Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Does Barry Hussein have a new problem to deal with?Follow

#102 May 29 2008 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Barry is naive to think he can out-think or out talk other leaders. It is the very same hubris which Dubya got caught in when he looked into Putin's eyes and saw a trustworthy man. Time to wise up, Barry. Your silver tongue may fool the masses, but to our enemies, you're just another Great Satan with a real dark tan.


He has better policy people though, not being afflicted with Bush's tendency to hire the guy who washed his car in Plano real good to be undersecretary of foreign affairs.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#103 May 29 2008 at 10:05 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Chiming in with my own experiences.

I have both cousins and great aunts and uncles that I simply refer to as aunts and uncles. Not a point of contention to me.

I also have family geneology stories which are passed down but not entirely accurate or clear. Most notably, my family's relationship to the Bell's of the Bell witch is a point of confusion. I've researched it extensively and I still forget whether our family directly descends from the lineage, married into it, or were just very close. My grandfather has an old cane. At one point it belonged to John Bell himself. I think the last I heard it belonged to Reverend Gunn, his preacher. Point being, family hearsay presented for what it is, family hearsay, is also no point of contention.
#104 May 29 2008 at 10:42 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Family stories are much like people who believe in reincarnation. No one is ever some ancient peasant slob or benjo ditch cleaner. Everyone always manages to be Cleopatra or Napolean somehow. In the same way you never hear stories from uncles or cousins that they didn't do jack during the war; no, it's always that they had some hand in one of the crucial battles or significant moment in the war.

Obamer's great-uncle (who might well have been in the Navy) sounds much like that. Not having met the guy, never heard of him before, his refusal to meet with the press when his great-nephew is taking liberties with his past history suggests that his stories were for the entertainment of the family during Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners. Literary license as it were. "Unca' Charlie, what did you do during the war? Did you kill anybody?" <Uncle Chuck thinks to himself, "Hmmm, even though every army needs it's cooks, potato peelers, and chief bottlewashers, it doesn't make me look very dashing in the eyes of my nieces and nephews. I'll just tell them a story that I heard in the chow line..."

And so it goes. One guy tells a story to embelish his war record and another guy takes that story to embelish his record among veterans because he has no pull among military folks.

Like the sniper bedtime story the Hellbeast told, those who haven't seen military service ache to have the aura of derring-do around them. And many of those who have seen military service ache to have the aura of a heroic combat soldier even though they worked as a REMF clerk back in cantonement.

Totem
#105 May 30 2008 at 1:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Totem wrote:
Barry is naive to think he can out-think or out talk other leaders.


He's not.

Diplomacy and multilateralism are the bedrock of foreign policy. Surely, if the last 8 years have shown us anything, it is precisely that. It's obvious the next American President should talk to Iran's president. And not just Iran, but Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah too.

I seriously wonder what kind of world you live in when you think ignoring those people will be productive. What is the reasoning? That they'll break down and give up the struggle because the US president is ignoring them? What is this, 4th grade diplomacy?

Talking to leaders doesn't mean sucking their ****, or giving them nukes as birthday presents. It simply means exploring other avenues than war, destruction, and death. Opening up potential lines of communication. What matters isn't so much that you speak to them, but the substance of what you say. What you offer, if anything. And Obama isn't talking about offering them anything. Only opening up a dialogue.

Finally, you have to be pretty delusional to think that talking to the US president is somehow a "win" for those guys. It's not. If anything it discredits them amongst their most ardent and extreme supporters.

I'm glad to see the US might have a President that has a few brain cells. Ignoring problems has never led them to being resolved. Look at the Palestinians. 40 years of ignoring their leaders: Arafat, Abu Amza, now Hamas. And what progress has been made during all this ignoring? Ah, that's right, they only got more violent and extremist. Iran since the revolution? Worst. Cuba? More entrenched. NK? They built some nukes.

And it's not just the US. When an Islamist party won the elections in Algeria, France and the military governement cancelled the elections and ignored them. The result? 20 years of civil war, of carnage and bloodshed of ordinary civilians. Perfect breeding ground and real-life military training camps for fanatics.

Now look at the opposite end of the spectrum: look at Northern Ireland. Sri Lanka. The USSR.

And before some **** throws in "appeasement" and Hitler: the problem wasn't that the Allies tried to talk to Hitler. That wasn't "appeasement". The appeasement was giving Hitler Czechoslovakia. Until the US presiendet talks about offering Iraq to Iran, Barbados to Cuba or Israel to Hamas, it will have nothing to do with appeasement.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#106REDACTED, Posted: May 30 2008 at 6:30 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Amen.
#107 May 30 2008 at 6:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Totem wrote:
In the same way you never hear stories from uncles or cousins that they didn't do jack during the war;


Actually that's not true, at least in my family. My dad (stationed in India) used to claim that he made Sgt. based on his ability to keep monkeys out of the mess. My mother's brother used to harumph and inform us that Iceland was no picnic, and Quartermaster was a very important job.


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#108 May 30 2008 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I used to work with a WWII veteran who would tell me stories about his war-time exploits. They all involved chasing skirts near his base in Georgia.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#109 May 30 2008 at 7:19 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
I once knew a WWII veteran surgeon who spent his retirement working at a local Taco Bell. He told me a horrific story of how he once removed a tumor from his own ******* over the top of a trash can. Creepy old codger.
#110 May 31 2008 at 9:11 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Reddphoenix, you're missing the point. Obama, the man who ostensibly is approaching world affairs in a fresh and enlightened manner, is prosposing to use a diplomacy that Bush has already tried. Moreover, it has been shown that Abijinadadthemuzzie distains the very carrot that has been dangled in front of him because he views the WTO as a Zionist organization.

It's one thing for Bush to try it, seeing that it hadn't been attempted before, but instead of learning from this president's experience, Barry Hussein is telling us he'd do the same thing expecting different results. Is this what he calls change? Or is this what he'd call audacious hope that things will be different this time around? Ummm, I can't recall the little saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting something. Can you help me out here? Refresh my memory about how that saying ends?

This is my point. The man is naive and a dipolmatic rookie. You are assuming because he has a silver tongue he can wow everyone into world peace and into liking us, but the truth is he has no clue as to what he's doing. His solution? Do what Bush has already done. Niiiiiiiice. Based on that we can expect the US to invade Iran in a matter of weeks should he assume office in January.

Apparently that's his answer to Iraq. Take the troops out of that country and move them into Iran. That way he gets to fulfill his campaign promise and do the same thing thing Bush did.

Perhaps we will have moved from President Chimpy to President **********

Totem
#111 May 31 2008 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Well with the news recently on Iran politics, Obama may not have to talk to Abijinadadthemuzzie. Ali Larijani is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad chief rival for President was elected Speaker of the Iranian Parliament on Wednesday.

I read were some think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will have to step down soon, but much can happen in 6 months.

NY Times article, though not the one I learn about the story from. The Baltimore Sun isn't on my tool bars.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#112 May 31 2008 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Given that McCain has been saber rattling over Iran for months already, I don't see the issue here. I'd still rather go with the guy trying for a peaceful resolution (even if it ultimately failed) then the one already laying his groundwork for an invasion before he's even in the Oval Office.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 May 31 2008 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
such doom and gloom talk
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#114 May 31 2008 at 11:42 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
Reddphoenix, you're missing the point. Obama, the man who ostensibly is approaching world affairs in a fresh and enlightened manner, is prosposing to use a diplomacy that Bush has already tried.


As far as I know, except for a low-level security meeting about Iraq, The U.S and Iran had no diplomatic relation since 1979. So please tell me when did Bush have this meeting with the Iranian president again?
#115 May 31 2008 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Back door diplomacy, natch. Even nations on nonspeaking terms engage in that. Surely you knew that?

Totem
#116 May 31 2008 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Taken directly from the Barry Hussein website:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Heh, nothing like change, eh? Umm, yeah, change from a previous adminstration's efforts? The guy is a flippin' idiot.

Totem
#117 May 31 2008 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ahmadinejad may be against WTO status (although the few real quotes I've seen from him cite economic concerns, not "Zionist" whatever-whatever) but Iran itself has been trying to enter the WTO since the 90's and has applied for membership 22 times. Obama is simply stating that, as a potential bt of diplomacy, the US won't block Iranian WTO applications. After all, as ElneClare states, Ahmadinejad won't be president of Iran forever and the next leader may well resume Iran's longstanding attempts to enter the WTO.

In fact, ElneClare's cited article states explictly that one of Ahmadinejad's political issues right now is a lack of support for his economic stances.
The New York Times wrote:
A rival to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected by an overwhelming majority as speaker of the Iranian Parliament on Wednesday, a strong signal of growing impatience with the president’s economic policies and a possible sign of a political shift in the country.
[...]
In his first speech as speaker, Mr. Larijani, who won by a vote of 232 to 31, said one of Parliament’s top priorities would be to strengthen the economy. His lopsided victory appeared to be a rebuke of Mr. Ahmadinejad, who has faced growing dissatisfaction over grinding inflation and fresh memories of rolling blackouts last winter that left people without electricity and heat for hours at a time — even as the nation’s oil revenues were soaring.

The economic problems have apparently deepened tensions between Mr. Ahmadinejad and the religious establishment he ultimately answers to, in what seems to be a collective rethinking of his stewardship.
Gee, listing support for Iran's entry into the WTO as a diplomatic carrot doesn't seem so silly to me. Even if Bush tried it and failed in the past.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#118 May 31 2008 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
joph get Flea and come join me in IRC while Obama gives news conference.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#119 May 31 2008 at 4:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
She's going grocery shopping!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#120 May 31 2008 at 4:09 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
What he leaves his Church and the DNC gives delegates in FL and MI half votes and she not able to watch Obama news conference and chat. You better make sure she is in IRC on Tuesday evening.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#121 May 31 2008 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
We have to eat!!!
#122 May 31 2008 at 10:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
More on Iran, Ahmadinejah, economics, public perception and the US (Lengthy, even when trimmed)...
Washington Post wrote:
It might startle some Americans to realize that Iran has one of the most pro-American populations in the Middle East. Iranians have adored America for nearly three decades, a sentiment rooted in nostalgia for Iran's golden days, before the worst of the shah's repression and the 1979 Islamic revolution. But today's affection is new, in a sense, or at least different.

Starting in about 2005, Iranians' historic esteem for the United States gave way to a deep ambivalence that is only now ending. President Bush's post-9/11 wars of liberation on both of Iran's borders -- in Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the east -- rattled ordinary Iranians, and Washington's opposition to Iran's nuclear program -- a major source of national pride -- added to their resentment.
[...]
But on a recent two-week trip to Iran, I found the shift in sentiment palpable. This year, restaurants were booked solid for Valentine's Day months in advance. Heart-shaped chocolates and flower arrangements sold briskly enough to annoy the authorities, who reportedly began confiscating them on the street. [...] I discovered people lining up at a grill joint called Chili's, bearing the same jalapeño logo as the U.S. chain. (The Iranian government shuns international trademark laws).
[...]
The most interesting aspect of the revival of such warm feelings today is that the United States has done so little to earn them. Instead, Iranians' renewed pro-American sentiments reflect the depth of their alienation from their own rulers. As a family friend put it: "It's a matter of being drawn to the opposite of what you can't stand."

I lived in Iran until last summer and experienced all the reasons why Ahmadinejad has replaced the United States as Iranians' top object of vexation. Under his leadership, inflation has spiked at least 20 percent, according to nongovernment analysts -- thanks to Ahmadinejad's expansionary fiscal policies, which inject vast amounts of cash into the economy. My old babysitter, for example, says she can no longer afford to feed her family red meat once a week.
[...]
I watched Ahmadinejad on television as he addressed Iranians from the holy city of Qom. He blamed everyone -- the hostile West, a domestic "cigarette mafia" -- for the economic downturn, just as he had previously claimed that a "housing mafia" was driving up real estate prices. Many Iranians who initially believed this kind of conspiracy talk now admit that the president's policies and obstinacy are actually at fault.
[...]
Of course, a minority of Iranians -- perhaps the 10 percent of society that sociologists estimate is hard-line -- still hate the Great Satan. But the strain of anti-Americanism in Iran is more mellow than the rage found elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world. The Palestinian cause is less deeply felt here, making it easier for even Washington's critics to view relations pragmatically. Most Iranians belong to generations with compelling reasons to admire the United States. Those old enough to remember the shah's era are nostalgic for the prosperity and international standing Iran once enjoyed; those born after the revolution see no future for themselves in today's Iran and adopt their parents' gilded memories as their own. These longings have young and old Iranians alike following the U.S. election. Most seem to favor Sen. Barack Obama, who they believe will patch up relations with Iran.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 May 31 2008 at 11:27 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Watched Obama's news conference last night, and I was surprised how hesitant he was, bordering on the mealy-mouthed. He was excrutiatingly painful when answering the question about whether he'll choose another black church.

The message was fine, but given the obsession with slick presentation, it wasn't impressive.

I just hope he can get back on track quickly enough to get Hillary out of the way and stand a strong campaign against McCain.

Given my country's fate is tied so closely to your president's ability & judgement, I really hope Obama can take the Whitehouse, but if not, I'd rather see McCain win than Clinton.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#124 Jun 01 2008 at 10:29 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Family stories are much like people who believe in reincarnation. No one is ever some ancient peasant slob or benjo ditch cleaner. Everyone always manages to be Cleopatra or Napolean somehow. In the same way you never hear stories from uncles or cousins that they didn't do jack during the war; no, it's always that they had some hand in one of the crucial battles or significant moment in the war.


Even if that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that some of those people would be telling the truth. Many people are descended from Napolean, or Cleopatra (I guess?), or did have relatives that had some hand in a crucial battle or moment in war.
#125 Jun 02 2008 at 1:13 AM Rating: Good
Totem wrote:
Reddphoenix, you're missing the point. Obama, the man who ostensibly is approaching world affairs in a fresh and enlightened manner, is prosposing to use a diplomacy that Bush has already tried.


Don't be silly. Bush never seriously tried diplomacy. He didn't have time. From 2001 onwards, Bush saw himself as a "War President". And it's not just me saying Bush's diplomacy was a sham, take it from the US Secretary of Defense. All Bush did towards Iran was sabre-rattling. Not diplomacy.

Second, Bush never tried to talk to any of the other problematic actors in this conflict. Hamas? Hezbollah? Syria? He didn't try to have a meaningful dialogue with Israel.

Look, in 8 years Bush managed to alienate everyone away from the US, including its closest allies. And you call that "diplomacy"?

Quote:
Moreover, it has been shown that Abijinadadthemuzzie distains the very carrot that has been dangled in front of him because he views the WTO as a Zionist organization.


Ahmedinajad doesn't matter half as much as the Ayatollahs. If you can sell the WTO, or any other carrot, to them, Mahmoud will have no choice but to accept.

Quote:
It's one thing for Bush to try it, seeing that it hadn't been attempted before, but instead of learning from this president's experience, Barry Hussein is telling us he'd do the same thing expecting different results.


So, according to you, the next 15 US Presidents should not try diplomacy anymore? That's it? Bush failed, and so all the others must "learn from it" and go on the war path?

That's almost gbaji-stupid.

Quote:
His solution? Do what Bush has already done.


There are thousands of ways to pursue diplomacy, just as there are thousands of ways to wage a war. What you're saying amounts to "well Bush really tried during his 8 years, so anyone that also tries is bound to fail."

Weak.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#126 Jun 02 2008 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
"Even if that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that some of those people would be telling the truth. Many people are descended from Napolean, or Cleopatra (I guess?), or did have relatives that had some hand in a crucial battle or moment in war." --Kachi

I didn't say descended from Cleopatra or Napoleon, I said they all think they were Cleopatra or Napoleon. Apparently these two and other famous individuals suffered horribly from multiple personalities, the poor things. Moreover, the vast majority of people aren't in any way related or even remotely connected to the movers and shakers in the world, present or past. It's pure hubris to think otherwise.

Totem
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 359 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (359)