Someone has to have the courage to talk to these people. This does not mean "give in" to these people, it means open a dialogue, no more no less. The current policy with regards to Iran, for instance, is just hardening the resolve of the Iranians and making them more extreme - in part, because it's proving to them why they need long term energy independence (which, incidentally, is something that lots of people in the US seem to want, too). When asked "Why not just get the uranium off the Russians?" the Iranian engineer in charge of the project simply replied "Would you want to be dependent on the Russians for your long term energy supplies?" And thus the light turned on. Europe is desperately trying to avoid dependence on Russia for gas because the Russians can't be trusted. No - I don't want a theocracy to have uranium enrichment technology, but unless someone starts a dialogue with them this is exactly what will happen, and what's more, they WILL make a nuclear weapon unless the US opens a dialogue with them.
This is correct. Something a lot of American conservatives seem to ignore is that they're always telling us how tough they are and how they won't give in to threats and yet the Iranian regime is even more rightwing than they are and yet they expect it to yield to threats. See the problem here?
The trick is to open dialogue and reason with the enemy without actually giving them what they want. Often (especially with far-right regimes like Iran's) their belligerence and aggressiveness is about saving face and appearing not to have backed-down even when you have. Force should only be used with Iran when literally nothing else works and then consequences have to be taken into consideration.
Al-Quaida, it has to be said, are a different kettle of custard because they're less political and more religious. Negotiating with them would be a lot like trying to negotiate with Fred Phelps about homosexuality. But undermining Al-Quaida's support base is probably the most important way of fighting them and Bush has proved a liability on that side of things. In fact I think the only real push his administration gave against them was the destruction of their Afghan bases at the start of the war.
Finally, I think quite a lot of people are ascribing too much power to the office of the US President. The US president does not rule by decree. He does have the power of veto, and he does carry a lot of weight, and he is the Commander in Chief. But he can't just do what he wants without support.
I agree. The whole point of the US president is that he or she is a controlled, regulated leader rather than some imperial figure.
I agree. The whole point of the US president is that he or she is a controlled, regulated leader rather than some imperial figure.
Thats great but congress currently has a democratic majority (and a democratic speaker).....basically making Obama an 'imperial figure' if he gets in.....no checks and balances...
Well on the super reliable Fox News that my wife is sucked in by, so I have to suffer it.
They have actually just said "If the state of Indiana goes with Obama you might as well put your PJs on and go to bed, because that's who's going to win it".
Well on the super reliable Fox News that my wife is sucked in by, so I have to suffer it.
They have actually just said "If the state of Indiana goes with Obama you might as well put your PJs on and go to bed, because that's who's going to win it".
Indiana has been republican for 60 odd years.
I haven't wore PJs in 30yrs so I guess that means a McCain victory! hurrah!
How so...everything I have stated there IS documented fact....go look it up.
Yeah, but there's no context. For example, the "associated with terrorists" thing; they were on some sort of board together. That would be like if Sarah Palin was once part of the same rifle club as Timothy McVeigh and someone subsequently claiming that she "associated with a political extremist and subsequent terrorist". It only sticks if Obama has said that he supported the actions of the Weathermen otherwise it's just a cheap smear.
Same with the pastor thing. Again, I saw an article in the Observer (British newspaper) a while ago called "The Real John McCain" which accused him of all sorts of extreme positions which, it turned out, were actually the positions of colleagues or friends of his. The article's angle, a classic political smear, was to claim that because he associated with people with these opinions or supported them for political reasons he therefore held those views himself. This would be like saying I supported David Davis' views on homosexuality just because I supported his stance on the 42-days issue.
As for the "civilian army" thing, you might have a point about it being unnecessary, I don't know since there's no context, but you originally said something about the SS which is a bit Cornish Davey to be honest. Apart from anything else, the SS wasn't a problem because it was a military wing in the German state, it was a problem because of its extremist ideology and the lack of democratic checks and balances against it in Nazi Germany.
Philadelphia: A few black panthers (not the animals), standing at a polling station urging voters to vote Obama while brandishing nightsticks and knives....
..I guess they are getting started on the Civilian army early ! :lol:
Philadelphia: A few black panthers (not the animals), standing at a polling station urging voters to vote Obama while brandishing nightsticks and knives....
..I guess they are getting started on the Civilian army early ! :lol:
This was mentioned on the BBC's live text feed. Thing is, if they're "brandishing nightsticks and knives" then surely they're breaking the law.
"1945 The BBC's Philippa Thomas in Columbus, Ohio, says: The official line in this state - an absolute must-win for Mr McCain - is that voting is "orderly and brisk". But there are some reports of confusion, stemming from the fact that voters are allowed to choose between the touch-screen electronic option or the old-fashioned paper ballot. The Election Protection coalition, which is non-partisan, says some voters asking for a paper vote are being directed to cast "provisional ballots" instead. These won't necessarily be counted, and can get disqualified in the legal squabbles that follow a close contest. To show you why this could matter - in 2004, there were more provisional ballots cast in Ohio, than the margin of George W Bush's narrow victory."
Sorry but what exactly is the point of a "provision ballot" in that case? If it can be "disqualified" then it surely doesn't count. Doesn't that mean that anyone being directed to use one as a "vote" is being bullshitted and therefore that people are breaking the law here.
If this is true and McCain takes Ohio (in fact, whoever takes Ohio) then expect some legal wranglings...
Philadelphia: A few black panthers (not the animals), standing at a polling station urging voters to vote Obama while brandishing nightsticks and knives....
..I guess they are getting started on the Civilian army early ! :lol:
There were no knives, there was one nightstick, and the cops escorted the nightstick weilding guy away, and at no point did they tell, anybody to vote for Obama.
The one remaining guy was being a dick and harming Obama rather than helping, I think he thought he was actually a Black Panther. Fair play their goals were just way back when they started until Farah Kahn got his claws into them, and split them right down the middle
There were no knives, there was one nightstick, and the cops escorted the nightstick weilding guy away, and at no point did they tell, anybody to vote for Obama.
The one remaining guy was being a dick and harming Obama rather than helping, I think he thought he was actually a Black Panther. Fair play their goals were just way back when they started until Farah Kahn got his claws into them, and split them right down the middle
i vote more if there were balck panthers and the voting station. all i ever see is a little old lady on a stool stopping people coming in while smoking.
Um....we just had a couple of scantily clad student types come in the office urging us to vote....I don't know whats worse as a means of intimidation..., night sticks and knifes or nighties and hardening nobs.
Um....we just had a couple of scantily clad student types come in the office urging us to vote....I don't know whats worse as a means of intimidation..., night sticks and knifes or nighties and hardening nobs.
ive got a voting poll for you
can i slip my ballot into your box
i can feel a heavy swing in the south
ive voted once but give me five mins and i'll be ready to open those curtains once again.
Hold on....aren't political threads banned? Quick..everyone edit their posts.
They aren't banned outright, but we watch them like a hawk as they often result in mudslinging and name-calling. So far, this thread has been very civilized indeed!
They aren't banned outright, but we watch them like a hawk as they often result in mudslinging and name-calling. So far, this thread has been very civilized indeed!
Hold on! I've been called 'troll' and 'texas pasty' !!
They aren't banned outright, but we watch them like a hawk as they often result in mudslinging and name-calling. So far, this thread has been very civilized indeed!
Comments
This is correct. Something a lot of American conservatives seem to ignore is that they're always telling us how tough they are and how they won't give in to threats and yet the Iranian regime is even more rightwing than they are and yet they expect it to yield to threats. See the problem here?
The trick is to open dialogue and reason with the enemy without actually giving them what they want. Often (especially with far-right regimes like Iran's) their belligerence and aggressiveness is about saving face and appearing not to have backed-down even when you have. Force should only be used with Iran when literally nothing else works and then consequences have to be taken into consideration.
Al-Quaida, it has to be said, are a different kettle of custard because they're less political and more religious. Negotiating with them would be a lot like trying to negotiate with Fred Phelps about homosexuality. But undermining Al-Quaida's support base is probably the most important way of fighting them and Bush has proved a liability on that side of things. In fact I think the only real push his administration gave against them was the destruction of their Afghan bases at the start of the war.
I agree. The whole point of the US president is that he or she is a controlled, regulated leader rather than some imperial figure.
Thats great but congress currently has a democratic majority (and a democratic speaker).....basically making Obama an 'imperial figure' if he gets in.....no checks and balances...
They have actually just said "If the state of Indiana goes with Obama you might as well put your PJs on and go to bed, because that's who's going to win it".
Indiana has been republican for 60 odd years.
I haven't wore PJs in 30yrs so I guess that means a McCain victory! hurrah!
EDIT: ...or I can't go to bed again :(
beanz, third floor, second window from the left, book depository.
Just hope there are no distracting naughty librarians with hair up and rimmed glasses....or I'll be shooting something else.
I agree :(
Yeah, but there's no context. For example, the "associated with terrorists" thing; they were on some sort of board together. That would be like if Sarah Palin was once part of the same rifle club as Timothy McVeigh and someone subsequently claiming that she "associated with a political extremist and subsequent terrorist". It only sticks if Obama has said that he supported the actions of the Weathermen otherwise it's just a cheap smear.
Same with the pastor thing. Again, I saw an article in the Observer (British newspaper) a while ago called "The Real John McCain" which accused him of all sorts of extreme positions which, it turned out, were actually the positions of colleagues or friends of his. The article's angle, a classic political smear, was to claim that because he associated with people with these opinions or supported them for political reasons he therefore held those views himself. This would be like saying I supported David Davis' views on homosexuality just because I supported his stance on the 42-days issue.
As for the "civilian army" thing, you might have a point about it being unnecessary, I don't know since there's no context, but you originally said something about the SS which is a bit Cornish Davey to be honest. Apart from anything else, the SS wasn't a problem because it was a military wing in the German state, it was a problem because of its extremist ideology and the lack of democratic checks and balances against it in Nazi Germany.
If the count says Obama about 2am tomorrow...if the count says McCain....about December the 12th after the recount and recount and recount...
Philadelphia: A few black panthers (not the animals), standing at a polling station urging voters to vote Obama while brandishing nightsticks and knives....
..I guess they are getting started on the Civilian army early ! :lol:
This was mentioned on the BBC's live text feed. Thing is, if they're "brandishing nightsticks and knives" then surely they're breaking the law.
I would suspect that they are republicans. They are probably not aware of the law ;)
Andrew
"1945 The BBC's Philippa Thomas in Columbus, Ohio, says: The official line in this state - an absolute must-win for Mr McCain - is that voting is "orderly and brisk". But there are some reports of confusion, stemming from the fact that voters are allowed to choose between the touch-screen electronic option or the old-fashioned paper ballot. The Election Protection coalition, which is non-partisan, says some voters asking for a paper vote are being directed to cast "provisional ballots" instead. These won't necessarily be counted, and can get disqualified in the legal squabbles that follow a close contest. To show you why this could matter - in 2004, there were more provisional ballots cast in Ohio, than the margin of George W Bush's narrow victory."
Sorry but what exactly is the point of a "provision ballot" in that case? If it can be "disqualified" then it surely doesn't count. Doesn't that mean that anyone being directed to use one as a "vote" is being bullshitted and therefore that people are breaking the law here.
If this is true and McCain takes Ohio (in fact, whoever takes Ohio) then expect some legal wranglings...
Of course they were...and were removed....bit late for those that already voted under that duress though huh?
There were no knives, there was one nightstick, and the cops escorted the nightstick weilding guy away, and at no point did they tell, anybody to vote for Obama.
The one remaining guy was being a dick and harming Obama rather than helping, I think he thought he was actually a Black Panther. Fair play their goals were just way back when they started until Farah Kahn got his claws into them, and split them right down the middle
i vote more if there were balck panthers and the voting station. all i ever see is a little old lady on a stool stopping people coming in while smoking.
Otherwise they may as well just elect the US pesident via a WoS poll. (Actually that'd probably be the most sensible way to do it). :)
ive got a voting poll for you
can i slip my ballot into your box
i can feel a heavy swing in the south
ive voted once but give me five mins and i'll be ready to open those curtains once again.
ill vote if you suck me off.
just a few to be going on with.......
ha harrrrrr!
Selfish...did you 'spread the wealth' of that pizza?
They aren't banned outright, but we watch them like a hawk as they often result in mudslinging and name-calling. So far, this thread has been very civilized indeed!
Hold on! I've been called 'troll' and 'texas pasty' !!
You're a bloody Democrat aren't you!!