If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2657
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7423 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2657 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | » | Last
 
  2008-12-02 07:50:12 AM
There is a Youtube clip going around with US soldiers dipping bullits in pigs blood before they take on the so called Jihadis.

Comment heard: Sending them straight to hell.

Would this cause fear in the militant muslim community or serve to gather more to their fold?
 
  2008-12-02 10:38:07 PM
It liberates them from an evil dictator, according to some.
 
  2008-12-09 06:42:41 AM
So how many people knew that Obama smokes BEFORE the election?

Don't get me wrong. I don't think it is that big of a deal that he does smoke but I can't help but wonder why the fact that he smokes was not mentioned by the media before the election.

Now that the election is over I've seen at least half a dozen stories that talk about his smoking.

For some strange reason I have a hard time thinking that if McCain was the smoker that we would not have seen all sorts of stories about his smoking.

Heck. . .

I haven't even seen a pic of Obama smoking.

Why?
 
  2008-12-09 10:40:00 AM
I learned about his smoking per the media. I was under the impression he had quit which is why I assumed the coverage about it dropped.

www.mygtv.net
 
  2008-12-09 02:04:12 PM
 
  2008-12-09 06:13:10 PM
Hmmm....

I've always considered myself a close follower of the news and I can honestly say I never saw or heard any stories about his smoking until after the election.
 
  2008-12-10 07:00:29 AM
dottedmint: Hmmm....

I've always considered myself a close follower of the news and I can honestly say I never saw or heard any stories about his smoking until after the election.


Maybe you should reconsider what you think of as "news". Perhaps broaden your information horizon. What else did you miss that might have actually been significant and had some bearing on the competence of the candidates to carry out the duties of the Office of the President?
 
  2008-12-11 12:48:18 PM
Seems, to me, like stuff about Obama's smoking was all over the place. I knew. I knew he had tried to quit before. I knew he was trying, again, to quit and using nicorette gum. *shrug* I imagine he's probably smoking now, and whatevs.

Wonder how many smoker presidents we;ve had. Probably most of them were (cigar, pipe, or ciagarette).
 
  2008-12-21 11:45:54 PM
Quiet here. I just want to say how amazed I am at Dick Cheney's ability to completely prove all the claims about him true. I wonder what he's like when he really lets himself go.
 
  2008-12-22 10:33:43 PM
I'm curious RaR what claims you are thinking of.
 
  2008-12-24 05:23:10 PM
Dick Cheney=Mr. Potter Goes to Washington

img381.imageshack.us
 
  2008-12-24 08:05:57 PM
Merry Christmas to everyone in here.
 
  2009-01-03 10:33:20 PM
There's such a political...LULL in here...

No sense trying to figure out how Obama is going to do as President...

No sense hoping for Bush to get put on trial at The Hague...

No sense. None at all. Just...waiting for something to happen.
 
  2009-01-05 07:41:33 PM
Well Whidbey I can say that personally I've kinda held off of posting comments in here. I was kinda in a 'tis the season' mood and I didn't want to stir things up.

Now that we are in a new year I'm more than ready to fire up the old keyboard and see what comes up in discussion.

Isreal?

Stimulus package?

Bailouts?

Anything else?

BTW Whidbey. Hope your holidays were good.
 
  2009-01-12 04:04:00 PM
dottedmint: Anything else?

I don't know, man. I'd like to see this administration get to work before I can criticize.

Israel? Obviously there's got to be a two-party state. There's support for it on all sides.

The problem is that Israel feels it's above the law, and the US tags along with it. As a recognized country in the UN, it has more of a responsibility to uphold this position, and it continues to ignore international law.

It also remains to be seen how a stimulus package would help this economy. Personally, I'd rather see the money put into creating good-paying jobs than money to buy stuff...

And I'm sure we agree the bailouts are disgraceful. Let the fatcats take a bath on this one. Why should the bulk of the American people have to pay for greedy business practices?
 
  2009-01-12 07:15:39 PM
There is no such thing as "international law"
 
  2009-01-12 07:42:55 PM
Libertarian Whacko: There is no such thing as "international law"

Wow. Any other myths you'd like to dispel while you're here? We already know about Santa Claus. You can skip that one.

/sarcasm
 
  2009-01-12 10:21:34 PM
I agree Whidbey that it is a bit early to criticize Obama too much but I do find it interesting that he appears to be backing off on some of his campaign promises before he even takes office.

He is now saying that he probably won't be closing Gitmo in his first 100 days in office.

And he was saying 16 months to get out of Iraq but now he is backing off of that hard number and focusing more on (I think his term was) 'responsible withdraw'. Of course we have already agreed with the Iraqis that we would pull out by 2011. Of course if things are more secure there would be no reason we could not pull out sooner.

He is apparently no longer pushing for windfall taxes for oil companies.

Isreal IF Isreal is attacked by rockets why should they not be able to retaliate?

IF Cuba was lobbing rockets into Florida would we not respond?

Stimulus package IF you want to stimulate this economy one way would be to suspend taxes for "X" number of months. Suddenly everyone would have more money in their paychecks.

It looks like we basically (*) agree when it comes to the bailouts. We'll see.

Auto industry: Let it fail.
Banks: Go under.
Homeowners: Foreclosure.
Porn Industry: Are you kidding?

What I worry about is that I've been hearing that the stimulus package might be as much as $1trilliion. This is money that we don't have. So??? an extra trillion in debt? That worries me.

I also have not heard any talk of cutting spending.

I know.... I know....

I'll give Obama a chance.

And yes. I will praise him when I think he does the right thing.

I hope I can give him alot of praise.....
 
  2009-01-12 10:29:20 PM
sorry ,I must have misread your post re: what Israel should do.
 
  2009-01-13 12:34:11 AM
dottedmint:

Isreal IF Isreal is attacked by rockets why should they not be able to retaliate?


They're supposed to be at peace. Violating that peace doesn't solve anything.

IF Cuba was lobbing rockets into Florida would we not respond?

I don't see the comparison. But I am a firm believer that we need to solve problems like that using negotiation and that force should be the absolute last option.

Israel and Hamas need to be brought to the table, and they need to air grievances without hostilities.
 
  2009-01-13 05:06:50 AM
"They're supposed to be at peace."

Sure. They are at peace until Hamas starts shooting rockets at Isreal.

"I don't see the comparison."

Really???

Hamas is launching rockets at Isreal.

How would that be different than if Cuba was launching rockets at Florida?

"But I am a firm believer that we need to solve problems like that using negotiation and that force should be the absolute last option."

How many years have we been negotiating to try to end the fighting?

It is rather hard to negotiate with people who launch rockets at you and want you dead.
 
  2009-01-13 04:40:24 PM
dottedmint: Hamas is launching rockets at Isreal.

How would that be different than if Cuba was launching rockets at Florida?


Because Cuba is not an enemy, and because neither Cuba nor the US is held to any peace treaties like Israel is with the Oslo Accord..

It's not a valid comparison in the least.

How many years have we been negotiating to try to end the fighting?

It is rather hard to negotiate with people who launch rockets at you and want you dead.


Goes for both sides. You need to understand that Israel has been just as aggressive, and that peace is not easily gotten. Aggression is much easier.
 
  2009-01-13 05:41:21 PM
Goes for both sides? Is self-defence the same as aggression? The stated goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel! Hamas is the duly elected gang of thugs launching thousands of rockets at Israeli cities but Israel is supposed to go home and quit picking on the poor Palestenian people. By the way- if I feed and shelter terrorists, allow them to set up rocket launchers on my roof, store caches of arms in my basement, etc., am I still a civilian?
 
  2009-01-13 08:24:45 PM
Libertarian Whacko: The stated goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel! Hamas is the duly elected gang of thugs launching thousands of rockets at Israeli cities but Israel is supposed to go home and quit picking on the poor Palestenian people

Nonetheless, that "stated goal" is in reaction to decades of Israeli aggression. I don't condone Hamas's actions, but I understand their motives.

Not to mention that attacks on Palestinians are carried out using weapons the US has provided to Israel or purchased with the aid we've given them over the years.

There has to be a peaceful solution. Over the past 30 years, both the US and Israel have done their part to block efforts or have used the power of Security Council veto to thwart the process.

Granted, Hamas is the stick in the mud since it still refuses to recognize Israel, but since Israel still refuses to recognize a Palestinian state....

It's at a stalemate. But it's also helpful to understand why Hamas acts the way it does. Their behavior doesn't come out of a vacuum.

Both parties basically support the idea of a two state solution.

The focus should be keeping the two political entities from further hostilities.
 
  2009-01-13 10:27:36 PM
"Because Cuba is not an enemy, and because neither Cuba nor the US is held to any peace treaties like Israel is with the Oslo Accord.."

I think it is safe to say that cuba would disagree that we are not an enemy.

When Hamas launches rockets at Isreal they violate that very treaty.

"You need to understand that Israel has been just as aggressive,"

Really????

How often has Isreal launched unprevoked attacks agaisnt Hamas and how often has Isreal launched attacks in RESPONSE to attacks by Hamas?

"Over the past 30 years, both the US and Israel have done their part to block efforts...."

What???

Bush has been calling for a Palestinian state since he took office.

Maybe you can give me an example of something Bush has done (specifically) that blocked efforts to bring peace to that region?
 
  2009-01-13 11:39:37 PM
dottedmint: I think it is safe to say that cuba would disagree that we are not an enemy

I really don't see the comparison. This isn't just a one-time attack. Hamas is a response to decades of aggressive actions.

How often has Isreal launched unprevoked attacks agaisnt Hamas and how often has Isreal launched attacks in RESPONSE to attacks by Hamas?

The point is that if you add every aggressive act up, Israel wins hands down since 1967.

Maybe you can give me an example of something Bush has done (specifically) that blocked efforts to bring peace to that region?

The US just blocked a UN cease fire just a few days ago.

The US basically lets Israel do whatever it wants. And I don't see how that's conducive to peace. This is why we need outside parties to broker this peace deal.

Oh and BTW when spelling "Israel," you put the "a" before the "e." Just thought I'd point that out...:)
 
  2009-01-14 10:53:45 PM
"The point is that if you add every aggressive act up, Israel wins hands down since 1967."

No. The point is that I would be willing to bet that you could not come up with even one example of Israel (thanks for the correction) launching an unprovoked attack against Hamas. I however could come up with all sorts of examples of Hamas launching unprovoked attacks, breaking cease fires, and targeting innocent lives.

"The US basically lets Israel do whatever it wants."

OH but Hamas is allowed to do whatever it wants?

Again....

IF Cuba lobbed some rockets on Florida we would retaliate.

Or are you saying it would be wrong for us to retaliate?
 
  2009-01-15 12:59:56 AM
whidbey: There was a UN vote on a "statement" calling for a cease-fire. Because Hamas has already said (daily) that it would not stop firing rockets into Israel, our ambassador felt that issuing a statement which would be ignored would not be productive. Israel has repeatedly said that it would be willing to agree to a cease-fire as soon as the Palestinians stop firing rockets. And, by the way, Gaza is a totally autonomous state, a Palestinian state who elected Hamas as their government.
 
  2009-01-15 01:15:59 AM
dottedmint: The point is that I would be willing to bet that you could not come up with even one example of Israel (thanks for the correction) launching an unprovoked attack against Hamas

I see this is going to be a case of where you defend Israel no matter what.

OH but Hamas is allowed to do whatever it wants?

Uh, no. But the point is that Israel has the responsibility of taking the higher ground, and it's behaving disgracefully.

IF Cuba lobbed some rockets on Florida we would retaliate.

Once again, not the same thing, terrible comparison. I'm not going to discuss it.

The point is that I would be willing to bet that you could not come up with even one example of Israel (thanks for the correction) launching an unprovoked attack against Hamas

Again, not the issue. The issue is unauthorized aggression against Palestinians, and it's been building for decades.

Why can't you understand that? Why do you view this in such black and white terms?

Libertarian Whacko: our ambassador felt that issuing a statement which would be ignored would not be productive.

I know the excuse the US gave, but it sends the message that we condone the attacks on Gaza. It was yet another irresponsible decision made by this country that favors Israel and turns a blind eye to its aggressive behavior.

And, by the way, Gaza is a totally autonomous state, a Palestinian state who elected Hamas as their government.

Even more reason Israel shouldn't be attacking it.
 
  2009-01-15 06:03:55 AM
Whidbey "I see this is going to be a case of where you defend Israel no matter what."

No. Not "no matter what" but I do think if a country is attacked that they have the right to retaliate.

Again, can you give me an example of where Israel attacked Hamas without FIRST BEING PROVOKED?

There is a huge difference between being the agressor (Hamas) and being the ones who respond to being attacked. (Israel)

"But the point is that Israel has the responsibility of taking the higher ground,"

Why?

Why do you hold Israel to a different standard than you hold Hamas?

Why does Israel need to ignore the attacks launched against it?

"The issue is unauthorized aggression against Palestinians,"

Yet you ignore the "unauthorized aggression against" Israel???

LW "And, by the way, Gaza is a totally autonomous state, a Palestinian state who elected Hamas as their government."

Whidbey "Even more reason Israel shouldn't be attacking it."

This is why my example of Cuba attacking us works. Cuba is a seperate "state" that has its own government. That government is hostile to the US.

IF Cuba lobbed a couple of rockets onto Florida, would we or would we not have the right to retaliate?

When Hamas launches unprovoked attacks against Israel would that not be an act of war?

When one government attacks another government the second government has the right to retaliate.
 
  2009-01-15 04:15:44 PM
dottedmint: There is a huge difference between being the agressor (Hamas) and being the ones who respond to being attacked. (Israel)

Clearly, you're unwilling to admit that Hamas's attacks on Israel are in response to decades of aggression against Palestinians. Once you understand that, you begin to see why they have chosen to attack Israel. I don't condone the attacks, but unlike you, I have the honesty to know why they are happening.


When one government attacks another government the second government has the right to retaliate.


More black and white thinking that doesn't address the deeper issues.
 
  2009-01-15 05:00:21 PM
Hamas has no interest in a cease fire!! Whidbey does your honesty go back to the fifties? The Arabs tried to "drive Israel into the sea" days after Israel was recognized by the UN - long before the "Palestinian People" were even called that. To say that Israel has been the aggressor from the beginning is pure sophistry.
 
  2009-01-15 05:09:28 PM
Libertarian Whacko: To say that Israel has been the aggressor from the beginning is pure sophistry.

I didn't say "from the beginning."

The Arabs tried to "drive Israel into the sea" days after Israel was recognized by the UN - long before the "Palestinian People" were even called that.

Called what? They weren't Palestinians before 1948?

And I can understand why the Arabs might have been pissed, as they felt their say in the matter was squelched, and that hundreds and thousands of Palestinians were displaced after Israel was created.

This is not a cut-and-dried scenario where Country A attacks Country B, Country B retaliates in self-defense. Neither of you appear to understand that.
 
  2009-01-15 05:12:11 PM
 
  2009-01-16 10:16:25 PM
whidbey: Libertarian Whacko: Hamas has no interest in a cease fire!!

Actually, the "cease-fire" asks everything of Israel and gives up nothing. The only thing Israel wants is for Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel.

There were no "Palestinians" in 1948. Time and Newsweek invented the "Palestinians". There were very few people living in what is now Israel and the west bank, a few herders, and fishermen.
 
  2009-01-18 09:30:06 PM
Whidbey "Clearly, you're unwilling to admit that Hamas's attacks on Israel are in response to decades of aggression against Palestinians."

As I've pointed out before, I would bet that you could not come up with even one example of where Israel attacked the Palestinians without first being attacked themselves.

So your notion that Hamas is attacking Israel in response to attacks against the Palestinians kinda misses the point.

Israel only attacks the Palestinians AFTER it has been attacked by Hamas.
 
  2009-01-20 12:13:13 PM
Great, here we go. Whining about mixing up the oath of office, therefore clearly meaning that he's not officially President, begins in 5...4...3...2...
 
  2009-01-20 03:58:02 PM
JimG521: therefore clearly meaning that he's not officially President

Dude, some of these nutjobs don't even think he's a citizen. Of course they will be trotting this out.
 
  2009-01-20 05:57:22 PM
dottedmint: Israel only attacks the Palestinians AFTER it has been attacked by Hamas.

And this discussion's going nowhere.

Suffice it to say, my Spidey sense always tingles when Israel is always above criticism.
 
  2009-01-21 08:34:10 PM
Whidbey it's not that I think Israel is above criticism. My point is that unless you can give me an example otherwise Isreal has never attacked the Palestinians without first being attacked by Hamas or some other terrorist group. In this last skirmish Hamas launched rockets at Israel and Israel responded. They responded the same way any other country would respond if someone launched rockets into their country.

Bonnie of course he is President, however IF Bush had messed up the oath we would be hearing all sorts of comments about it.

'See how stupid he is? He can't even get the oath right.'
 
  2009-01-21 11:45:24 PM
My god this who stated it first is getting boring. It is a freak'n chicken or the egg type of thing. The palistinians would not have a beef with Israel if Israel would treate them better. Israel would treat them better if the palistinians would stop with the terror attacks. The palistinans would stop the terror attacks if the Israelies would not have stollen their land. The Israelies would not have stolen their land if they had not been attacked preemptively and decided to take a buffer zone to ensure futher safety as the rights of the victors. The group of ME countries would not have attacked if Israel would not have been created by the UN. The UN would never have felt the need to support a Jewish state if it was not for WW2. OK I found it I blame Hitler.

My god there is no one without blood on their hands in this conflict. Israel should at least try to let Palistine get to a self sufficency state (let them store enough food for 2-3 years and allow construction material to pass freely) and Palistine should chill and let it happen (stop with this terror shiat and stop supporting the extremest elements in your country). This is the only way out in my opinion. The sticking point is how do we convince both sides to stick with this. And no letting the extremest element keep attacking at will and having Israel take it is not an option.
 
  2009-01-22 03:38:43 PM
dottedmint: My point is that unless you can give me an example otherwise Isreal has never attacked the Palestinians without first being attacked by Hamas or some other terrorist group.

And your willful ignorance of 50 years of Israel aggression against Palestinians disqualifies you from a serious discussion of the matter.
 
  2009-01-22 03:42:55 PM
dottedmint: IF

The common thread of all your arguments.

Funny for someone who claims to be such a realist that you constantly use hypotheticals to justify questionable actions.
 
  2009-01-22 07:38:37 PM
No Whidbey it is not a case of "50 years of Israel aggression against Palestinians". It is a case of 50 years of Israel responding to attacks against Israel.

Israel is not the aggressor in this case. Hamas and the other terrorist groups that attack Israel are the aggressors.


BTW... I found it funny that Obama re-took the Oath....
 
  2009-01-23 01:23:18 AM
dottedmint: BTW... I found it funny that Obama re-took the Oath....

Well yeah, John Roberts farked it up.
 
  2009-01-23 02:24:46 AM
dottedmint: Israel is not the aggressor in this case. Hamas and the other terrorist groups that attack Israel are the aggressors.

Believe what you want. You're certainly not being honest, given the history. You want Israel to be the good guys here that are simply defending themselves, while overlooking the terrorist-type aggression they used to accomplish that goal.

The other criticism, equally valid, is that Israel has the moral obligation to settle this peacefully since it has the most resources to do so and the actual recognized nation in the region.

And the US has done its best to thwart this process by vetoing resolutions that would have brought peace. This is obvious.

We can only hope the new administration addresses this without covering for Israel's aggression as past Presidencies have done.
 
  2009-01-23 06:48:11 PM
I like that President Obama has asked Former Senator Mitchell to go over there. I hope he can talk some sense into both sides.
 
  2009-01-26 06:51:50 AM
So the Congressional Budget Office seems to think the Obama/Dem "stimulus plan" won't do much to stimulate the economy in the near future.

Link (new window)


And from Powerline Blog.

Here are just a few of the programs and projects that have been included in the House Democrats' proposal:

· $650 million for digital TV coupons.
· $6 billion for colleges/universities - many which have billion dollar endowments.
· $166 billion in direct aid to states - many of which have failed to budget wisely.
· $50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.
· $44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters.
· $200 million for the National Mall, including grass planting.
· $400 million for "National Treasures."


Link (new window)

So why exactly is this plan a good thing????
 
  2009-01-26 11:33:19 AM
What is this PITA Political Analyzer thingy at the top of the page? I've never seen it move...until this morning.
 
  2009-01-27 03:11:29 PM
dottedmint: Here are just a few of the programs and projects that have been included in the House Democrats' proposal:

Better than spending all that money on a snipe hunt in Afghanistan and a turkey shoot in Iraq...

And yes, I'm aware of the ten trillion dollar debt this country owes. I'd rather see money spent here at home instead of tossed away in failed foreign policy.
 
Displayed 50 of 2656 comments

First | « | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report