BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 09:50 am
cjhsa
Too bad we can't see a picture of cjhsa in his youth because it wouldn't show his face. His head would be up his ass.

BBB
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 09:51 am
ATPNTP. What's new?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 09:55 am
woiyo wrote:
revel wrote:
woiyo wrote:
From the FRENCH PRESS!!!!!! Rolling Eyes


What does it matter if it is was the french press? I didn't even noticed it was french. I just googled in the question you asked and that one of the results.

The point is there was a discussion of this in Washington (in the US in case you don't know where that is) and the head of a think tank was there to discuss the Iran situation and the answer to your question of what incentives is there for Iran to talk with US was addressed there. To repeat.

"Those incentives amount to basically withdrawal of all of the existing sanctions, diplomatic normalization, overt support for WTO (World Trade Organization) accession and of course security guarantees," he said.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060228-iran-incentives.htm

Those are pretty big incentives.


Laughing ANd what does Iran do after we give away "the store". Laughing


I am not sure; maybe the same thing they are doing now in any event. The point is that you said there was no incentives for Iran to talk to the US since there are sitting on oil (something like that) and I merely pointed the incentives you said didn't exist.

Usually in a bargain if one side does not hold up their end, the bargain is broke. So if after giving away the store; Iran does not do what is promised between them, then you take away the incentives and reexamine your options. You don't start out with threats and ultimatums which do not foster any incentives for cooperation.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 09:57 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Do you have a source for who said that the GOP sent out emails Butrfly?


That isn't what I said. Go back and reread it.

But, to answer your question, yes.


You are correct. I did misstate your quote which was:
Quote:
Emails were sent out to the GOP talking heads today with the following talking points to be pushed to their media contacts.
And this was followed by your statement that we know who sent them. So who did?



You're still having problems with reading more into what I actually said. Here's what I said:

Quote:
Emails were sent out to the GOP talking heads today with the following talking points to be pushed to their media contacts. We're already seeing these points in the press, and now we know where they came from.


I did not say it came from the GOP, I said it was sent out to the GOP talking heads. I also did not say we know who sent them, I said now we know where they came from.

Thanks to Nimh you now know what you probably knew all along, that it came from the RNC and the original source was their own website.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 10:05 am
Butrflynet wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Do you have a source for who said that the GOP sent out emails Butrfly?


That isn't what I said. Go back and reread it.

But, to answer your question, yes.


You are correct. I did misstate your quote which was:
Quote:
Emails were sent out to the GOP talking heads today with the following talking points to be pushed to their media contacts.
And this was followed by your statement that we know who sent them. So who did?



You're still having problems with reading more into what I actually said. Here's what I said:

Quote:
Emails were sent out to the GOP talking heads today with the following talking points to be pushed to their media contacts. We're already seeing these points in the press, and now we know where they came from.


I did not say it came from the GOP, I said it was sent out to the GOP talking heads. I also did not say we know who sent them, I said now we know where they came from.

Thanks to Nimh you now know what you probably knew all along, that it came from the RNC and the original source was their own website.


Okay, I did misunderstand your intent. Sending out talking points isn't an unusual practice from either party, however. When I hear every Congressman or Senator in front of a microphone or every newscast including the same catch word or key phrase, I know they all are based on the same press release or leaked information or whatever. I think it was the 'GOP talking heads' part that irritated the burr, but it is no big deal. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as once saying: "The moment a person forms a theory his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory."

I think we all might be guilty of that from time to time and this case I was. Sorry about that.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 10:59 am
More on the Lieberman thing from Jake Tapper:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-confronts.html

Excerpt:

Quote:
Returning to the Senate after his securing the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Lieberman greeted each on the Senate floor in the Well as they were voting on the budget resolution.

They shook hands. But Obama didn't let go, leading Lieberman - cordially - by the hand across the room into a corner on the Democratic side, where Democratic sources tell ABC News he delivered some tough words for the junior senator from Connecticut, who had just minutes before hammered Obama's speech before the pro-Israel group AIPAC in a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign.

Watch video of the encounter on the Senate floor HERE..

The two spoke intensely for approximately five minutes, with no one able to hear their conversation. Reporters watched as Obama leaned closely in to Lieberman, whose back was literally up against the wall.

Neither party is officially talking. But while Lieberman spokesman Marshall Whitman says the conversation was "a cordial and friendly discussion" and Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says it was "private and friendly," Democratic sources tell ABC News that the conversation was a stern rebuke to Lieberman for his criticism of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee on the conference call, as well as a discussion about how far Lieberman is willing to go in his advocacy of McCain, and the tone of the campaign.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 11:01 am
Re: cjhsa
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Too bad we can't see a picture of cjhsa in his youth because it wouldn't show his face. His head would be up his ass.

BBB
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 11:40 am
Butterflynet still hasn't linked to any news stories replicating the GOP "talking points" without discussing the memo in question.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 11:44 am
Re: cjhsa
OCCOM BILL wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Too bad we can't see a picture of cjhsa in his youth because it wouldn't show his face. His head would be up his ass.

BBB
Laughing


LOL LOL LOL so funny. I'd buy BBB an original thought but she'd take it down to corner and trade it for a bag of crack.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 01:04 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Butterflynet still hasn't linked to any news stories replicating the GOP "talking points" without discussing the memo in question.


You're having trouble reading what I said without adding your own words to it too. Ask Foxfyre to 'splain it to you.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 03:24 pm
Meanwhile, there goes the Muslim vote. Smile

Arabs shocked by Obama speech

Arab leaders have reacted with anger and disbelief to an intensely pro-Israeli speech delivered by Barack Obama, the US Democratic presumptive presidential nominee.

Obama told the influential annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Council (Aipac): "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided."

His comments appalled Palestinians who see occupied East Jerusalem as part of a future Palestinian state.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera on Thursday: "This is the worst thing to happen to us since 1967 ... he has given ammunition to extremists across the region".

"What really disppoints me is that someone like Barack Obama, who runs a campaign on the theme of change - when it comes to Aipac and what's needed to be said differently about the Palestinian state, he fails."

"I say to Obama ... please stop being more Israeli than the Israelis themselves, leave the Israelis and Palestinians alone to make decisions required for peace."

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, rejected the statement, saying: "We will not accept an independent Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital.

"I believe that case is clear."

He said: "Jerusalem is part of the six points that are subjects on the negotiations' agenda.

"And the whole world knows that East Jerusalem, Arab Jerusalem and Holy Jerusalem were occupied in 1967."

'Hope slashed'

Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, the largest Palestinian resistance group, also condemned the speech, saying on Thursday: "These statements slash any hope of any change in the American foreign policy.

"[They] assure that there is a total agreement between the two parties, the Democratic and the Republican, on support for the Israeli occupation at the expense of the rights of Arabs and Palestinian interests."

Israel and the Nakba

The ancient city of Jerusalem is divided into East and West. Israel captured East Jerusalem in the 1967 war and unilaterally annexed it, in a move condemned by the United Nations as illegal.

Jerusalem's status as part of Israel is not internationally recognised and remains a central issue in peace negotiations.

'Unbreakable bond'

Obama, hours after securing his party's nomination on Wednesday, had gone on to say the US bond with Israel was "unbreakable today, unbreakable tomorrow, unbreakable for ever" and drew a standing ovation.

He told the gathering of one of US politics' most influential lobbying groups that, as president, he would "never compromise when it comes to Israel's security."

He also said any deal between Israelis and Palestinians should preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state and that Hamas should be isolated and pledged to approve $30bn in aid to Israel over the next 10 years.

'Impressive speech'

Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, called the Illinois senator's speech "very impressive".
"His words on Jerusalem were very moving," Olmert told reporters after meeting George Bush, the US president, at the White House.

The Illinois senator's comments come a day after US media projected that Obama had enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination and face John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate, in the November election.

Iranian 'threat'

Obama also had harsh words for Iran, vowing to work to "eliminate" the threat it posed to security in the Middle East and around the globe.

Obama said an "undivided Jerusalem should
remain the capital of Israel" [AFP]
"There's no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran," he told the Aipac assembly.

Calling for "aggressive, principled diplomacy" with Tehran, he also warned he would never take the military option off the table in guaranteeing US and Israeli security.

Iranians responded cautiously, but optimisticly, with officials expressing hope he can bring about change in Iran-US relations.

Hamidreza Hajibabaee, member of Iranian parliament, said: "We hope that Obama turns his words into actions, helps the Islamic Republic of Iran believe that the US has given up enmity and paves the way for fair negotiations."
AL JAZEERA LINK
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 03:28 pm
Does this mean you guys are going to lay off the 'Obama is supported by Hamas' meme?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 03:29 pm
Dunno. Depends on what his position is tomorrow when he's talking to somebody else. Also depends on whether Hamas withdraws its 'endorsement'. Smile
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 08:04 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Butterflynet still hasn't linked to any news stories replicating the GOP "talking points" without discussing the memo in question.


You're having trouble reading what I said without adding your own words to it too. Ask Foxfyre to 'splain it to you.


No, I read what you typed. Why don't you give it a shot?

You said:

Quote:
Emails were sent out to the GOP talking heads today with the following talking points to be pushed to their media contacts. We're already seeing these points in the press, and now we know where they came from.


"We're already seeing these points in the press ..."

Where? Got links?

"... and now we know where they came from."

The article nimh posted -- the one you thanked him for linking to -- discussed the memo itself. So, yeah, I guess that means the points are in the press, but since the actual news story discusses the actual memo, I guess there's no question we already knew where they came from in that story.

So where are all those "point in the press" where we see the "points" but we don't know where they came from?

If I'm still failing to understand what you meant to say, I submit it's because you failed in your effort to communicate, not because I suffer from a lack of reading comprehension. But please explain to me how I'm failing to grasp the nuance of your missive.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 08:12 pm
Get a grip.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 09:39 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Dunno. Depends on what his position is tomorrow when he's talking to somebody else. Also depends on whether Hamas withdraws its 'endorsement'. Smile


Apparently, you don't even read your own posts:

Foxfyre wrote:
Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, the largest Palestinian resistance group, also condemned the speech, saying on Thursday: "These statements slash any hope of any change in the American foreign policy.

"[They] assure that there is a total agreement between the two parties, the Democratic and the Republican, on support for the Israeli occupation at the expense of the rights of Arabs and Palestinian interests."

Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 10:13 pm
Bad news for Obama. I went and saw the Letterman show today and he came out and asked the audience by a show of applause who would vote for Obama and who would vote for McCain. Now, you can give me your charts and graphs and straw polls and surveys, but I think you will not find a fairer representation of mainstream America than a Letterman audience.

The applause was noticeably louder for McCain. So, sorry Obama supporters, but it's over. Obama will lose in November. Damn, I thought he had a real chance too.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 10:53 pm
kickycan wrote:
Bad news for Obama. I went and saw the Letterman show today and he came out and asked the audience by a show of applause who would vote for Obama and who would vote for McCain. Now, you can give me your charts and graphs and straw polls and surveys, but I think you will not find a fairer representation of mainstream America than a Letterman audience.

The applause was noticeably louder for McCain. So, sorry Obama supporters, but it's over. Obama will lose in November. Damn, I thought he had a real chance too.

It's strange how this actually bothers me.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 11:20 pm
kickycan wrote:
Bad news for Obama. I went and saw the Letterman show today and he came out and asked the audience by a show of applause who would vote for Obama and who would vote for McCain. Now, you can give me your charts and graphs and straw polls and surveys, but I think you will not find a fairer representation of mainstream America than a Letterman audience.

The applause was noticeably louder for McCain. So, sorry Obama supporters, but it's over. Obama will lose in November. Damn, I thought he had a real chance too.


kicky, I took my family to see the very first David Letterman show at the Rockerfeller Center - probably back in the seventies if my memory serves. As we walked out of his show, I said "he's not going to last!"

Well, guess what? He's older than god, and he's still running.

My guess is that the Letterman audience really doesn't know what they are doing; ergo, it's all a fluke.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 6 Jun, 2008 05:14 am
Here, maybe this will cheer you up, Kicky:

Quote:
While conventional wisdom holds that John McCain, a border state Senator, could make inroads among Hispanic voters, a new tracking poll shows that, historically, Obama is in a very strong position.

A Gallup Study released today shows that in a hypothetical general election match up Hispanics break by a greater than two-to-one margin for the Illinois Democrat: 62 percent to McCain's 29 percent.

To put that in context, in 2004, Hispanics favored Sen. John Kerry over President Bush by a margin of 59 to 40, meaning that Obama is already ahead of his Democratic predecessor. This, of course, is a welcome development for a candidate hoping to win Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, states with large Hispanic communities.

"The narrative that Obama is weak and McCain is strong among Latinos is simply not reinforced by the Gallup numbers," wrote Andres Ramirez, of the NDN, a progressive think tank. "Also, it is clear that McCain has been unable to differentiate and/or distinguish himself from the Latino community's negative view of the GOP. If these trends continue, this will make the five heavily Hispanic states of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Florida much more democratic - a shift that, alone, could give Barack Obama the presidency."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/obama-doing-better-among_n_105456.html

The Gallup study:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107689/Early-Gallup-Road-Map-McCainObama-Matchup.aspx
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 904
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 08:17:43