|
|
General discussion.
|
Posts:
13,448
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(561 of 2166)
Jun 11, 2008 9:16 PM
|
Jim,
Brezinski himself is a clout. The point is, Obama isn't a better bet, and we talked about this. You of all people know more details about it.
We already know who the next president is because MSM made it clear enough for us.
Make them earn it this time.
--
Edited by infoseek at 06/11/2008 6:16 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
3,034
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(560 of 2166)
Jun 11, 2008 8:59 PM
|
> Two weeks ago Brezinski said they have too much
> clout and now they are a "ritual". I have to consider
>
Right, two things that aren't mutually exclusive. They do have too much clout bcz there's very little opposition, and moreso if people buy what they're selling, which I read as both Brezinski's and Mahdi Abdul-Hadi's point.
> that what pols tell well heeled special interests
> have
> more of a habit of becoming policy than what they
> tell us.
> That was the case during the 2000 primaries
>
And lobbyists have even more clout now than they had then, and there are more of them. According to July Harper's Index, lobbyists spend $16 million per DAY every day Congress is in session. Multiplied by the appx 100 days Congress is in session adds up $1.6 billion. That's a lot of moolah and clout. So by not taking money from lobbyists, or far less, we have a far better chance with Obama.
> when Bush was running on a "no new nation building"
> platform. At the very same time he showed up at a
> CSPAN televised JAC fundraiser and promised, along
> with McCain, Forbes & Bauer, to remove Saddam
> from power......and the Democrat pols who voted for
> the war didn't see that ?
>
But we knew Bush by his own admission was shallow and callous. It's no surprise that one by one all of Molly Ivans predictions came true. The only honest politicians were the 23 who voted against the war.
>
> Well I'm trying to pay close attention and what I'm
> seeing is that both candidates have vowed to end
> Iran's uranium enrichment program (and they're
> not going to talk or sanction them out of that) with
> "all options on the table." And they both have
> assumed the "fact" of an active nuclear weapons
> program without so much as even verification by
> National Intelligence Estimate assesments to back
> that up.......sound familiar ?
>
Yes and no. But I'm not going to judge Obama on one speech in hostile territory where McCain's attack got a standing ovation.
> >
> > I'm not just promoting my own agenda here with
> this
> > quote even though it mirrors my perspective.
> I've
> > done a lot research and follow this very
> closely, and
> > have read more vitriol from the MSM than one
> person
> > can stomach, but of the ones with a fairer view,
> I
> > thought this one said it best...from
> >
>
> http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/05/111
> 7964.aspx
> >
> > "Mahdi Abdul-Hadi, a Palestinian political
> > analyst, told NBC News on Thursday that
> Palestinians
> > should be pragmatic and understand the
> circumstances
> > in which Obama spoke before judging his words.
> >
> > "Remember this is a campaign speech, and he's
> > addressing the most powerful American Jewish
> lobby.
> > Also, the Democratic nominee has to follow the
> lines
> > of the party's position," said Abdul-Hadi.
> >
> > "Those in the Arab world who condemn him are
> > short-sighted, and it is too early to come with
> > strong reactions," Abdul-Hadi said. "Obama needs
> to
> > keep the party under his leadership and can?t
> leave
> > room for anyone to doubt his integrity, which
> could
> > weaken his challenge to McCain."
> >
>
> OK. Well they don't have much of a choice but to sit
>
> and wait and see but I have to cast a vote in the
> general. If it's close I'll probably go ahead vote
> for
> Barack simply because it's a better bet in any case.
>
> But it's not even going to be close. Obama is
> going to
> kick his butt just like I've always figured once
> he won
> the nomination.
>
I'm glad to hear you say that. We all know there's no such thing as a perfect candidate. But like JR said on another thread, a vote for Obama is more for the good of all Americans than a vote for anyone else or no vote at all.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,768
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(559 of 2166)
Jun 11, 2008 7:38 PM
|
> Right after Hillary concedes, AIPAC steps up to host
> the first showdown btn the outsider Obama that they
> can't buy, and the guy that's already in their
> pocket, and they do it in their house. We could call
> it a set up, theater, a power play, for Obama, a
> matter of keeping your friends close and your enemies
> closer, or we could think of it like Brezinski does,
> who says he's an Obama supporter with a capital S,
> and who called the AIPAC conference a ritual.
>
Two weeks ago Brezinski said they have too much
clout and now they are a "ritual". I have to consider
that what pols tell well heeled special interests have
more of a habit of becoming policy than what they
tell us. That was the case during the 2000 primaries
when Bush was running on a "no new nation building"
platform. At the very same time he showed up at a
CSPAN televised JAC fundraiser and promised, along
with McCain, Forbes & Bauer, to remove Saddam
from power......and the Democrat pols who voted for
the war didn't see that ?
>
> If smart people like you, JimEarl, turn against Obama
> after one speech in hostile territory, then AIPAC
> succeeded at their devious game. This is how these
> devils win. As I've said before, Obama is up against
> it, not just with AIPAC, but all neocon Middle East
> policy, which could ultimately make or break his
> candidacy unless Americans, Palestinians, and the
> rest of the world pay very close attention.
>
Well I'm trying to pay close attention and what I'm
seeing is that both candidates have vowed to end
Iran's uranium enrichment program (and they're
not going to talk or sanction them out of that) with
"all options on the table." And they both have
assumed the "fact" of an active nuclear weapons
program without so much as even verification by
National Intelligence Estimate assesments to back
that up.......sound familiar ?
>
> I'm not just promoting my own agenda here with this
> quote even though it mirrors my perspective. I've
> done a lot research and follow this very closely, and
> have read more vitriol from the MSM than one person
> can stomach, but of the ones with a fairer view, I
> thought this one said it best...from
>
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/05/1117964.aspx
>
> "Mahdi Abdul-Hadi, a Palestinian political
> analyst, told NBC News on Thursday that Palestinians
> should be pragmatic and understand the circumstances
> in which Obama spoke before judging his words.
>
> "Remember this is a campaign speech, and he's
> addressing the most powerful American Jewish lobby.
> Also, the Democratic nominee has to follow the lines
> of the party's position," said Abdul-Hadi.
>
> "Those in the Arab world who condemn him are
> short-sighted, and it is too early to come with
> strong reactions," Abdul-Hadi said. "Obama needs to
> keep the party under his leadership and can?t leave
> room for anyone to doubt his integrity, which could
> weaken his challenge to McCain."
>
OK. Well they don't have much of a choice but to sit
and wait and see but I have to cast a vote in the
general. If it's close I'll probably go ahead vote for
Barack simply because it's a better bet in any case.
But it's not even going to be close. Obama is going to
kick his butt just like I've always figured once he won
the nomination.
--
The Man from Standard Oil
|
|
|
Posts:
7,768
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(558 of 2166)
Jun 11, 2008 2:52 PM
|
> Jim Earl,
>
> What is the difference from taking money from a
> lobbyist for a cause and taking individual
> contributions from member of the same cause?
>
> Answer, nothing. The candidate still feels a debt is
> owed to that group. Only the money is hidden from
> the unskilled and ignorant.
>
Quite true as Blankfort states and as I've realized
for awhile but it doesn't necessarily mean Obama
takes that money because that money is often
given to a pol's opponent when he doesn't
play ball.
And Obama isn't going to change that by giving a
special interest everything they want and then some.
What he's going to do is have a more trouble free
campaign.
And when the DNC says it doesn't take PAC money,
the same rules apply since many DNC donors have
the same interests. I remember when Howard Dean's
campaign was going strong DNC donations almost
dried up. Then he did his Yosemite Sam thing and
the top donors elected him as DNC chairman....go figure.
Personally, I think they want the appearance of an
opposition party w/o having to vote against wars.
--
The Man from Standard Oil
--
Edited by JimEarl at 06/11/2008 4:10 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
13,448
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(557 of 2166)
Jun 11, 2008 12:26 PM
|
> I don't agree that Obama and Clinton were identical.
> The major difference is that he refused to take
> e money from Washington lobbyists and special
> interest PACs, and following his example, the
> Democratic National Committee has just announced
> they've adopted the same standard. So as not to, as
> Obama says, drown out the voices of the American
> people.
>
> McCain's attack on Obama by calling him a hypocrite
> bcz MoveOn.org chose to raise money for him through
> their website and TV ads is a shameless lie. Obama
> has no control over MoveOn.org's or any other
> organization's fundraising efforts or campaign ads
> that inspires individuals to write a personal check
> to the Obama campaign.
>
> Clinton had and McCain is taking direct donations
> from a host of special interests, so we see that
> McCain's phony attack is only an attempt to draw
> attention away from himself.
None of them broke any current laws or ethical standards to raise funds.
Obama has interests he'll be answering to, and that's undeniable.
The policies and what they promised are what people are voting for.
Another word is, Obama sold the same through yelling for change with far less substances.
--
Edited by infoseek at 06/11/2008 9:26 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,896
Registered:
10/21/07
|
|
(556 of 2166)
Jun 11, 2008 9:12 AM
|
Jim Earl,
What is the difference from taking money from a lobbyist for a cause and taking individual contributions from member of the same cause?
Answer, nothing. The candidate still feels a debt is owed to that group. Only the money is hidden from the unskilled and ignorant.
Don't like money from lobbyist, fine they will take from PACs. Don't like PACs then groups not affiliated with your campaign group will pay for your media by saying the candidate did not 'endorse' the message. Don't like that then money will be injected in the candidate's campaign by giving the maxium using false names.
Please realize the words 'no lobbyist and Pacs' are just words. The money is coming from some group, that the candidate will secretly repay in some way. That slumlord that supplied money to Obama's campaign, owns land right next to O's new million dollar property in Chicago. Coincidence, I don't think so. Maybe when O becomes President the slumlord's sentence will eliminated.
A politician is lawyer, and lawyer learned to manipulate the average joe with half truths, and lack of telling the real truth. Don't believe the hype.
--
The monster behind anger, desire(greed and lust), and ignorance is FEAR.
Fear creates division.
Love creates unity.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,034
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(555 of 2166)
Jun 11, 2008 7:11 AM
|
Right after Hillary concedes, AIPAC steps up to host the first showdown btn the outsider Obama that they can't buy, and the guy that's already in their pocket, and they do it in their house. We could call it a set up, theater, a power play, for Obama, a matter of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer, or we could think of it like Brezinski does, who says he's an Obama supporter with a capital S, and who called the AIPAC conference a ritual.
If smart people like you, JimEarl, turn against Obama after one speech in hostile territory, then AIPAC succeeded at their devious game. This is how these devils win. As I've said before, Obama is up against it, not just with AIPAC, but all neocon Middle East policy, which could ultimately make or break his candidacy unless Americans, Palestinians, and the rest of the world pay very close attention.
I'm not just promoting my own agenda here with this quote even though it mirrors my perspective. I've done a lot research and follow this very closely, and have read more vitriol from the MSM than one person can stomach, but of the ones with a fairer view, I thought this one said it best...from http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/05/1117964.aspx
"Mahdi Abdul-Hadi, a Palestinian political analyst, told NBC News on Thursday that Palestinians should be pragmatic and understand the circumstances in which Obama spoke before judging his words.
"Remember this is a campaign speech, and he's addressing the most powerful American Jewish lobby. Also, the Democratic nominee has to follow the lines of the party's position," said Abdul-Hadi.
"Those in the Arab world who condemn him are short-sighted, and it is too early to come with strong reactions," Abdul-Hadi said. "Obama needs to keep the party under his leadership and can?t leave room for anyone to doubt his integrity, which could weaken his challenge to McCain."
|
|
|
Posts:
7,768
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(554 of 2166)
Jun 10, 2008 7:48 PM
|
> I don't agree that Obama and Clinton were identical.
> The major difference is that he refused to take
> money from Washington lobbyists and special
> interest PACs, and following his example, the
> Democratic National Committee has just announced
> they've adopted the same standard. So as not to, as
> Obama says, drown out the voices of the American
> people.
>
> McCain's attack on Obama by calling him a hypocrite
> bcz MoveOn.org chose to raise money for him through
> their website and TV ads is a shameless lie. Obama
> has no control over MoveOn.org's or any other
> organization's fundraising efforts or campaign ads
> that inspires individuals to write a personal check
> to the Obama campaign.
>
> Clinton had and McCain is taking direct donations
> from a host of special interests, so we see that
> McCain's phony attack is only an attempt to draw
> attention away from himself.
The reason that he doesn't need to take lobby money
is because he gets internet donations from people,
many of whom think that there will be foreign policy
differences that just aren't there. So Hillary was
actually much more honest in her approach.
You don't get endorsements from power brokers like
Rahm Emmanuel when you're really out to "change"
shit.
You get what Cynthia McKinney got for not playing ball
And he's paying his DC assimilation dues in the worst
possible way. He just gave the Palestinians a royal
screwing last week when he screwed them out of East
Jerusalem. You remember the Palestinians. The ones
whom he once said have "Suffered more than anybody
in the Middle East." That's special interest kowtowing if
I ever saw it.
Now I've never been in on screwing over the little guy
over here if only because it makes people in on it look
bad. And that's not always the easy way to go. So I
sure as hell don't need to get in on it now as regards
the little guy over there. And it makes Barack look bad.
I hope he is pandering to AIPAC, Gzndhyt. I would like
nothing better if that were the case. But I don't think he
is. He couldn't begin to get away with it. I know that.
He is now on the team of the "mean".
--
The Man from Standard Oil
|
|
|
Posts:
3,034
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(553 of 2166)
Jun 10, 2008 7:21 AM
|
I don't agree that Obama and Clinton were identical. The major difference is that he refused to take money from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, and following his example, the Democratic National Committee has just announced they've adopted the same standard. So as not to, as Obama says, drown out the voices of the American people.
McCain's attack on Obama by calling him a hypocrite bcz MoveOn.org chose to raise money for him through their website and TV ads is a shameless lie. Obama has no control over MoveOn.org's or any other organization's fundraising efforts or campaign ads that inspires individuals to write a personal check to the Obama campaign.
Clinton had and McCain is taking direct donations from a host of special interests, so we see that McCain's phony attack is only an attempt to draw attention away from himself.
|
|
|
Posts:
13,448
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(552 of 2166)
Jun 9, 2008 9:29 PM
|
Jim, thanks for the candid opinion.
Gzndhyt, when push comes to shove, almost all posters would agree Clinton and Obama are identical.
Obama has no other option, but to mimic Clintonomics and who do you think has a solid authority on that?
Don't buy into the ever sickening MSM!
> > Oh, JimEarl, I didn't perceive you as a single
> issue
> > voter. Say it isn't so. There are so many
> things
> > that need changing, domestically and
> internationally,
> > and they can only happen when intelligent people
> like
> > you stay involved. Obama's finest qualities are
> that
> > he listens, and thinks deeply.
> >
> > We are up against a wall of treachery and evil,
> and
> > nobody knows that better than Obama.
> >
> > As one who ran for local office and lost, here's
> a
> > few pointers I came away with. Silence your
> inner
> > conflict if you want to win. Tell people what
> they
> > want to hear, no matter how painful it is, and
> no
> > matter how deeply it goes against the very
> essence of
> > your being. Once you get into office, you can
> summon
> > your moxy and supporters to enable you to do
> what
> > you believe in.
>
> Oh if you are voting on domestic issues there are
>
> definitely differences worth voting on. All I'm
> saying
> is that I'm realizing that most foreign policy is
> decided
> by special interests and pretty much always has been
>
> no matter the rhetoric. Nobody in DC panders to
> special
> interests. That's why nobody in DC has ever actually
> stopped a war before it started......by voting
> against it
> in congress.
>
> --
> The Man from Standard
> Oil
|
|
|
Posts:
7,768
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(551 of 2166)
Jun 9, 2008 9:19 PM
|
> Oh, JimEarl, I didn't perceive you as a single issue
> voter. Say it isn't so. There are so many things
> that need changing, domestically and internationally,
> and they can only happen when intelligent people like
> you stay involved. Obama's finest qualities are that
> he listens, and thinks deeply.
>
> We are up against a wall of treachery and evil, and
> nobody knows that better than Obama.
>
> As one who ran for local office and lost, here's a
> few pointers I came away with. Silence your inner
> conflict if you want to win. Tell people what they
> want to hear, no matter how painful it is, and no
> matter how deeply it goes against the very essence of
> your being. Once you get into office, you can summon
> your moxy and supporters to enable you to do what
> you believe in.
Oh if you are voting on domestic issues there are
definitely differences worth voting on. All I'm saying
is that I'm realizing that most foreign policy is decided
by special interests and pretty much always has been
no matter the rhetoric. Nobody in DC panders to special
interests. That's why nobody in DC has ever actually
stopped a war before it started......by voting against it
in congress.
--
The Man from Standard Oil
|
|
|
Posts:
3,034
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(550 of 2166)
Jun 9, 2008 8:54 PM
|
Oh, JimEarl, I didn't perceive you as a single issue voter. Say it isn't so. There are so many things that need changing, domestically and internationally, and they can only happen when intelligent people like you stay involved. Obama's finest qualities are that he listens, and thinks deeply.
We are up against a wall of treachery and evil, and nobody knows that better than Obama.
As one who ran for local office and lost, here's a few pointers I came away with. Silence your inner conflict if you want to win. Tell people what they want to hear, no matter how painful it is, and no matter how deeply it goes against the very essence of your being. Once you get into office, you can summon your moxy and supporters to enable you to do what you believe in.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,768
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(549 of 2166)
Jun 9, 2008 8:14 PM
|
>
The Cocktail Napkin Plan for Regime Change in Iran
>
> Jim,
>
> Thanks. Good read, but this isn't about the big
> picture.
No you're right. It's not.
The big picture as I now see it (for what that's worth)
is that there are no real differences in policy approach,
regarding Iran, between the two candidates (or three
including Hillary) no matter their rhetoric on the campaign
trail. They all pretty much spelled it out at last week's
AIPAC foreign policy conference. That's why AIPAC
changed the date of the conference from April to June
when they realized that the primary race was going
to be contested until into June. And that's why Obama
gets endorsements from virtually everybody in
Washington DC except for the unwanted one from
Jimmy Carter.
And Bill Maher himself as much as implied that we won't
be getting out of Iraq anytime soon.
If there are any differences at all, it would be that Obama,
like the reverend Wright said, would be forced to give
away more than anyone else as regards a balanced
foreign policy in the Middle East because of who he is
and what he has said in the past in order to buy into
the system. He once said that "No one in the Middle
East has suffered more than the Palestinians."
So in order to make up for that heresy he said that
he is in favor of an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's
capital which pretty much screws the Palestinians out
of disputed East Jerusalem......and I guess that implies
that we'll be taking care of any roosting chickens.
Now I found it convenient to ignor clues about his
character during this primary so I'm the last fool
anybody should ever take advice from regarding
politicians. But for myself it's an insight into his
character at present.
--
The Man from Standard Oil
|
|
|
Posts:
3,034
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(548 of 2166)
Jun 9, 2008 6:06 PM
|
>
> Thanks. Good read, but this isn't about the big
> picture.
What's the big picture?
|
|
|
Posts:
13,448
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
|
|
|
