Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Expectations For The New Obama Democrat Government
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 341 (488222)
11-08-2008 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Straggler
11-08-2008 2:31 PM


Re: Important Question To Answer Here
Straggler writes:
Does not the appointment of Rahm Emanuel, Jewish and very pro-Israel as well as a fellow Chicagoite, as chief of staff not suggest to you that things are not quite as black and white with Obama as you seem to think?
I've never alleged that Obama is not intelligent. He's very intelligent and slick. He's not stupid enough to appoint a Bill Ayers type to anything. Rahm Emanuel fit's the Obama ticket nicely. He's tough, feisty, intelligent, efficient and conveniently for Obama, a Jew. This sends a deceptive message to Israel and the world that Obama will not undermine Israel by favoring their enemies.
American Jews are largely leftist and Democrat. I believe the majority of the Jews who are messianic/Zionist have migrated to Israel, though I can't confirm that. I believe some of the Communists of the last century in European nations were Jews.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 11-08-2008 2:31 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by onifre, posted 11-08-2008 8:25 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2008 5:21 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 83 by Fosdick, posted 11-09-2008 11:21 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 92 by Chiroptera, posted 11-09-2008 1:41 PM Buzsaw has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 77 of 341 (488227)
11-08-2008 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Buzsaw
11-08-2008 7:37 PM


Re: Important Question To Answer Here
This sends a deceptive message to Israel and the world that Obama will not undermine Israel by favoring their enemies.
I have to admit that I agree with you on this Buz...scary, but I do.
The only problem im having is why people keep thinking Obama brings in a new type of foreign policy, why because he's a Democrat? Even during Clinton we did not follow U.N. Security Council rules. We do as we please.
The attacks on a Sudan pharmaceutical company and Afghanistan were both in August of 98 during the Clinton admin, the December 98 attacks on Iraq also by Clinton. In the 80s when the Reagan admin bombed Lybia and supported the contras in Nicaragua it was done so with the support of a Democrat controlled Congress. In fact, in Nicaragua the Dem. controlled Congress ignored UN International Laws and instantlly stepped up illegal use of force and made a huge grant to contras aid.
The fact of the matter is that threats by the US should not be considered over just because there is a Democrat as president. The US will never listen to the Security Council. The U.N. Charter requires that the Security Council have veto power over the threat or use of force. But, you'll never see that applied to Britain because they are our attack dogs, and not to Israel because they're one of our appendages, but any other country must follow this rule, NOT us though. So, the threat of use of force by the US is no less now than with Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan, or Kennedy, or any president. It still surprises me that people believe every president elect and what they promise during their campaign.
You want the threat of US use of force gone? Force the US to allow the Security Council to veto our use of force. If not, then we will always do as we please, Democrat and Republican alike.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2008 7:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 341 (488232)
11-08-2008 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by kuresu
11-08-2008 2:48 PM


Re: Important Question To Answer Here
Kuresu writes:
So Al-Qaeda never endorsed McCain, but Obama, I guess.
The factors relative to Obama's aim to get US troops out of Iraq may be significant to Obama's policy to be implemented into the region.
1. If my conclusion that Obama is a Sunni Muslim as I understand his father and step father were is correct it may be that his interest is not the building up of a Shea nation to the extent that we are engaged in.
2. Imo, Obama intends to eventually undermine Israel as a major power in the region. So long as we are in Iraq with air bases there, committed to protect Israel, Israel will continue to be a hindrance to Obama's ambitions of a subdued Israel to effect total Muslim dominance in the region.
3. I believe Obama wants the US out of Iraq to undermine the Shea majority there and allow a Sunni return to power via civil war. I'm open to correction on this view. It's just my take on how I see it.
4. Al Qaeda is likely nervous about Obama's statements relative to Afghanistan, though likely if additional troops are sent to Afghanistan, I'm not sure how it will affect Al Qaeda which I believe is Sunni. Perhaps Obama's policy relative to additional troops in Afghanistan with him as Commander In Chief will serve to build up and entrench Sunni interests and infrastructure there with America's tax $$ as we have done for the Sheas of Iraq. Al Qaeda, like Shea Hezbolah may or may not benefit in the end.
Islamic factions can get complicated to figure out and predict.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by kuresu, posted 11-08-2008 2:48 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Huntard, posted 11-09-2008 3:26 AM Buzsaw has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 79 of 341 (488249)
11-09-2008 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Buzsaw
11-08-2008 9:00 PM


Re: Important Question To Answer Here
Buzsaw writes:
1. If my conclusion that Obama is a Sunni Muslim as I understand his father and step father were is correct it may be that his interest is not the building up of a Shea nation to the extent that we are engaged in.
Which of course is NOT correct, as has been pointed out to you.
2. Imo, Obama intends to eventually undermine Israel as a major power in the region. So long as we are in Iraq with air bases there, committed to protect Israel, Israel will continue to be a hindrance to Obama's ambitions of a subdued Israel to effect total Muslim dominance in the region.
Wow, I'm sure he commented on this fact in his speeches or one of his books. Oh wait, he didn't. Please provide evidence that he intends to do this. Take note, I said evidence, not speculation.
3. I believe Obama wants the US out of Iraq to undermine the Shea majority there and allow a Sunni return to power via civil war. I'm open to correction on this view. It's just my take on how I see it.
I guess we'll have to wait to see. Though, again, he didn't mention this at all, at any time.
4. Al Qaeda is likely nervous about Obama's statements relative to Afghanistan, though likely if additional troops are sent to Afghanistan, I'm not sure how it will affect Al Qaeda which I believe is Sunni. Perhaps Obama's policy relative to additional troops in Afghanistan with him as Commander In Chief will serve to build up and entrench Sunni interests and infrastructure there with America's tax $$ as we have done for the Sheas of Iraq. Al Qaeda, like Shea Hezbolah may or may not benefit in the end.
Of course he wants to give dollars to terrorists, didn't he say so in his acceptance speech. I believe it went something like this: "And I vow to sponsor the people who want to destroy me and my counrty, i also will..." Oh wait, again, NO HE DIDN'T. Will you stop pulling these ridiculous claims out of thin air and actually provide some evidence for them. Though I guess that's a bit too much to ask.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2008 9:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2008 11:29 AM Huntard has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 80 of 341 (488250)
11-09-2008 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Buzsaw
11-08-2008 7:37 PM


Re: Important Question To Answer Here
Buz
It seems you think everything that Obama does that you might have sympathy with is nothing more than a cunning trick used to hide his true intentions whilst thinking everything he does that you disagree with confirms your worst fears!!!!
On that line he can, by definition, never do anything right by your book.
Have you read the Wiki article on Rahm Emmanuel. He is not someone who just happens to be Jewish. His family are die hard Israelis.
Wiki writes:
His first name, Rahm, means "high" or "lofty" in Hebrew,[8] while his last name, Emanuel, means "God is with us." According to his father, his son is the namesake of Rahamim, a Lehi paramilitary group combatant who was killed.[9] Rahm’s surname was adopted by his family in 1933, after Rahm’s paternal uncle, Emanuel Auerbach, was killed in a skirmish with Arabs in Jerusalem.[10]
Emanuel's father, the Jerusalem-born Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a pediatrician and former member of the terrorist group Irgun, which operated from 1931 to 1948 during the British Mandate of Palestine, before the founding of Israel.[9]
Wiki writes:
According to The Nation, Emanuel is "seen as a strong Israel partisan.”[35] In June 2007, Emanuel condemned an outbreak of Palestinian violence in the Gaza Strip and criticized Arab countries for not applying the same kind of pressure on the Palestinians as they have on Israel. At a 2003 pro-Israel rally in Chicago, Emanuel told the marchers Israel was ready for peace but would not get there until Palestinians "turn away from the path of terror".
He is also a close political ali of Obama. Just how deceptively clever do you think Obama is? Does Rahm Emmanuel know he is just, as you assert, a pawn in the pro-Muslim game Obama is playing?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2008 7:37 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2008 11:09 AM Straggler has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 341 (488264)
11-09-2008 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Straggler
11-09-2008 5:21 AM


Re: Important Question To Answer Here
Straggler writes:
He is also a close political ali of Obama. Just how deceptively clever do you think Obama is? Does Rahm Emmanuel know he is jus, as you assert, a pawn in the pro Muslim game Obama is playing?
I appreciate the links and info regarding Rahm, Straggler.
Israel, Obama and Rahm all know that it's pretty much Israel vs the global UN body of nations so far as what happens to Israel. They also know that Israel is formidable in the region and not to be taken for granted.
Obama's pick of Rahm was a wise and clever move, right off the bat. It would be foolish for him to begin the immediate undermining of Israel. The world body needs to understand that.
Methinks Obama has connections with some of the key players in the Arab world who are aware of his long term strategy. I could be wrong, though we know he does in Kenya, for example. His global sweep was another really clever strategy for his campaign. Who knows what all was accomplished back stage during that political blitzkrieg.
Rahm, the Jew, also knows that Israel must play ball with Obama. They have no choice. Rahm is not nearly as messianic/Zionistic as were his parents and grandparents. He is likely more politically secularistic and perhaps more global ideologically than they.
That America has not been attacked by militant Islam during the Bush years is likely not so much that the Bush Administration has prevented it. It is that Jihadists have gone stealth. The strategy is to infiltrate the Pentagon and other governmental bodies. It is also to lend support to government entities which are more sympathetic to Islamic ambitions than to Israel's survival and welfare.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2008 5:21 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2008 12:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 96 by DrJones*, posted 11-09-2008 6:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 99 by fallacycop, posted 11-09-2008 7:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 82 of 341 (488265)
11-09-2008 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
11-05-2008 9:07 AM


The people in America have been living above their means, so now they have to pay the price of a liberal government. But things like homeschooling have already taken of, and that will just expand under a liberal government. So the people will just be implementing Republican policy themselves, without any Republican in office. What Obama will do is rationalize policy, just find the optimum for every policy goal. This will result in impossible standards of conduct for individuals and businesses. One can't be the perfect parent, and the perfect worker, and the perfect student, and the perfect everything. So a big increase in pressure in society, but most religionists should be able to escape from that by making their own policy such as homeschooling and many other things.
Another thing Obama does is to distract away the blame for the previous years of greed and patheticness among the people of America. It is just so that Americans have been selling their mortgages overseas, and now they bankrupt on their debts en masse, and the loss is for Europe. Obama distracts away the blame for that for Americans, because he can just blame the Republicans for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2008 9:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 83 of 341 (488266)
11-09-2008 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Buzsaw
11-08-2008 7:37 PM


Re: Important Question To Answer Here
Buz writes:
Rahm Emanuel fit's the Obama ticket nicely. He's tough, feisty, intelligent, efficient and conveniently for Obama, a Jew. This sends a deceptive message to Israel and the world that Obama will not undermine Israel by favoring their enemies.
But does it? No POTUS is going to favor Israel's enemies. And yet in one way he should. I still think a Palestinian state is the key to peace in the Middle East, and that Israel needs to give up lots and lots of kitty litter to achieve it. BHO would score big with me if he pushed Israel to accept a Palestinian state, and to share Jerusalem with all of its historically valid occupants. (Neither side of this issue is free of terrorists.)
”FTF

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2008 7:37 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2008 11:55 AM Fosdick has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 341 (488267)
11-09-2008 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Huntard
11-09-2008 3:26 AM


Re: AMERICA'S STEALTH PRESIDENT
Huntard writes:
Wow, I'm sure he commented on this fact in his speeches or one of his books. Oh wait, he didn't. Please provide evidence that he intends to do this. Take note, I said evidence, not speculation.
Comment on this in his speeches? Are you kidding? He's no dummy. Why would he do that? He purposefully stated in at least one speech that some of his ambitions would not be realized in his first term as President. His is a long term stealth plan.
OBAMA, AMERICA'S FIRST STEALTH CANDIDATE, WILL BE AMERICA'S 1ST STEALTH PRESIDENT!
Of course he wants to give dollars to terrorists, didn't he say so in his acceptance speech. I believe it went something like this: "And I vow to sponsor the people who want to destroy me and my counrty, i also will..." Oh wait, again, NO HE DIDN'T. Will you stop pulling these ridiculous claims out of thin air and actually provide some evidence for them. Though I guess that's a bit too much to ask.
Say so in his acceptance speech? Are you kidding? He's no dummy. Why would he do that? He purposefully stated in at least one speech that some of his ambitions would not be realized in his first term as President. His is a long term stealth plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Huntard, posted 11-09-2008 3:26 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by bluescat48, posted 11-09-2008 11:35 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 87 by Larni, posted 11-09-2008 11:55 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 91 by Huntard, posted 11-09-2008 1:19 PM Buzsaw has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 85 of 341 (488268)
11-09-2008 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
11-09-2008 11:29 AM


Re: AMERICA'S STEALTH PRESIDENT
Say so in his acceptance speech? Are you kidding? He's no dummy. Why would he do that? He purposefully stated in at least one speech that some of his ambitions would not be realized in his first term as President. His is a long term stealth plan.
Why would that indicate stealth? Do you find conspiracy in everything?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2008 11:29 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by kuresu, posted 11-09-2008 2:50 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 341 (488270)
11-09-2008 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Fosdick
11-09-2008 11:21 AM


Re: Important Question To Answer Here
Fosdick writes:
Neither side of this issue is free of terrorists.)
The difference is that Israel's is defensive, necessary for survival and the other is offensive and expansionist, un-necessary for survival.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Fosdick, posted 11-09-2008 11:21 AM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2008 12:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 87 of 341 (488271)
11-09-2008 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
11-09-2008 11:29 AM


Re: AMERICA'S STEALTH PRESIDENT
Buzz, do you really see the devil hiding behind every corner?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2008 11:29 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2008 1:10 PM Larni has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 88 of 341 (488272)
11-09-2008 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Buzsaw
11-09-2008 11:09 AM


Re: Important Question To Answer Here
That America has not been attacked by militant Islam during the Bush years is likely not so much that the Bush Administration has prevented it
Erm... Doesn't 9/11 count?
Obama's pick of Rahm was a wise and clever move, right off the bat. It would be foolish for him to begin the immediate undermining of Israel. The world body needs to understand that
If Obama turns out to be an anti-American anti-Israel supporter of Islamic extremism with a plot to Islamisise the world I'll donate a months wages to the next republican election campaign.
If however he turns out to be exactly as he has consistently claimed to be on these issues (i.e. not that radically different to any previous US president) then how about you vote democrat next time round?
How about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2008 11:09 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by kuresu, posted 11-09-2008 2:53 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 89 of 341 (488274)
11-09-2008 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Buzsaw
11-09-2008 11:55 AM


Re: Important Question To Answer Here
The difference is that Israel's is defensive, necessary for survival and the other is offensive and expansionist, un-necessary for survival.
Do you really think the Middle East conflict is that simple?
There are indisputably reasons for both sides to feel aggrieved and the Israelis have also indisputably attempted to expand their territories.
A US-led investigation into the causes of the Middle East conflict calls for Israel to halt the illegal expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.
The big increase in settlements over the last decade, often provocatively placed on hilltops overlooking Palestinian towns and villages, is one of the biggest causes of Palestinian hatred of Israelis.
Draft copies of the former US senator George Mitchell's report have been handed to the Israelis and Palestinians for comment before a final version is published later this month.
Mr Mitchell and his team have been deliberately even-handed in order to avoid fuelling high tensions.
Buz if you were a Palestinian would you think "Oh OK fair enough that's fine by me"? Or would you feel compelled to fight for what you believe to be your homeland?
The whole problem stems from the fact that both sides have legigimate claims and grievances whilst simultaneously having long ago reached the point that the two sides are loathe to actually give an inch to the mutually hated opposing side.
The fairly arbitrary divvying up of the region by the broadly Israeli sympathetic Western powers (Britain latterly and now the US) hardly helps. But I think most people think that a two state solution is the only way forwards. The sticking point will always be about who gets which areas and regions.
If Obama makes any progress on that issue he will have truly earned his place in history. However on this point more than any other I am relatively pessimistic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2008 11:55 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 90 of 341 (488278)
11-09-2008 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Larni
11-09-2008 11:55 AM


Re: AMERICA'S STEALTH PRESIDENT
Buzz, do you really see the devil hiding behind every corner?
No, he sees disaster because Obama has a non-white sounding name, and has some bare associations with people and a religion that Buz doesn't approve of. If I were elected president, he'd likely claim there was some sort of evil Atheist conspiracy at work and that I'd make religious belief a capital offense.
Buz doesn't approve of "liberalism" because what passes for liberals in America don't pander to the religious right the way that Bush's conservatives have.
Buz is afraid because Obama has a non-white name and has brown skin.
Buz is afraid because Obama's father had a different religion from Buz, which means that according to Buz's beliefs, Obama's father must be worshiping a lie from the devil. Further, a minority of the believers of this religion are violent radicals who use particularly barbaric tactics to frighten their much more populous and powerful enemies, despite the fact that they have no ability to affect real damage to America except through frightening us into the exact sort of mindset Buz exemplifies. This means Obama is of course guilty by association.
Buz is afraid because Obama has associations with other people with non-white sounding names, and a man who was a member of a terrorist organization (though not even close to the sort of terrorist organization that is Al Qaeda) several decades ago.
Buz is afraid because Obama has associations with an "angry black man." Racism, you see, is okay if it's kept quiet and is not against white people. If you make angry comments and even a few ridiculous accusations because your race has historically been and is currently being discriminated against by whites, you're an evil man. Obama is, of course, guilty by association (Which is funny, because the "angry black man" in question is a Christian pastor, which would seem to undermine Buz's irrational fear of Obama being a Muslim - but then, that's irrationality for you. Not to mention that association doesn't mean you support all of a person's beliefs or past actions - I have plenty of friends whose political or religious positions I find to be wrongheaded at the least).
Buz is afraid because anything other than 100% support of Israel regardless of any atrocities committed by the Israelis and regardless of any of the problems inherent with carving a new nation out of the Middle East and calling it a "Jewish State" conflicts with his religious beliefs surrounding the end of the world.
I could go on, but I don't see the point. Buz is just a racist in denial, who also hates non0Christians in general and Muslims in general. To Buz, all Muslims are terrorists, and all brown people with Arab-sounding names and a Muslim parent are Muslims themselves. He's just an irrational bigot, and I really don't see why we've given him so much attention for being such. He's been called out on his vitriol on many occasions, and I don't see any reason to keep feeding the racist troll.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Larni, posted 11-09-2008 11:55 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by DrJones*, posted 11-09-2008 6:41 PM Rahvin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024