Reply With Quote
Every now and then, I admit that I need to be reminded of what liberals think of us.
Thanks for the reminder.
(Out of curiosity, who is your choice for President? Hillary or St. Barry?)
Old McFlopPanderKeating, aka dubya II, is proving to be a ignorant, misspeaking, and stupid on foreign affairs (and everything else) as dubya I.
===============
McCain’s New Iran Gaffe: If The ‘Average American’ Thinks Ahmadinejad Is In Control Of Iran, Then So Do I»
Yesterday, the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) often incorrectly portrays Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as if Ahmadinejad has a significant role in formulating Iranian foreign policy. He doesn’t. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Iran’s National Security Council set Iran’s foreign policy.
Yesterday, Time’s Joe Klein pressed McCain on the issue, but McCain refused to concede he was wrong, saying he disagreed that Khamenei runs Iranian policy behind the scenes. McCain added that because the “average American” thinks Ahmadinejad is Iran’s leader, that’s good enough for him:MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is [Ahmadinejad’s] the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that’s a uh, that’s your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they’d know.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/20/...-then-so-do-i/
===============
At least Old McFlopPanderKeating has confessed that's he's an expert on economics!
What's next, Old McFlopPanderKeating gonna gaffe rediculously on the military, his other area of "expertise".
Obama will destroy Old McFlopPanderKeating in an open debate.
However, I fully realize that Americans, most of them dumb and ignorant, like their Presidents no better than half-smart, and preferably dumb. So, Old McFlopPanderKeating has a fighting chance.
Every now and then, I admit that I need to be reminded of what liberals think of us.
Thanks for the reminder.
(Out of curiosity, who is your choice for President? Hillary or St. Barry?)
The republican party has been asleep the past few years but they are about to get a very rude awakening.
You know we can and we have amended the Cons ution.
If one is needed then let it be proposed and voted on.
Otherwise the courts need to quit finding things in there
that don't exist.
The framers wanted to limit federal power when it came
to the states. It was the intent. But look at what has
happened.
Pshaw. I was mostly exaggerating to make an argument, namely that literal interpretations have their limits.
We have courts to help sift out what things mean in relation to how it was written versus what has panned out.
Once something is ruled cons utional, stare decisis. If you don't like it, change the cons ution. It is amendable, as you point out.
I think the failings of trying to freeze our country within the limits of an agrarian 18th century economy are rather obvious to anybody with some common sense.
Our economy, and indeed our understanding about that economy, have gone a *wee* bit past ol' Adam Smith.
I couldn't agree more Joe. They have lost all sense of what
they were elected to do. Starting with Bush and his
Medicare "D" program. Their Farm bill and on and on and
on.
I'm not a fan of Bush's Iran policy, either. If anyone has met with the bad guys, "without preconditions," it's been the Bush administration since 06. So the Messiah is being grilled for saying he'd do pretty much what the Administration has been doing.
yeah, but if we elect mccain, he can invade cuba and pay the cubans not to kill us.
we have to gain control of those cigars.
But Bush himself has not met with them. It has all been at
a lower level. all governments meet with all other
governments if not face to face through other governments.
It is normal in everyday functions. But you don't throw
the Presidents office in the mix until agreements have
been worked out what is going to transpire at that meeting.
In most cases if an agreement is in the works it is all been
worked out by the peons before the honchos meet and
give it their blessings. To listen to the messiah he is
going to go into direct negotiations and work everything out himself. Yeah, right!
In any government negotiations they argue over commas,
periods, phrases and all kinds of stuff you wouldn't believe.
Right you are. It's been Condi's doing. But we've been waay to conciliatory with Iran.
I wouldn't legitimize that regime at all. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a very new nation. Lots of the older people (40 and over) still remember life under the Shah. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it was considerably more free before the Revolution and Khomeini than afterward. I think that Ahmed-booby-jab and the mullah-ocracy don't enjoy nearly the popular support that the US media and blogosphere thinks it does. If they weren't so repressive, they might have a revolt on their hands!
On the other hand, Chavez indeed enjoys great popular support in Venezuela.
It would happen that way no matter who the president would be.But you don't throw
the Presidents office in the mix until agreements have
been worked out what is going to transpire at that meeting.
How free was it?
the Shah was a butcher and they still remember where his support came from.
Not according the Obama. No preconditions. I take him
at his word. As I take the little idiot running Iran to
kill all Christians and Jews that wont accept Allah.
The majority of the population of Iran is less than 30 years old. That's right more than half.
The government uses the USA as a foil to show their people who they should unite against the outside threat, and not against the corrupt evil sticks running the country.
A couple of years back, the resentment of these young people boiled over in the form of anti-government riots.
The "US media" knows all this, and it was widely reported.
Our open hostility props the Iranian government up, just like our hostility kept Castro in power.
We should be doing everything we can to remove the ability of the Iranian government to use us as some nebulous outside threat. Think of it as a form of diplomatic jujitsu.
Yeah, they would meet at a kosher deli.
We run into this problem all the time in biblical studies and ethics as well. The question for us: how are these ancient do ents relevant to us today? The analogy isn't perfect, for (a) we have the original Cons ution, while we don't have any of the original autographs of the Bible, and (b) we can amend the Cons ution. But it's still useful.
A tool that I like to use is the grammato-historical-cultural method. It asks:
(1) What does the text (i.e., the Cons ution) SAY?
(2) What did it mean to the original audience?
(3) Cross the hermeneutical bridge -- what the similarities and differences between the audience then, and the audience today?
and (4) What does it mean today?
Does this mean I would endorse a "living Cons ution"? No, not at all. But we can apply the general principles of the do ent to today's situation, and ought to try. One general principle that I think the Framers would have objected to, for instance, would be rule by judges.
A good question ... can the Cons ution mean today what it could never could have meant to the original readers? (I don't know, I'd love to hear this argument.) In biblical studies, the answer to this question is no.
I agree. We should have a tough, coherent policy against this rogue govt. Like I said, I'm no fan of Bush's current policy. And it would be disastrous if St. Barry were to try to continue it.
Not quite enough to win him the sweeping powers he consistantly tries to usurp.
Here is yet another jackass who tries to use us as a foil. The term limits he sought to abolish but did not get will at least remove him from power within a few years.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-21-2008 at 11:16 AM. Reason: clarification
Term limits who sought ... Chavez?
I still don't see how playing nice with thugs gets us anywhere. Haven't we learned?
There is a fascinating book called "Original Intent" by a guy named "Barton" that addresses this.
As for "rule by judges", I think that the "activist judge" bit used by many on the right is waaaaaay overblown, and something of a smoke and mirror tactic to whip up conservatives into a frenzy, like gay marriage. I think the whole notion is a cynical ploy to get a certain type of "activist" judge on the bench who is more amenable to conservative arguments, i.e. the definition of "activist" is anybody they don't agree with.
No Chavez sought a lifting of term limits, so he could stay in power. He lost.
There is a difference between playing nice and saavy PR.
If we put 1% of our military budget into convincing the people involved that we aren't really the threat their governments make us out to be...
RG, do you really think Chavez will ever give up power,
now that he has it. I don't. He will just take power and
appointment himself President for life. Not a new
concept, as you know.
Well, Cons utional theory is not my area of expertise. And I agree that the Right needs to formulate "judicial activism" as something more than merely judges ruling in a way that we don't like. I'll have to read up on the conservative perspective -- I'm sure some smart righties have done just that. And the main problem I have in the recent California ruling, besides the moral, traditional, "slippery slope," and biblical objections, is that the people don't want it. The people already spoke on the issue, and their votes were essentially taken away from them. So, I can see how people might think this is a clear case of activism from the bench.
There are indeed books out there on just this subject from the conservative perspective.
Very interesting reading. I got to read one or two during the summer of my senior year in college.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
