http://medianewsgroup.a.mms.mavenapp...6-7041856db03a
Comments, good or bad, are welcome! I will reply with mine later!
Printable View
http://medianewsgroup.a.mms.mavenapp...6-7041856db03a
Comments, good or bad, are welcome! I will reply with mine later!
Pretty typical Memorial Day speech, although, since it's Obama, it was more eloquent than most. Hit all the right points.
As an aside, my son sat next to Bill Richardson at a graduation last week. He also speaks well. The statement that stuck with me was "You don't make peace with your friends; you make it with your enemies."
As the last remaining superpower (pending China's emergence), I don't see why we have to fear diplomacy.
j
Diplomacy with terrorists? Obviously you've already forgotten 911 and/or don't have any loved one been a victim of the attacks.
Besides, the terrorists only interest is to destroy democracy.
If you have any doubts find out what the Castros, Chavez of the world are trying to accomplish.
But what can you expect, the only thing the man can do is "talk"
I think that was the best of the three, I'm glad to see he didn't use it as a platform to continue talking about Webbs GI Bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
You don't know me or what I remember. You don't know where I've been or what I've lost. Your take on diplomacy is simplistic.
But keep talking. There may be someone out there who doesn't have your measure yet.
How do I get sucked into this stuff! I think it is becoming disorder but here goes.
I am sorry, there are people you can not sit down and have a rational discussion with, ask former President Carter! Hezbollah handed Carter his hat in his hand. How can you possibly negotiate with an organization that says they want to see the Jews wiped off the face of the earth. I am confused sometimes. People will not listen to what leaders have to say. What? They don't mean it? Oh I see they are simple people with simple minds that do not know what they are saying. OH, they are doing it for the votes or for political gain? Iran's leader is saying the same thing.
The reason that Hitler is invoked in a lot of these discussions is that he is the the poster child for telling the world what he would do. The responses of many world leaders was the same.OH! He doesn't mean it, he is doing it for political gain......
Why is it that people will not listen to what they say! They really do mean it folks! There are people that want to kill you, and in many different ways that you, as civilized humans, can not comprehend !!!
Later,
Richard
Interesting little sidelines, but lets answer the original question first, and then peaceably talk about the side lines!
my take on his speech:
I didn't even take the time to listen to it. I know he is a good speaker, and I'm sure his speach writers have been working on this one for a while so I'm sure it would be a pretty bunch of words.
Since I neither respect the man or can stomach his positions and I know that if he had to speak completely impromptu it would be a completely different sounding presentation, I think listening to it would simply cause me heartburn, something I can easily do without.
Obama is a great speaker. IMO thats all he is. He could bottle horse piss and sell it as an elixer/rejuvenator. He is simply a salesman banging his drum. For equal time simply replace the name Obama with that of Hillary or McCain, and I will still approve this message.
I can hardly blame you! I only searched it out and listened to it to research a statement someone made about his speach! When listening, three things sort of reached out and slapped me across the face. 1) Gov. Richardson introduced Sen. Obama, and during the introduction he kept going back and forth between English and spanish! 2) In the beginning of Obama's speech he made an interesting blunder. He said something to the effect that this day was to honor our fallen hero's, many of whom I see sitting in the audience. 3) The tone of his speech! Yes, he said many pretty things. Many of which I agree, but there was no passion that I could hear in his voice. In fact I thought he sounded like he was bored, and reading from a script! This surprised me because I normally think he sounds great and awe inspiring, but the actual content to me is either void of any real substance, or I plain disagree with him! This time I mostly agreed with the substance, but the delivery was void and insipid!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
I dunno. Obama's speeches seem to be of a piece with his writings. The man we see in Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope is a pretty thoughtful guy, and very impatient with both political posturing (and partisanship) and Democratic pandering.
That's why I wasn't surprised with the decent tone of his Memorial Day speech. It was consistent with what he's said he believes all along.
I agree that pretty speeches don't a statesman make, but in a race of this kind, what's wrong with listening to the guy (or gal) who's at least smart enough to say the right things?
That attack was carried out by a handful of terrorists. Not by a country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
There is no reason at all not to talk with foreign governments.
Really? They might actually be a bit annoyed with the US meddling in the internal politics of their home countries. If the US had done to Belgium what it had done to Iran and Iraq, I'd hold a grudge to if my family was killed in the upheavals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
Do you really expect those people to shrug it off and forgive the US?
The present situation in Iraq and Iran was caused by the US. Both Saddam in Iraq and the fundies in Iran were helped into power by the CIA, causing thousands to die.
Btw, the gov in Iran at that time was democratically elected. It just commited the capital sin of not agreeing with the US.
And what is Chavez trying to accomplish?Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
The curent administration has shown what the results are of the cowboy approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
They'd have gotten further if they had talked. Not to mention they'd have saved themselves trillions of dollars.
>Hezbollah handed Carter his hat in his hand
Hesbollah was founded in 1982.
>Iran's leader is saying the same thing
Here's an interesting quote from a paper written by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace-
"...And in the Spring of 2003, around the time Baghdad was captured by US forces in around 3 weeks, the Iranian government sent out quiet feelers to the Bush administration expressing an interest in addressing their mutual points of contention. In the proposal, Iran suggested that, in exchange for a US commitment to recognize the Islamic Republic and its security interests, it would cooperate on the nuclear issue and Iraq. Iran also stated its willingness to support a two-state solution to Palestine, cease material support to Palestinian opposition groups, and facilitate Hizbollah's transformation into a "mere political organization within Lebanon" in the framework of an overall agreement. For a variety of reasons, the United States chose not to pursue or even acknowledge the overture. In other wods, Iran has shown that it is willing to put state interests ahead of ideology when it is expedient"
Iran has a history of trying to approach normal relations with the United States, but each time the United States haven't been interested.
>Besides, the terrorists only interest is to destroy democracy.
Well...
-The Palestinians want a state
- The Kurds want autonomy
- Saudi domestic terrorists want a non-corrupt local government
- Lebanese terrorists was a political system that is just and reflects the actual makeup of the local population
- Tamils want their own state
All these actually have no real beef with the United States. Even Al-Qaida is split over whether 9/11 was a good idea- there was a split within the organisation, with those who believed that the 'near enemy' (local corrupt governments) needed to be taken on rather than the 'far enemy' (a meddling United States).
FWIW: The terrorist problem in the UK / Ireland was only ssolved when the political arms of both parties finally agreed to talk and compromise. Both leaderships got flak for that, but after 30 years the bombings stopped. There is still a lot of struggle, but at least now it's political and diplomatic instead of physical.
I am not really up to date on the details of what, how and when, but this is what some of my UK and Irish friends told me.
Certainly! Any problem- especially one that involves violence- can only be truly solved if the people on the ground agree to the terms. "High politics" can only go so far until they run across on the ground problems in regards to reconciliation and healing old wounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
I'm going to have to agree with Bruno on this one, I get quite frustrated with people that claim that the attacks on 9/11/2001 were an attack on democracy rather than us* meddling in the affairs of other countries.Why? Because Osama Bin Laden said our meddling in foreign politics is why the attacks happened!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I'm shocked that we're still discussing it. Sadly, yes the Iranian army has been deemed a terrorist organization, defying the definition of terrorist and the lack of any proof on the matter. We should still talk to them, if war is the first option we take with a hostile nation what is the second?
*Edit: by us I mean the USA, I gotta be better about remembering that this is an international board.
All enemies are willing to talk. Like Japan after we kicked the pee out of them. This country is in need of a warrior as president. Bush has been a simple wimp. If Osama had our resources the war would have long been over.Quote:
Originally Posted by riooso
Could I just add that, coming from a country that's had one or two more terrorist attacks than the US, the only way - in the long run - to achieve peace is to talk to your enemy. It took us a very long time to learn that lesson. As for Obama's speech - I have enough trouble deciphering our politicians speeches, let alone yours.. ;):D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weekend_Warrior
Of course you could talk to the Irish theres enough commonality there, I mean pull out a bottle of good whiskey and you can get everyone at the table to be quiet long enough for discussions to begin. Make it a big enough bottle and they will stick around for a while too.
That just doesn't work with the Muslim extremest. He won't drink, and all he's interested in is virgins, yet he wraps his women up like Christmas presents every time they leave the house and considers it a sin to look at them.
You just can't talk man to man when a guy gives up wine and women theres no common ground.
:bow :bow:bowQuote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
That's made my day! Thanks.:D
I would guess that everyone has seen the news regarding Sen. Obama's mistake regarding his uncle having a hand at liberating Auschwitz, when it is found that his mother was an only child. Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians in 1945.
Later, Sen. Obama provided details that it was actually his great uncle that had a hand in liberating Buchenwald (actually a subcamp of Buchenwald called Ohrdruf on April 4, 1945).
Hey, people make mistakes all the time and both the candidates should realize by now that everything they say WILL be held against them.
Looks like while a little late, the main stream media eventually called Obama on that statement.
Maybe Obama is trying to convey his heroic heritage? Because we only elect heroes as President... At any rate, I'm glad Auschwitz was finally liberatedQuote:
Originally Posted by gatorfan
http://www.workingnet.com/thunderbea...s-strength.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
;)
I am:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
In other words, I'm a lot like a lot of you. But when I see comments like these, my blood boils and I think, "I hope those bastards and their "boys" suffer as humiliating a defeat in Iraq as they did in Vietnam."
- orthodox Catholic,
- active in Canadian politics, a card-carrying, libertarian member of the Conservative Party of Canada,
- Anglo-Saxon,
- Caucasian and,
- a friend of the United States of America, most of the time.
Horrible, isn't it? But you Americans have done this to me, you have done this to the entire world. This is why we see anti-American sentiments as fashionable. This is why some of us go so far as to give our lives. Not because we are jealous. Not because we hate your freedom. But because of the way you act and the things you say. You were once free men (pity you had to leave the Empire, though) but now you are fearfu, Godless creatures... and you act like it. I guess all of the West does, but the rest of the West doesn't have your influence.
Please, be true to your Judeo-Christian principles and the libertarian ideas of your forefathers. Stop your wars. Open your borders, even to Mexicans, and treat us like people. We are not chattel. Let us sell our wares in your country. Stop your communist agricultural subsidies, they are destroying the third world. And please, please, please: STOP HOLLYWOOD.
As for the troubles in the British Isles? Took a lot more than a bottle of whiskey.
As for the wine? Your puritan forefathers were hardly fans.
As for the women? Modesty was once a virtue in Christendom, also. Muslim dress codes are admirable even if we disagree and prefer our women to prance about like *insert word(s)*.
And finally, if you can't find common ground with another human being, even a radical Muslim, then what does that make you? An alien?
But America's worst sin? Gillette. Yeah, even the greast patriot on this forum can deny that.
I guess no one is willing to take responsibility for themselves anymore!:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggamore
I honestly thinkwithout our interference the irish wars would have been settled a lot sooner than with our meddling. it's a bit arrogant on our part to think otherwise. I'll go a bit further and say that without out involvement we coulen't have gotten involved. i.e. no attacks on our soil. but then we can't avoid involvement really.
I wonder how a string on Obama's Memorial Day speech can morph into a heated discussion about the causes of 911.
In the process, however, I'd point out a subtext. Whether it's Obama or another country, it seems we've stopped listening to each other. Our friend Whiggamore points that out. I'd echo that, reminding everyone that back in '79, when Iranian students stormed our embassy and imprisoned our diplomats, while the rest of the world was tut-tutting about how sad it all was, the Canadians were rounding up as many of our people as they could, giving them Canadian passports, and smuggling them out of the country. Sounds like friends to me.
Perhaps when Canadians speak, we should listen politely instead of attacking them, whether we agree or not. I think they've earned it.
Stop my wars? Why don't you? Why do you assume that I am your problem? Lumping everyone into the same pot is cowardly. US citizens make up one of the most diverse nations on earth, and to pretend that the majority of us think the same way is a troubling error.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggamore
The border to Mexico is already wide open, and if you want to argue that it isn't, please come to my hometown and explain to me how the hundred thousand Mexicans who are here got here.
I see Canadian stuff for sale everyday.
Stop subsidies? Are you suggesting I stop paying my taxes? I almost agree with you now, except a lot of my taxes end up in Canada as foreign aid :shrug:
Hollywood will stop when people stop buying its products. I'm not sure there's any other way to stop it without stripping away the people's freedom. I'm free to not watch it though, which is exhilarating :)
I don't admire Muslim dress code because it is a forced dress code. Are there a lot of non-Muslim Canadian women who share your admiration for that dress code? Have you mentioned to your wife that you admire it? :eek: This is a separate issue from the opposite pornographic end of the spectrum, so one does not justify the other, does it?
The only common ground I have with someone who wants to kill me or convert me is that I want to kill or convert them too as a matter of self-defense. That doesn't make me an alien, that makes me like another human being.
And if it wasn't for Gillette, someone else would have thought of it: probably a right-wing Canadian. ... aside from all of that though, I totally agree with you! :roflmao
So was burning at the stake of anyone who dared diagree with the church, who was of a different faith, who practised herbal medicine, ... of course, that was only after the torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggamore
Some of the most despicable things have been done by the christians under the motto 'God wills it' (Deus Vult)
I don't blame the modern day christians for this (I don't think the sins of the father are the sins of the son) but you can't point to the good without mentioning the bad.
Christianity back then was definitely not better than christianity now.
Muslim dress code is forced on the women by the men who rule their family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggamore
I 'allow' my wife to choose for herself.
Have you ever been in muslim countries?
I have been in tunesia, which is pretty forward thinking for a muslim country.
In tabarka there was only 1 cafe where women were allowed to enter. scores of men were openly ogling my wife who was dressed pretty modest (shorts covering her knees, tshirt). So much for respectful.
EDIT Interestingly: this dress code does not usually apply to men. so while it is perfectly allright for me to wear shorts and a tshirt, a woman doing the same thing would be a '*insert word(s)*'?
And of course, if unmarried people have sex, it is always the fault of the woman, who is then subsequently stoned to death for seducing an innocent man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggamore
Thiis doesn't sound conservative????:thinking:
Even for a Canadian.:fim:
This might help you out a little:
Joke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American humor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read, Study, Hope to someday understand and posses!:nono:
It doesn't sound conservative, eh?
Tell me: when did this war in Iraq and all the wars like it became a central tenet of conservatism? There is nothing conservative about waging war so nonchalantly against a sovereign nation, despicable as their foreign and domestic policies may be, that poses no threat to a nation's interests or citizens. You were afraid it did of course: that fear has replaced freedom as the common trait of Americans. You were afraid of Islam. You were afraid of WMDs. You were afraid of craft knives. You are afraid of Mexicans taking your jobs. You are afraid of the third world taking your industry. Instead of respecting your Constitution bravely, you cower in the darkness and let Republicans and Democrats pass fearful law after fearful law and sacrifice your sons.
Now conservatives around the world, whether they support this war or not, are tarnished by it; often suffering electoral defeat, plunging our peoples into four or five years of left-wing government and oppression under their bizarre social programs. Spain or Australia, anybody? I blame the US.
In Canada we were fortunate that we had a left-wing government in power when the war drum was being sounded for Iraq. Our conservative movement could not suffer the humiliation of Iraq if it was not in power; by the time general elections came around we had cried fowl on your war and won the general election.
Joke? I don't believe you. Convenient cop-out for an ignorant, racist comment.
You're going to tell me, with a straight face, that the Catholic Church tortured and murdered people because they practiced herbal medicine?Quote:
... who practised herbal medicine...
Outside of a few libertarians who believe in a isolationist foreign policy, every American believes the United States has a manifest destiny to bugger around with the world. You have different intentions and different methods of torture, but since FDR every Administration has meant the same thing for the rest of us.Quote:
Lumping everyone into the same pot is cowardly.
The world will continue to be your friend, but I imagine it will be less and less a matter of friendship and more and more a matter of self-interest.
Now I'm really wishing that Taft hadn't spilled the beans way back when and we really had invaded and conquered your sorry northern asses.
Sarcasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In case you didn't get that either.
Now that you have called me a racist online, I really wish I could meet you in person.
Nothing Exceeds Like Excess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You attitude has pissed me off past the point of reason, You have made no positive contribution to the furtherance of this or any thread on this board nor do I think you capable of any original thought. You have been added to my ignore list.
No need to take my words black and white. For lots of 'witches' this was their sin. Unless you think they were actually flying around on broomsticks and dancing naked in the moonlight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggamore
Lots of those convicted were healers and midwives who became suspect for one reason or the other.
Common Misconceptions: The Death Toll
Probable death toll is 40000 to 100000 deaths during the burning times, acording to scientific studies of trial records and historical documents.
Of course this pales in comparison to e.g. what happened during the crusades
Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the first decade, the Crusaders pursed a policy of terror against Muslims and Jews that included mass executions, the throwing of severed heads over besieged cities walls, exhibition and mutilation of naked cadavers, and even cannibalism, as was recorded after the Siege of Maarat.
For some detailed references to christian atrocities, see here:
The Skeptical Review Online - Religion's Death Toll - Author James A. Haught
-- In 1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against Albigenses Christians in southern France. When the besieged city of Beziers fell, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He commanded: "Kill them all. God will know his own." Nearly 20,000 were slaughtered -- many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses, or used for target practice.
-- In the Third Crusade, after Richard the Lion-Hearted captured Acre in 1191, he ordered 3,000 captives -- many of them women and children -- taken outside the city and slaughtered. Some were disemboweled in a search for swallowed gems. Bishops intoned blessings. Infidel lives were of no consequence. As Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in launching the Second Crusade: "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."
And these are just some that I picked. Christianity has millions of horrible deaths to its name.
I don't say other religions don't. The various Jihads have a similar death toll (Don't you just love how religion brings out the best in people).
But don't pretend that Christianity has a noble and glorious past, because it hasn't.
Please keep the discussion on point and civil. If the topic becomes a flame war between participants, it will be closed. Remember that above all things, we do try to keep things gentlemanly.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bruno, fair enough. But, you are viewing history through a modern European's eyeglasses which is unfair, at least in my opinion, to the medievals. Prevailing attitudes at the time, such as the concept of spiritual death, need to be considered in our judgements. We have very different expectations of world powers nowadays. Also, using Wikipedia as a source for such a controversial subject, especially one so heavily politicized by Zionists and pan-Arab nationalism, doesn't seem wise.
As a Protestant I held highly negative views towards the crusades and inquisitions of the Catholic Church. But, as I read more scholarly works on the subject I realized that this was indeed, wrong. This realization, more than anything else, led me to the Catholic faith. Our opposition to these holy conflicts and the great multitude of misinformation surrounding them can be understood though: our societies went through the anti-Catholic Protestant Reformation, the anti-Catholic Englightenment, and now an anti-Catholic period of modernism and rather unreasonable accomodation for people who have politicized this issue for their personal gain.
Wildtim, you made the comments, they were ignorant and they were racist. I'm sure you're a nice guy but those comments, sarcastic or not, are not acceptable and do the West and Christendom a serious diservice in more ways than one. How can we win the hearts and minds of these people if we mock their moral values? Moral values that don't differ so much from those of our own forefathers?
We North Americans have no business being on the other side of either the Atlantic or the Pacific, except in peaceful trade.
As for Obama's speech? A good example of two things. First, that Democrats are not so different from Republicans in their glorification of war. Second, that the Democrats are using the Republican machine as an example. A wise choice given the success Republicans have experienced with it.
Amen brother!
I read this thread with interest. Having read a few things in the way of historical european stories etc I know a little bit about so called "Christian history". And I'd like to adress these last points that Bruno made one at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
1) So does most any dictator. So does communism, so does democracy so does almost any idea. The problem with most of these though is that in all reality...it's not the IDEA that has the deaths to it's name. It's the leaders at the time. Problem is though...leaders try to justify, and someone who wants to justify needs a BIG idea to support. So what happends? The current leader at the time (pope, ayatollah etc) twist their idea (gospel, Kohran etc) to those things they want the people to hear. It's not religion that's doing these things. It's individuals that are looking for an excuse. If they wouldn't have done it in the name of Christianity, they would have don it under another name.
I personally can't stand that people will blame the idea rather than the man interpreting it at such a weird angle. It's the leaders fault, and that of those who follow him. NOT the fault of the original religion or person instituting it (whether it be Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed or anyone else) THEY had honorable intentions, THEY had an ideaology.
If you want to blame anyone, blame the leaders and followers who pursuid the action at the time.
2) Yes, I DO love how religion brings out the best in people. Many people I've know have had their lives improves substantially because they chose to follow their religion to the best of their knowledge. Once again, the original teachings are ALWAYS given to do good. When people follow them with intelligence and love for their fellow man (which almost every religion teaches) then we would see it a lot more.
3) Actually Christianity DOES have a noble past....admittedly...it's often not very Glorious. There have been SCORES, LEGIONS of christians that have done deeds in the for their fellow men/women because of what they believed. Problem with good deeds though is that they often don't get the high profile that evil deeds get. When someone does something wonderfull everyone claims that it's because he's a wonderfull person....when they do something evil it must have been because they were a Jehova's Witness, Mormon, Muslim, Jew etc.
If you want the ball to roll that way...let it roll both ways.
That'll be it for now from me. I'm not going to get mixed in with politics though....don't follow the US pre-elections enough to throw something into that keg of oil.
The joke I made was found to be both acceptable and funny by any number of people why don't you go condemn and attack some of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggamore
Why the hell would I want to win the hearts and minds of those people? Once you have grown up a little bit gotten out in the world some, you might just realize that there are some people worth talking to and others who just well aren't.
My forefathers never had as a stated religious principal that they kill everyone who doesn't share their belief system, in fact my forefathers fought several wars just to get away from that type of thought in Europe. I will kill to keep that type of thought from again holding sway in the world, as should any free people on this planet. Because you choose to view the world through Rose colored glasses doesn't mean I am not a Christian. My moral values find fault with their moral values not just mockery. You should understand your Christian denomination has technically been at war with them for the last thousand years.
:roflmao:roflmao:roflmao Tell that to every nation we have ever given aid to or assisted in time of trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggamore
I kept thinking it, and Tim said it. Thanks, Tim :tuI haven't heard any news reports lately of anyone refusing aid except for Burma, a model regime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
Hi LX, my point was not to condemn christianity. It - like any religion- acts as an amplifier for human traits.
I do not deny that christianity has done a lot of good too. just like islam and buddhism and others.
My point was targeted to whiggamore to illustate that you cannot say that Christanity has such a noble past, and thus it should be an example for us, based on its past.
It also has a very ignoble past, and as far as I am concerned they cancel each other out for the purpose of upholding an example.