this thing was actually possible, which it clearly wasn't)

If it isn't possible, the one would have to wonder why the program was continued under Clinton - it was even expanded in 1998. It continues to this day, having a series of takedowns of test enemy missles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One would not have to wonder why the program was continued. It was feeding pork into the maw of various companies that compose the Military Industrial Complex.

I said that the program wasn't capable of working during the Reagan years, and it wasn't.
So far , it has worked only on carefully controlled tests, where the incoming missile was previously announced. And that is after 20 years of flinging billions of dollars at it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

you do realize that Mandela is a socialist who apparently was a buddy of Libya's terrorist head of state, Muhmmar Quadafi?  Or were they not?  That was the point, & not some unconscious, under the radar support of apartheid

======================================================
What is obvious here is that Sirs dislikes Mandela more than he ever disliked apartheid.
It is also obvious that Sirs believes that anyone who associates with Qadaffi is exactly like Qadaffi.

Does this mean that Sirs is really no different from Botha or Voerword or the other pro-apartheid South African Leaders because he opposes Mandela?

Could Sirs actually be  too dim to perceive what a hideous mess South Africa would have been had a generous, unvindictive, nonracist fellow like Mandela not been around to assist in the peaceful transition of the RSA from a racist apartheid state to a multiracial democratic one?

Compare the events in Zimbabwe with those in the RSA. What if Mandela had been another Mugabe or Mobutu?

Mandela is one of the greatest politicians on the planet. Very few Nobel laureates have come close to being so deserving as Mandela.

Mandela is to the RSA as George Washington was to the USA

[Amianthus]

One would not have to wonder why the program was continued. It was feeding pork into the maw of various companies that compose the Military Industrial Complex.

Hmmm, and Clinton had two years with a Democrat controlled House AND Senate in which to change this.

I said that the program wasn't capable of working during the Reagan years, and it wasn't.

If it's capable of working now, it was capable of working then. Or have the laws of physics changed in the meantime?

[Plane]

I suppose that it is possible that Ronald Reagan understood that the national shield effect of the Star Wars program would take decades to bring results , perhaps he wanted it anyway because the economy of the Soviet Union was its vulnerability.

[sirs]

What is obvious here is that Sirs dislikes Mandela more than he ever disliked apartheid.  It is also obvious that Sirs believes that anyone who associates with Qadaffi is exactly like Qadaffi.  Does this mean that Sirs is really no different from Botha or Voerword or the other pro-apartheid South African Leaders because he opposes Mandela?  Could Sirs actually be  too dim to perceive what a hideous mess South Africa would have been had a generous, unvindictive, nonracist fellow like Mandela not been around to assist in the peaceful transition of the RSA from a racist apartheid state to a multiracial democratic one?

And could it be any more obvious on how wrong Hoof is as to what Sirs thinks?

[Brassmask]

Nixon is a much better example than Gore is , when Kennedy was elected there was good reason to think that an investigation in Illinois would find ballot stuffing , but Nixon was a better man of principals than Gore (smarter too).

So, to clarify, you find that Nixon is a man of greater principle than Al Gore because he (Nixon) did not fight the corruption or seek the true will of the people?  That is what you're saying.  Right?

[Plane]

Nixon is a much better example than Gore is , when Kennedy was elected there was good reason to think that an investigation in Illinois would find ballot stuffing , but Nixon was a better man of principals than Gore (smarter too).

So, to clarify, you find that Nixon is a man of greater principle than Al Gore because he (Nixon) did not fight the corruption or seek the true will of the people?  That is what you're saying.  Right?

Nixon did not attempt to drag the nation into a constitutional crisis for the sake of his ego,
not that time anyway.

Gore has a worse ego problem then Nixon did , not that I am complaining mind you , as Democrats go Gore is a peach .

[_JS]

you do realize that Mandela is a socialist

So is Tony Blair, yet you seem more than able to accept his support in Iraq.

The problem is that you have no understanding of the history of South Africa. There weren't a great deal of whites who supported Mr Mandela's struggle at the time, but there were some. Of those, the socialists and communists (what few there were) were some of them because race distinctions matter little to true socialists. The Government of South Africa used the Cold War and "anti-communism" as a ploy to maintain the atrocities of apartheid as well as deploy propaganda against the ANC and Nelson Mandela.

So yes, you are supporting apartheid, you're just using ignorance as an excuse to do so. The same excuse you use with Israel.

As for Qadaffi, whilst he on one hand did use terrorism as a tactic, he also appealed to a great many African rulers for his attempts to bring unity and prevent inter-African warfare. Wars, such as the Second Congolese Civil War - the costliest war since World War II- have devestated the continent for decades and figures such as Qadaffi and Mandela have attempted to speak out against such terrible conflicts which in the aforementioned case became deadly pan-African wars.

You think Americans know terrorism? We don't know shit. Africans know terrorism, some of them live with it every damn day. Before you condemn Mandela, I suggest you learn a little more about what he lived through.

[sirs]

So is Tony Blair, yet you seem more than able to accept his support in Iraq.....So yes, you are supporting apartheid, you're just using ignorance as an excuse to do so. The same excuse you use with Israel.  As for Qadaffi, whilst he on one hand did use terrorism as a tactic, he also appealed to a great many African rulers for his attempts to bring unity and prevent inter-African warfare.

And could it be any more obvious on how wrong Js is as to what Sirs thinks?  But I do appreciate you validating the original point of how Mandela & Qadaffi were connected