Author Topic: Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?  (Read 17644 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?
« Reply #120 on: February 09, 2008, 11:04:58 PM »
<<I still think that Condi is  intelligent, mature, sane and responsible..>>

I'll agree with you 75%: she is intelligent, mature and sane.  A responsible person quits an administration that is bent on following an illegal and immoral course.

<<Perhaps they aren't ALL "trouble" on this American political stage. >>

No, FDR was a statesman AND a wonderful human being.

<<What makes yours so intelligent, sane, mature, etc?  Just curious. >>

I think in part it's the lack of posturing.  The issues are debated on their merits.  If the debate is on pulling out of Afghanistan, none of the pro-war politicians claim that the other side wants to help the terrorists by running up the white flag of surrender.  If the issue is expanding or shrinking the health-care plan, nobody starts complaining about Soviet-style "socialized medicine."

Abortion is legal  Same-sex marriage too.  Nobody wants to make a career for himself by denying rights to the pregnant mother or to gay citizens who pay their taxes and serve their country just as straights do.

<<By the way, nice to meet you. I enjoy meeting all the folks on this board. Have known a few for a long time. I feel like a mama hen round here....fluffin' me wings.>>

Thank you.  Nice to meet you, too.

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?
« Reply #121 on: February 09, 2008, 11:18:42 PM »
<<I still think that Condi is  intelligent, mature, sane and responsible..>>

I'll agree with you 75%: she is intelligent, mature and sane.  A responsible person quits an administration that is bent on following an illegal and immoral course.

<<Perhaps they aren't ALL "trouble" on this American political stage. >>

No, FDR was a statesman AND a wonderful human being.

<<What makes yours so intelligent, sane, mature, etc?  Just curious. >>

I think in part it's the lack of posturing.  The issues are debated on their merits.  If the debate is on pulling out of Afghanistan, none of the pro-war politicians claim that the other side wants to help the terrorists by running up the white flag of surrender.  If the issue is expanding or shrinking the health-care plan, nobody starts complaining about Soviet-style "socialized medicine."

Abortion is legal  Same-sex marriage too.  Nobody wants to make a career for himself by denying rights to the pregnant mother or to gay citizens who pay their taxes and serve their country just as straights do.

<<By the way, nice to meet you. I enjoy meeting all the folks on this board. Have known a few for a long time. I feel like a mama hen round here....fluffin' me wings.>>

Thank you.  Nice to meet you, too.


"The issues are debated on their merits.  If the debate is on pulling out of Afghanistan, none of the pro-war politicians claim that the other side wants to help the terrorists by running up the white flag of surrender.  If the issue is expanding or shrinking the health-care plan, nobody starts complaining about Soviet-style "socialized medicine." "

M-tee,

That makes sense to me, it does. I do think it's awfully easy for Americans to rush to JUDGEment and complain about given issues based on prejudices and party line stands.
Too often the underlying premise of choices made, or rants offered are based on religion, communism, socialism, past biases.etc. . .   Indeed, critical issues should be discussed and debated based on their merits.

 I like what you have to say here. I haven't agreed with your twist against the American, so I haven't read anything that makes as much sense.....perhaps because I haven't read enough of your posts...or perhaps the tension in the threads here don't lend themselves to the in's and out' pros and cons of issues. I want to know more about how we can solve problems, I guess.
Debating goes so far.....and yes, this is a debate group....but I would like to read solutions for a change.



« Last Edit: February 09, 2008, 11:20:52 PM by Cynthia »

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?
« Reply #122 on: February 09, 2008, 11:27:26 PM »
"The issues are debated on their merits.  If the debate is on pulling out of Afghanistan, none of the anti-war politicians claim that the other side wants to aggrandise themselves by running up the red flag of imprialism.  If the issue is expanding or shrinking the health-care plan, nobody starts complaining about Gordon Gecko style"greed is good ." "


Maturity is in the eye of the beholder isn't it?

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion:
What airs in dress an gait wad lea'es us,
An ev'n devotion!


http://quotations.about.com/cs/poemlyrics/a/To_A_Louse.htm




Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?
« Reply #123 on: February 09, 2008, 11:58:08 PM »
<<I want to know more about how we can solve problems, I guess.>>

Well, for starters, you can solve the problem of Iraq by getting out of Iraq.  Preferably within the first 30 to sixty days of the next Democratic inauguration.  Like you solved your problem of Viet Nam by getting out of Viet Nam.  Like you solved your problem of Philippine independence by getting out of the Philippines.  The very moment you get out, the problem is solved.  Solved because it is not your problem any more.  It is Iraq's problem.

Ah, but what if there is a blood-bath after we get out and they all start killing each other?  That is their problem.  I agree, if they can't come to a mutually satisfactory resolution of how their own country should be governed, they will have a problem, a big one.  It is not in the mandate of the U.S. government or in the Constitution of the U.S.A. that the U.S. government has a mandate to solve the problems of countries thousands of miles away from its shores, and in fact the Charter of the United Nations, which was ratified by the United States and all other member UN countries, expressly forbids such interference by member states in the affairs of other member states.

But what if we get out and the terrorists take over the government there?  Then won't we have an entire country governed by people who hate our guts and want to destroy us?

Well, first of all it's extremely unlikely - - the people who are fighting for control of Iraq right now are the Sunnis and Shi'a in the south and the Kurds in the north, who really would rather break away from Iraq altogether and have their own Kurdish nation, Kurdistan.  The Sunnis were in charge before and never picked a fight with the U.S. and in fact would be crazy to do so.  The Shi'a are religiously the same as the Iranians and would probably form an alliance with the Iranians to protect one another from U.S. attack.  This would mean that Iran, with a population of about 73 million, had just acquired a neighbouring state, Iraq, as an ally, with a population of 23 million.  Neither the Shi'a nor the Sunni have previously picked fights with the U.S.A.  Their "worst" trait - - in Amerikkkan eyes - - is that they won't let themselves be dictated to by Amerikkka and they keep their oil profits to themselves instead of allowing U.S. and British firms in for large percentages of the profits.

But what if "terrorists" still manage to win the current round of fighting and take over the government, whether Michael Tee thinks it's likely or not?  Well, then you've got a terrorist government in Iraq that hates your f*****g guts.  Same as the governments of Iran and Syria.  This is just a world where not everyone is going to love the U.S.A.  Some have good reason to hate the U.S. and some have bad reason but it is their reason and the U.S. has to live with the idea of other governments not liking it, just as Israel does, just as Germany does, just as any other nation does.  You can't make other nations love you by force and it makes no sense at all to keep an army of occupation engaged until such time as the Iraqis can be forced to accept a government that will love the U.S.A.   

This is where a policy of strength has to take over from a policy of fear.  The policy of fear is the current policy, "Omigod we could all be killed if the "terrorists" take over Iraq!"  The U.S. government should be strong enough to conquer that ridiculous and paralyzing fear and to send a message to any "terrorist" government that may take over Iraq:  "We can live with the fact that you hate our guts.  We aren't very fond of you either.  But what we CAN'T and WON'T live with is another attack like Sept. 11.  Hate us all you want, and that's fine.  But one attack like Sept. 11 from you and we will wipe you off the face of the earth.  Or at the very least, invade all over again and kill all of your leaders."

But I would suggest that you solve the problem of Iraq by pulling out of Iraq now and then watching to see what emerges as the new government.  If, in the unlikely event of a new alQaeda government emerging, then deal with them as indicated above, tighten your home defences and guard against any imaginable threat.  My prediction is, when and if another attack is mounted, you won't know where it's coming from before it hits.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?
« Reply #124 on: February 10, 2008, 12:24:53 AM »
 Like you solved your problem of Philippine independence by getting out of the Philippines.

After seventy years?

I also hope that we can leave Iraq  but I do care what shape we leave it in. I don't think an Al Queda takeover is unlikely at all and i it happened our only recourse would be to go back in with somewhat less restraint this time.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?
« Reply #125 on: February 10, 2008, 02:33:17 AM »
<<I don't think an Al Queda takeover is unlikely at all >>

Why do you think it's likely when your own government claims that al Qaeda's on the run because the Sunni locals themselves turned on them?

Is your own government [ghasp] lying to you?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?
« Reply #126 on: February 10, 2008, 07:05:51 AM »
<<I don't think an Al Queda takeover is unlikely at all >>

Why do you think it's likely when your own government claims that al Qaeda's on the run because the Sunni locals themselves turned on them?

Is your own government [ghasp] lying to you?


They are on the run now , that is called succeeding.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?
« Reply #127 on: February 10, 2008, 12:43:43 PM »
<<After seventy years?>>

What's 70 years?  The British were in India a helluva lot longer than 70 years and they had to pull out, too.  The more time, blood and money you spend in trying to hold onto an asset, the greater your loss when you finally pull out.

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?
« Reply #128 on: February 10, 2008, 01:58:36 PM »
<<I want to know more about how we can solve problems, I guess.>>

Well, for starters, you can solve the problem of Iraq by getting out of Iraq.  Preferably within the first 30 to sixty days of the next Democratic inauguration.  Like you solved your problem of Viet Nam by getting out of Viet Nam.  Like you solved your problem of Philippine independence by getting out of the Philippines.  The very moment you get out, the problem is solved.  Solved because it is not your problem any more.  It is Iraq's problem.

Ah, but what if there is a blood-bath after we get out and they all start killing each other?  That is their problem.  I agree, if they can't come to a mutually satisfactory resolution of how their own country should be governed, they will have a problem, a big one.  It is not in the mandate of the U.S. government or in the Constitution of the U.S.A. that the U.S. government has a mandate to solve the problems of countries thousands of miles away from its shores, and in fact the Charter of the United Nations, which was ratified by the United States and all other member UN countries, expressly forbids such interference by member states in the affairs of other member states.

But what if we get out and the terrorists take over the government there?  Then won't we have an entire country governed by people who hate our guts and want to destroy us?

Well, first of all it's extremely unlikely - - the people who are fighting for control of Iraq right now are the Sunnis and Shi'a in the south and the Kurds in the north, who really would rather break away from Iraq altogether and have their own Kurdish nation, Kurdistan.  The Sunnis were in charge before and never picked a fight with the U.S. and in fact would be crazy to do so.  The Shi'a are religiously the same as the Iranians and would probably form an alliance with the Iranians to protect one another from U.S. attack.  This would mean that Iran, with a population of about 73 million, had just acquired a neighbouring state, Iraq, as an ally, with a population of 23 million.  Neither the Shi'a nor the Sunni have previously picked fights with the U.S.A.  Their "worst" trait - - in Amerikkkan eyes - - is that they won't let themselves be dictated to by Amerikkka and they keep their oil profits to themselves instead of allowing U.S. and British firms in for large percentages of the profits.

But what if "terrorists" still manage to win the current round of fighting and take over the government, whether Michael Tee thinks it's likely or not?  Well, then you've got a terrorist government in Iraq that hates your f*****g guts.  Same as the governments of Iran and Syria.  This is just a world where not everyone is going to love the U.S.A.  Some have good reason to hate the U.S. and some have bad reason but it is their reason and the U.S. has to live with the idea of other governments not liking it, just as Israel does, just as Germany does, just as any other nation does.  You can't make other nations love you by force and it makes no sense at all to keep an army of occupation engaged until such time as the Iraqis can be forced to accept a government that will love the U.S.A.   

This is where a policy of strength has to take over from a policy of fear.  The policy of fear is the current policy, "Omigod we could all be killed if the "terrorists" take over Iraq!"  The U.S. government should be strong enough to conquer that ridiculous and paralyzing fear and to send a message to any "terrorist" government that may take over Iraq:  "We can live with the fact that you hate our guts.  We aren't very fond of you either.  But what we CAN'T and WON'T live with is another attack like Sept. 11.  Hate us all you want, and that's fine.  But one attack like Sept. 11 from you and we will wipe you off the face of the earth.  Or at the very least, invade all over again and kill all of your leaders."

But I would suggest that you solve the problem of Iraq by pulling out of Iraq now and then watching to see what emerges as the new government.  If, in the unlikely event of a new alQaeda government emerging, then deal with them as indicated above, tighten your home defences and guard against any imaginable threat.  My prediction is, when and if another attack is mounted, you won't know where it's coming from before it hits.

Well, for one thing, your idea is simple. Why haven't the leaders of this country arrived at such a simple conclusion to this problem?
Just say no! Just pull out! ?

There has to be "more" to the story. If that 'more' is greed on the part of the USA ,then shame on us.

To play devil's advocate here for a minute, I think that the American gov. has always had some sort of altruistic intentions in the shadows of this conflict/war. We just don't hold that sort of power/hate that other folks think.  I hold out hope that this administration did, at one time, want some sort of Democracy and civility to spring forth in the region of Iraqi. I do believe that. The problem is that Bush bit off too much....and now we are choking on that bite.

It seems to me, Michael, that your posts about America tend to imply that America is some sort of bad guy.....( we are not smart yes, I'll agree when it comes to such policies etc)...but we don't always hold ill-will intentions.
 
To pull out------then to let the dust fall-----then to warn others that we aren't gunna take crap anymore------lest we bomb their butts to hell---? Really, ??
But one attack like Sept. 11 from you and we will wipe you off the face of the earth.
We can't bomb the entire nation of squat, M-tee. Were you serious about that?

A slow pull out is what is needed here. Bush got us in this mess.
The whole thing is bad.....I knew that before we even invaded. I remember back in 02/03 hearing friends talk at parties and gatherings of their outrage and concern about this idea to invade Iraq. Talk was that Bush wasn't the smartest president to come down the pike. My gut reaction to an invasion back then was NOOooo .....Too much. Overload....wait....bad horizons....bad moon arisin'...
But, to no avail....Bush was wrong! imo

But, we can't just pull out and then a few years later bomb a nation off the face.... as you have offered, Micky tee, with all due respect.

I'm afraid it's wishful thinking to think we can get out all together. Who doesn't want that, deeply in the heart....

My goodness,  we should be taking care of our own...  New Orleans for example. Katrina!

This country is in the adolescant stage of development....compared to Europe and Asia, etc.....and we are acting like brats, I agree...but we can grow out of this mess and mature, someday.

Hold some hope for us, M-Tee.... :)
« Last Edit: February 10, 2008, 02:04:25 PM by Cynthia »