Obama '08?

If the conditions shown last night on CBS News of egg farming in the mid-west were exposed here there would be ministerial resignations.

That disgraceful state of affairs has happened on this watch which has lasted long enough for it to have to take responsibility for it.

And CBS News is not right wing I don't think.

2 Replies

@spendius,

How can people talk about being "humane" when they demand food at prices which cause such things?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

How can people talk about being "humane" when they demand food at prices which cause such things?

excellent point spendi.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

If the conditions shown last night on CBS News of egg farming in the mid-west were exposed here there would be ministerial resignations.

Chickens and eggs, now that's big stuff, Spendi. For causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of foreigners, the ministers all get a big pass.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

okie wrote:

..So I remain curious, dys, are you going to stand up and be counted and tell us something about your vet experience as apparently claimed,...

The man is legit and under no obligation to post his military record here. Please take my word for it, Okie, and change tack. Thanks.

Okay fine, I will file what you say, as I consider you a good source, however I will say this, dyslexia brought this on himself by throwing out cute insults at me from the very beginning of when I joined this forum, and I will also say this, I have never met another Vietnam vet that would have an attitude toward another fellow vet as he has displayed and also outright refuse to tell us what he did and where. In contrast, let us take a man like mysteryman, he is up front, honest, and totally forthright about his military service. The sort of presentation as mysteryman has provided does deserve respect.

With that said, I am going to quote dyslexia's last post and address what he said:

dyslexia wrote:

I fail to understand Okie, how you could be disappointed, I am an admitted extreme liberal ergo socialist/communists/fascist/america hater/bigot/racist and reader of books. I have lots of negative issues with Obama and readily discuss them with people like Roger and Georgeob mainly because they are conservatives who are knowledgeable while you, Ican and (foxfyre when she was here) are nothing more than ditto-heads apparently incapable of sustained rational thought, who shun any and all thoughts/ideas inconsistent with your pre-ordained view of the universe.

There you go on that, spewing out crap that you have no knowledge to be true. I do freely admit to listening to Rush much, but to be honest I haven't listened to him hardly at all for several weeks, actually months, due to a change in schedule for me. And I have not listened to any other talk show much at all during the past few weeks as well. For your information, I do not agree 100% with anybody and that includes conservative talk show personalities, but I do think they more often are right than most liberal political commentators. I have actually listened to Ed Shultz some lately, but find him to be ignorant to wrong on almost everything. I would suggest maybe you could benefit from listening to political analysis talk shows, you might actually learn some news and information that you lack, and that would apply to most other liberals here as well.
Another thing, instead of being cute or attempt to be funny with your claim of being an extreme liberal ergo socialist/communists/fascist/america hater/bigot/racist and reader of books, you would gender far more respect with being more honest about what you do actually believe and what you actually are. By trying to be cute or funny, you give me the impression that you are trying to place yourself on some superior plane to everyone else, but it doesn't work, dys. Face it, you are somewhere else on the scale of conservative to liberal, and if you can't offer a more honest and sober opinion, it isn't very impressive.

Quote:

an analogy, if you will, right wing republicans are like the catholic shurch in that you and the catholics do have/own a theology whereas democrats (I'm no democrat) are more like protestants with every single one having their own inconsistent theology. democrats are as diverse as baptists/mormons/lutherns while republicans (those on the right) are as united as the catholics with only minor divergence among them. I wait the white puff of smoke signaling the new republican pope be it Palin/Limbaugh/Beck whomever. In the meantime Obama is essentially at war not so much with the republicans but with his fellow (protestant) democrats.

What you say is interesting. My interpretation of what you said in different words is that Democrats and liberals don't have solid core beliefs and so they reside in a huge gray area, all scattered around and consoled by the fact that they cannot or do not tell each other what is right or wrong, because they often don't even know for themselves what they believe. In contrast, conservatives have solid core beliefs for which they are not hesitant to tell others and to stand up for what those beleifs are as individuals.

If you wish to compare the parties to religions, the Republicans are individualists and have their core beliefs, which typically includes a solid belief that we have rights and responsibilities as individuals, while Democrats and liberals' religion is government, they constantly are awaiting and looking for a savior to lead government to bring about a more utopian existence, perhaps even save the earth and eliminate all wars. Conservatives realize human nature will never allow all wars to end, thus we recognize the realities of human nature and we distrust the government and all governments to be anything to be worshipped. Our worship is between us and our God, to which we turn to deal with our problems.

Quote:

Hitler is dead and gone Okie and so is WW II. It's time to work on solving contemporary problems.

I agree, but those that do not understand and learn from history are destined to repeat it. Therefore, I am not afraid of addressing the realities of the history that surrounded one of the most noteable tyrants in history, because I believe it is very important to properly understand the phsycology that produced a figure like that, so that we might better understand how to avoid a repeat. That is why I started the thread "What Produces Ruthless Dictators," and I think the information I dug up and posted there is highly pertinent, and nobody should be afraid of the truth of it.

Last but not least dyslexia, if you wish to actually carry on a reasonable two way discussion in a frank, open, and honest manner without hurling insults, I am always interested in that, but if you want to continue to play coy, clever, and insulting, I am not very interested in that.

2 Replies

Leftists and Rightists are Different
(1)
The Left seeks more government control over people's lives.
The Right seeks more individual control over people's lives.

(2)
The Left seeks more equal distribution of wealth.
The Right seeks more merit distribution of wealth.

(3)
The Left seeks more dependence by the needy on government charity and less dependence on private charity.
The Right seeks less dependence by the needy on government charity and more dependence on private charity.

(4)
The Left rarely specifies what the Left thinks and regularly specifies what the Right thinks.
The Right regularly specifies what the Left thinks and regularly specifies what the Right thinks.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

I agree, but those that do not understand and learn from history are destined to repeat it.

But your misinterpretation of history is more dangerous, because it's born out of ignorance and not understanding "real" history. Hitler's 25 points doesn't begin to tell the history of Hitler, but you insist on believing the printed word more than the actions taken by Hitler.

Even when this topic has been explained by so many on a2k in so many different ways providing evidence that you continue to ignore.

Your education stopped some years ago, and you got stuck on "repeat," a tactic used most often by conservatives who has nothing to offer in the way of solutions; only to incite hatred and ignorance.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican, I agree with your points almost completely. Your last one, point #4, is interesting because it seems pretty consistent with what dyslexia just got done telling me when he compared the parties and the right and left with religions. Fascinating, very fascinating, ican, because it also agrees with what I have posted in the past, that a clear black and white declaration of what is right and what is wrong is scary to liberals, and it often stimulates an outburst of namecalling and condemnations of the narrow mindedness and bigotry of the "religious right," and so forth.

1 Reply

@okie,

That's odd, I've never shied away from describing exactly what I think and stand for. And I'm a Liberal.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

But your misinterpretation of history is more dangerous, because it's born out of ignorance and not understanding "real" history.

But perhaps I am not misinterpreting it, ci, perhaps you and others are. And it isn't as if I am alone, because I am not at all. That is why we debate stuff here, ci, to present our opinions with our the evidence, and I have certainly done that.

I like the following websites. Here they are: Hitler was a Leftist" And another one that I have also posted numerous times: "Hitler was a Socialist." And folks, I would suggest that if you don't agree with them, do not denigrate the author or authors as ignorant, actually post evidence or conflicting information to buttress your point of disagreement. I would suggest however that it be taken to the thread: What produces Ruthless Dictators.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

dyslexia brought this on himself by throwing out cute insults at me from the very beginning of when I joined this forum,

I am truly sorry Okie, sorry that you think my insults thrown at your have been cute. I've certainly never intended my insults thrown at you to be cute. Pretty much all of my insults thrown at High Seas have meant to be cute but really, I've never meant, in even the slightest way for my insults thrown at you to be cute.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That's odd, I've never shied away from describing exactly what I think and stand for. And I'm a Liberal.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, I think you are a little unusual in that respect, and you know that I have complemented you more than once in the past. I consider you mostly civil and almost a friend on line, of course we do not know each other personally, and we know we disagree most of the time, but I respect you for being open and honest with your rather liberal opinions. Thanks also for going to bat for me at times, sometimes encouraging others to quit piling on me.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

Maybe "clever" would have been a better word for me to use than "cute." dys. Anyway, apology accepted, and so maybe we can move on from here.
Peace!!!!

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Chickens and eggs, now that's big stuff, Spendi. For causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of foreigners, the ministers all get a big pass.

A few did resign but your point is disingenuous. A torturing bastard was on the loose with massive oil revenues and an expansionist policy that caused untold deaths in the Iran/Iraq war, in his own population using unmentionable methosds, and the invasion of Kuwait, which, besides the deaths was a threat to vital oil supplies.

We don't know how many deaths were caused by the policy to Iraq but it might well have been a lot less than would have been caused had he been left alone. We have an idea of how many deaths Hitler caused by allowing his expansions which only little Britain resisted for a long time.

And animal lovers will tell you that conditions for hundreds of millions of animals, not just the ones in the CBS item, are despicable so that you can have cheap food and money left over from your income to buy a computer and all the other wonderful goodies you consume and which only your ego needs. With no end in sight.

Also--the policy in Iraq was voted for by overwhelming majorities in both your Houses and in our House of Commons who we elected and a number of other countries joined the coalition. Without those majorities it wouldn't have mattered what the ministers wanted or your administration.

And they didn't get a pass either. Taking responsibility for such things is nowhere near a pass. It must be agonising.

If you use that argument we can no longer criticise our governments for anything lest you come in scoffing at it for being nothing.

Anyway--the two subjects are not connected. And if they are two wrongs don't make a right. I pointed to what I consider to be a wrong and other wrongs, even if they are wrongs, don't mitigate it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

A torturing bastard was on the loose with massive oil revenues and an expansionist policy that caused untold deaths in the Iran/Iraq war, in his own population using unmentionable methosds, and the invasion of Kuwait, which, besides the deaths was a threat to vital oil supplies.

Tony Blair didn't much go for torture, as far as I know, but he was a lying sleazy little bastard for sure. Bush, and Reagan/Bush before him, were even sleazier than Blair, not to mention bigger liars.

And there has been a long line of Brit PMs and US prezes that have made sure that the lives of Middle Easterners has been hell. History tells us that they have been as dirty as any, though they often made use of proxies so they didn't dirty their hands.

Are you really that pissed off that these ME countries should actually want to control their own resources?

Why would you get your panties in a bunch about an expansionist policy that was largely US driven - there had to be a great deal of Brit support too?

One wonders, where were all these assholes, Brit and American, who use WMDs as propaganda tools to launch illegal invasions, but,

Quote:

and extensive use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas against Iranian troops and civilians as well as Iraqi Kurds. At the time, the UN Security Council issued statements that "chemical weapons had been used in the war." However, in these UN statements Iraq was not mentioned by name, so it has been said that "the international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian as well as Iraqi Kurds" and it is believed[18][19][20] that "United States prevented the UN from condemning Iraq".[21]

Quote:

According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival",[78] The Reagan administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports of the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.[79][80] There is great resentment in Iran[citation needed] that the international community helped Iraq develop its chemical weapons arsenal and armed forces, and also that the world did nothing to punish Saddam's Ba'athist regime for its use of chemical weapons against Iran throughout the war — particularly since the US and other western powers soon felt obliged to oppose the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and eventually invade Iraq itself to remove Saddam Hussein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

Quote:

Also--the policy in Iraq was voted for by overwhelming majorities in both your Houses and in our House of Commons who we elected and a number of other countries joined the coalition. Without those majorities it wouldn't have mattered what the ministers wanted or your administration.

And they didn't get a pass either. Taking responsibility for such things is nowhere near a pass. It must be agonising.

What's agonizing, a momentary jab of guilt as these vermin sip their after dinner brandies? Or maybe a nightmare or two. Gee, that's really tough, Spendi. I sure do feel for these guys.

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I've never shied away from describing exactly what I think and stand for. And I'm a Liberal.

Well, maybe 'never' is a slightly too strong adverb .

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Are you really that pissed off that these ME countries should actually want to control their own resources?

To a point yes. I think you would be if they did. They could bring us to our knees.

Quote:

Why would you get your panties in a bunch about an expansionist policy that was largely US driven - there had to be a great deal of Brit support too?

There was Brit support I believe because the western world couldn't afford the US to go it alone which they were going do if necessary. I think it would have busted NATO. Who do you advise those you disagree with not to get their panties in a bunch. It's infantile talk.

Do you really think the hard nosed politicians in the Senate, Congress and the House of Commons were taken in by the WMD assertions? And the intelligence services and the bureaucracies. You had a "deep throat" over an itsy-bitsy breaking and entering.

0 Replies

@JTT,

I think the whole mess was caused by your sort of thinking in 1956. Appeasement.

0 Replies

@JTT,

And what's your position on the teaching of evolution JT? It is the survival of the fittest red in tooth and claw. Shift out anything that gets in the way.

You seem to be confused to me. The Christians would be getting their panties into a soggy bunch over a few deaths wouldn't they. Why would an evolution proponent? Evolution is based on exterminating losers so they can't blossom. I don't inderstand this bleeding heart stuff from evolutionists. Will you explain it to me?

And I don't wish to hear that evolution is nothing more than an excuse to bash Christian theology in order to justify birth control, adultery, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, euthenasia and eugenics. That's old hat my lovie dovie.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Maybe everyone on this thread should bookmark High Seas' advice to okie because okie will certainly ask for it in a state of high dudgeon in three or four weeks.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know