The ..2012.... Political thread
-
Keep Palin talking and John McCain's back in the Senate in November. I didn't think she would fall so soon. A war with Russia, yeah... : that appeals to Americans. We can't even beat the Taliban after 7 years.
-
-
21st Century Paul:
jaipur:
21st Century Paul:
"Palin leaves open option of war with Russia"
If you are part of NATO, that's the deal. Neither Georgia or Ukraine are part of NATO yet, so take a breath Oliver.
I think I'm gonna start not taking seriously what politicians say. Even if they're presidents or candidates of whatever, they can say what they will about anything.... I'm not listening
Well, I'd encourage you to listen anyway. Then figure out if it makes sense. Anyone who is elected head of a country finds out rather quickly that it's not as straightforward as they may have thought. Most of the countries in Europe are against Georgia and Ukraine becoming part of NATO. I'm curious as to why...any thoughts from anyone?? btw, take it from someone who actually lived through the cold war, neither the US or Russia is stupid. Despite pressure from the joint chief of staff during 1962, Kennedy with his inexperience and Khruschev with his abundance of it and an equally strong military didn't lose their cool.
-
PHILLIP:
Keep Palin talking and John McCain's back in the Senate in November. I didn't think she would fall so soon. A war with Russia, yeah... : that appeals to Americans. We can't even beat the Taliban after 7 years.
You're right that she misread the landscape. Though I can't help but sense that it bears watching. A lot of moving pieces going on right now.
-
jaipur:
Most of the countries in Europe are against Georgia and Ukraine becoming part of NATO. I'm curious as to why...any thoughts from anyone??
Basically they don't want to get dragged into either country's disputes with Russia. Some of their reluctance has to do with Europe's need for Russia's oil, but as letting them into NATO would require the other members to rush to a country's defense militarily, they also think it's a good idea to let things get a little more stable. In the case of Georgia, there's a very real concern that Georgia's president, Saakashvili, is a hothead who wants the West to support his trying to retake the two breakaway regions. The State department has been very concerned for sometime that Saakashvili wanted to take on Russia militarily. He bombarded South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, and gambled that the West would keep Russia from responding. Here are two good articles on the situation: The Trouble With Saakashvili Georgians Question Wisdom of War With Russia I myself think that if you are stupid enough to poke a bear with a stick, don't be surprised when it bites you. And don't come running to us to protect you from it. And NATO should not admit Georgia until they have a president with more brains than balls.
-
I was listening to the radio last night , and the way this election (and the world in general) is going , is worrying me that much i had to turn it off. " we may have to go to war with Russia" .....is she totaly insane ? she might as well say " we may have to end the world" A American named John Liberte (?) was on and he said " Mccain is not all there , emotionally, he could do ANYTHING .....invade Iran, war with Russia........." Also on the world service the headline was US interference in Latin America (again) Will they never learn ? IF mccain gets in God help us all. A nice tune
I heard about this last night.....i will be there Stop government war-mongering, troops out Demonstrate Manchester 20 September A message from Tony Benn War in the Caucasus has highlighted the growing danger of war spreading. Seven years after the start of the war on terror, occupation continues to bring misery to Iraq and Afghanistan but the consequences of the war are spreading. US policy of expanding Nato eastwards has been an important feature of the conflict between Russia and Georgia, as has the west?s desire to control the oil and other natural resources of the region. Download leaflet Coaches to Manchester The British government continues its uncritical support for George Bush, with foreign minister David Miliband echoing Bush?s claim that invading other people?s countries is not acceptable in the 21st century. Their hypocrisy is staggering. The war on terror has been a failure, and the majority of people in Britain want the British troops out of both countries. Their view is matched by the majority of citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, where high levels of violence, deaths, refugees and lack of basic facilities are all part of everyday life for millions. Despite all this, the US is stepping up its threats against Iran. When he came to office, Gordon Brown promised to plan troop withdrawal from Iraq. He has reneged on that promise. We are demonstrating in Manchester to make clear we want to stop the war spreading and we want all the troops home now. We urge you to join us. Coach pick up and drop off points are as follows: Drop off: M15 6BH Tony Benn....good man Stop the war http://www.stopwar.org.uk/ -
Hello he a military guy and she shoots animals between the eyes. They salivate to head a war. This gal is too much. Your right let her keep jacking her jaw and McCain-Palin will back at there day jobs. Sad that today American leaders are so plastic, can't be ugly or fat or poor. They can be stupid and not speak the kings language. They can be clueless to history and civil rights. Run a woman but make sure she looks good in a little black dress. I surprised Hasselbeck is being asked to run. She debated Rose that qualify her to be VP. In other countries like England or India they run woman for there brain. Not there looks. Here we pick out a former beauty pageant type. We come a long way baby.' Its embarrassing to hear woman going I like her . The same woman who hated Kerrys wife. Why? because she was heavy and not into glamming up. God forbid a average looking woman speaks up.but put France 1st lady a former model and they accept her and call her the next Jackie O...she a walking mattress but looks good in her RL. I not saying she doesn't have as much ability as Bush. Clearly he fed the us BS for years and got away with it. I don't really think leader in the US are put into office because they have the answers. There put there as puppets with someone else pulling the string. Term limit is the only way for US to make change and we won't do it because we like to think only experienced guys can do the job. Even after 20 years of nothing happening. The rich take turns running one of their kids. When a rouge like Carter gets in. They make him a lame duck through the media. So they are one term and leave office looking like they did a bad job . I belive this could happen to Obama. If he doesn't play ball. No doubt the Rep party is way more powerful than the Dem and more organized. Unfourtunly group they got in are evil and extremist. The media has done everything they can to try and get Hillary in and Obama won anyway. Now with Palin they'll (the guys who contol the outcome of our election) will make sure no matter how bad she is they will spin it . There going to create a celebrity. Like American Idol does. Look what they did for Howard Wong :
-
Here's something a lot of people saw coming: Tina Fey "Likely" To Play Sarah Palin On "SNL" JAKE COYLE | September 13, 2008 08:56 AM EST | AP http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/13/tina-fey-likely-to-play-s_n_126149.html
-
Kahlessa:
jaipur:
Most of the countries in Europe are against Georgia and Ukraine becoming part of NATO. I'm curious as to why...any thoughts from anyone??
Basically they don't want to get dragged into either country's disputes with Russia. Some of their reluctance has to do with Europe's need for Russia's oil, but as letting them into NATO would require the other members to rush to a country's defense militarily, they also think it's a good idea to let things get a little more stable. In the case of Georgia, there's a very real concern that Georgia's president, Saakashvili, is a hothead who wants the West to support his trying to retake the two breakaway regions. The State department has been very concerned for sometime that Saakashvili wanted to take on Russia militarily. He bombarded South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, and gambled that the West would keep Russia from responding. Here are two good articles on the situation: The Trouble With Saakashvili Georgians Question Wisdom of War With Russia I myself think that if you are stupid enough to poke a bear with a stick, don't be surprised when it bites you. And don't come running to us to protect you from it. And NATO should not admit Georgia until they have a president with more brains than balls.
Europe has been scared by the Soviets/Russia for time immortal. It would be nice if they would defend themselves against incursion if necessary. As usual, if Georgia and Ukraine became part of NATO, Europe wouldn't respond....it would be US.
-
jaipur:
21st Century Paul:
jaipur:
21st Century Paul:
"Palin leaves open option of war with Russia"
If you are part of NATO, that's the deal. Neither Georgia or Ukraine are part of NATO yet, so take a breath Oliver.
I think I'm gonna start not taking seriously what politicians say. Even if they're presidents or candidates of whatever, they can say what they will about anything.... I'm not listening
Well, I'd encourage you to listen anyway. Then figure out if it makes sense.
I don't think it make sense, but leaders or important politicians say that things like if they were doing small talk. Where is the political correctness then? So, you can't talk about certain minorities in some ways, and not pronounce certain words but you can talk easily about world war 3. Nothing makes sense. I'm not listening anymore. Give politics for the politicians and anyone interested. Not me, I hope this is my last political related post here or anywhere.
-
jaipur:
Kahlessa:
jaipur:
Most of the countries in Europe are against Georgia and Ukraine becoming part of NATO. I'm curious as to why...any thoughts from anyone??
Basically they don't want to get dragged into either country's disputes with Russia. Some of their reluctance has to do with Europe's need for Russia's oil, but as letting them into NATO would require the other members to rush to a country's defense militarily, they also think it's a good idea to let things get a little more stable. In the case of Georgia, there's a very real concern that Georgia's president, Saakashvili, is a hothead who wants the West to support his trying to retake the two breakaway regions. The State department has been very concerned for sometime that Saakashvili wanted to take on Russia militarily. He bombarded South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, and gambled that the West would keep Russia from responding. Here are two good articles on the situation: The Trouble With Saakashvili Georgians Question Wisdom of War With Russia I myself think that if you are stupid enough to poke a bear with a stick, don't be surprised when it bites you. And don't come running to us to protect you from it. And NATO should not admit Georgia until they have a president with more brains than balls.
Europe has been scared by the Soviets/Russia for time immortal. It would be nice if they would defend themselves against incursion if necessary. As usual, if Georgia and Ukraine became part of NATO, Europe wouldn't respond....it would be US.
Russia dont frighten me (and most Brits) the US scare the hell out of me. The stop the war coalition seems of the same mind. http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
-
And one brave Brit named "Martin" had this to say: If McCain/Palin don't succeed, because of Bush's misdeeds, please can you send Sarah Palin over to the UK? We are crying out for someone who will tear down the entrenched status quo. When she's finished here we'll send her to Brussels with that M16 gun! What a joyous thought! Martin, Birmingham http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4677799.ece
-
Wake Up before it is too late 4 U... "War It's Self Is Our Enemy" http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
-
appletart2:
I hear god bless America, every time McCain-Palin speak
Eh, so did Obama and Hillary and other speakers at the DNC.
-
Andy_Shofar:
And one brave Brit named "Martin" had this to say: If McCain/Palin don't succeed, because of Bush's misdeeds, please can you send Sarah Palin over to the UK? We are crying out for someone who will tear down the entrenched status quo. When she's finished here we'll send her to Brussels with that M16 gun! What a joyous thought! Martin, Birmingham http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4677799.ece
Violence again ....the US answer to everything.....blow them up.....invade . We dont want her , we have enough war mongers as it is (millaband what a clown ) Big march on Saturday Written by Stewart office Monday, 08 September 2008 A packed public meeting in Manchester heard Seamus Milne and John Rees explain that the war in Georgia is a turning point in international relations. 'It was Georgia which launched the attack in an attempt to impose US hegenomy' explained Milne, while Rees pointed out that 'had Georgia already been in NATO when this crisis erupted we would have been bound by treaty to the military defense of Georgia.' This would mean war with Russia! CND activist Rae Street said what NATO really stands for is Nuclear Armed Terror Organisation. The 140 campaigners at the meeting were inspired as Milne explained why the 20th September is so important. 'Putting pressure on the government for a change in direction is absolutely central. We should not underestimate the importance of this moment. Gordon Brown is very vulnerable, David Miliband is very unpopular in the Labour Party, the majority of the British people want the troops taken out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and they want a break with the US war drive. So, now is the time to turn up the heat!' A LETTER FROM THE GREAT JOHN PILGER John Pilger: A Murderous Theater of the Absurd Written by John Pilger Thursday, 11 September 2008 Try to laugh, please. The news is now officially parody and a game for all the family to play. First question: Why are "we" in Afghanistan? Answer: "To try to help in the country's rebuilding program." Who says so? Huw Edwards, the BBC's principal newsreader. What wags the Welsh are. Second question: Why are "we" in Iraq? Answer: To "plant a western-style open democracy." Who says so? Paul Wood, the former BBC defense correspondent, and his boss Helen Boaden, director of BBC News. To prove her point, Boaden supplied Medialens.org with 2,700 words of quotations from Tony Blair and George W Bush. Irony? No, she meant it. Take Andrew Martin, divisional adviser at BBC Complaints, who has been researching Bush's speeches for "evidence" of noble democratic reasons for laying to waste an ancient civilization. Says he: "The 'D' word is not there, but the phrase 'united, stable and free' [is] clearly an allusion to it." After all, he says, the invasion of Iraq "was launched as 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'." Moreover, says the BBC man, "in Bush's 1 May 2003 speech (the one on the aircraft carrier) he talked repeatedly about freedom and explicitly about the Iraqi transition to democracy ... These examples show that these were on Bush's mind before, during and after the invasion." Try to laugh, please. Laughing may be difficult, I agree, given the slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan by "coalition" aircraft, including those directed by British forces engaged in "the country's rebuilding program." The bombing of civilian areas has doubled, along with the deaths of civilians, says Human Rights Watch. Last month, "our" aircraft slaughtered nearly 100 civilians, two-thirds of them children between the ages of three months and 16 years, while they slept, according to eyewitnesses. BBC television news initially devoted nine seconds to the Human Rights Watch report, and nothing to the fact that "less than peanuts" (according to an aid worker) is being spent on rebuilding anything in Afghanistan. As for the notion of a "united, stable and free" Iraq, consider the no-bid contracts handed to the major western oil companies for ownership of Iraq's oil. "Theft" is a more truthful word. Written by the companies themselves and US officials, the contracts have been signed off by Bush and Nouri al-Maliki, "prime minister" of Iraq's "democratic" government that resides in an air-conditioned American fortress. This is not news. Try to laugh, please, while you consider the devastation of Iraq's health, once the best in the Middle East, by the ubiquitous dust from British and US depleted uranium weapons. A World Health Organization study reporting a cancer epidemic has been suppressed, says its principal author. This has been reported in Britain only in the Glasgow Sunday Herald and the Morning Star. According to a study last year by Basra University Medical College, almost half of all deaths in the contaminated southern provinces were caused by cancer. Try to laugh, please, at the recent happy-clappy Nurembergs from which will come the next president of the United States. Those paid to keep the record straight have strained to present a spectacle of choice. Barack Obama, the man of "change," wants to "build a 21st-century military... to stay on the offensive everywhere." Here comes the new Cold War, with promises of more bombs, more of the militarized society with its 730 bases worldwide, on which Americans spend 42 cents of every tax dollar. At home, Obama offers no authentic measure that might ease America's grotesque inequality, such as basic health care. John McCain, his Republican opponent, may well be a media cartoon figure ? the fake "war hero" now joined with a Shakespeare-banning, gun-loving, religious fanatic ? yet his true significance is that he and Obama share essentially the same dangerous prescriptions. Thousands of decent Americans came to the two nominating conventions to express the dissenting opinion of millions of their compatriots who believe, with good cause, that their democracy is evaporating. They were intimidated, arrested, beaten, pepper-gassed; and they were patronized or ignored by those paid to keep the record straight. In the meantime, Justin Webb, the BBC's North America editor, has launched a book about America, his "city on a hill." It is a sort of Mills & Boon view of the rapacious system he admires with such obsequiousness. The book is called Have a Nice Day. Try to laugh, please.
-
This is what I found on this site: http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/08/21/official-2008-obama-mccain-presidential-debate-schedule/ If anyone is interested in seeing these debates *these are probably subject to some changes -- this is the schedule they have out there now. Debates: -2008- September 26, 2008: Presidential debate with domestic policy focus, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS October 2, 2008: Vice Presidential debate, Washington University, St. Louis, MO October 7, 2008: Presidential debate in a town hall format, Belmont University, Nashville, TN October 15, 2008: Presidential debate with foreign policy focus, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a break down of what each debate will consist of: 1. First Presidential Debate: ? Date: September 26 ? Site: University of Mississippi ? Topic: Foreign Policy & National Security ? Moderator: Jim Lehrer ? Staging: Podium debate ? Answer Format: The debate will be broken into nine, 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment. After these initial answers, the moderator will facilitate an open discussion of the topic for the remaining 5 minutes, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment 2. Vice Presidential Debate ? Date: October 2nd ? Site: Washington University (St. Louis) ? Moderator: Gwen Ifill ? Staging/Answer Format: To be resolved after both parties? Vice Presidential nominees are selected. 3. Second Presidential Debate ? Date: October 7 ? Site: Belmont University ? Moderator: Tom Brokaw ? Staging: Town Hall debate ? Format: The moderator will call on members of the audience (and draw questions from the internet). Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, for a total of 1 minute, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment. In the spirit of the Town Hall, all questions will come from the audience (or internet), and not the moderator. 4. Third Presidential Debate ? Date: October 15 ? Site: Hofstra University ? Topic: Domestic and Economic policy ? Moderator: Bob Schieffer ? Staging: Candidates will be seated at a table ? Answer Format: Same as First Presidential Debate ? Closing Statements: At the end of this debate (only) each candidate shall have the opportunity for a 90 second closing statement. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All four debates will begin at 9pm ET, and last for 90 minutes. Both campaigns also agreed to accept the CPD?s participation rules for third-party candidate participation. All 4 debates will be broadcast on the major broadcast networks, including CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX. They will also be aired on cable news channels such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and C-SPAN.
-
moggy:
jaipur:
Kahlessa:
jaipur:
Most of the countries in Europe are against Georgia and Ukraine becoming part of NATO. I'm curious as to why...any thoughts from anyone??
Basically they don't want to get dragged into either country's disputes with Russia. Some of their reluctance has to do with Europe's need for Russia's oil, but as letting them into NATO would require the other members to rush to a country's defense militarily, they also think it's a good idea to let things get a little more stable. In the case of Georgia, there's a very real concern that Georgia's president, Saakashvili, is a hothead who wants the West to support his trying to retake the two breakaway regions. The State department has been very concerned for sometime that Saakashvili wanted to take on Russia militarily. He bombarded South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, and gambled that the West would keep Russia from responding. Here are two good articles on the situation: The Trouble With Saakashvili Georgians Question Wisdom of War With Russia I myself think that if you are stupid enough to poke a bear with a stick, don't be surprised when it bites you. And don't come running to us to protect you from it. And NATO should not admit Georgia until they have a president with more brains than balls.
Europe has been scared by the Soviets/Russia for time immortal. It would be nice if they would defend themselves against incursion if necessary. As usual, if Georgia and Ukraine became part of NATO, Europe wouldn't respond....it would be US.
Russia dont frighten me (and most Brits) the US scare the hell out of me. The stop the war coalition seems of the same mind. http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
Your last two sentences that I've bold are completely inconsistent.
-
The_Fool:
This is what I found on this site: http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/08/21/official-2008-obama-mccain-presidential-debate-schedule/ If anyone is interested in seeing these debates *these are probably subject to some changes -- this is the schedule they have out there now. Debates: -2008- September 26, 2008: Presidential debate with domestic policy focus, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS October 2, 2008: Vice Presidential debate, Washington University, St. Louis, MO October 7, 2008: Presidential debate in a town hall format, Belmont University, Nashville, TN October 15, 2008: Presidential debate with foreign policy focus, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a break down of what each debate will consist of: 1. First Presidential Debate: ? Date: September 26 ? Site: University of Mississippi ? Topic: Foreign Policy & National Security ? Moderator: Jim Lehrer ? Staging: Podium debate ? Answer Format: The debate will be broken into nine, 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment. After these initial answers, the moderator will facilitate an open discussion of the topic for the remaining 5 minutes, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment 2. Vice Presidential Debate ? Date: October 2nd ? Site: Washington University (St. Louis) ? Moderator: Gwen Ifill ? Staging/Answer Format: To be resolved after both parties? Vice Presidential nominees are selected. 3. Second Presidential Debate ? Date: October 7 ? Site: Belmont University ? Moderator: Tom Brokaw ? Staging: Town Hall debate ? Format: The moderator will call on members of the audience (and draw questions from the internet). Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, for a total of 1 minute, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment. In the spirit of the Town Hall, all questions will come from the audience (or internet), and not the moderator. 4. Third Presidential Debate ? Date: October 15 ? Site: Hofstra University ? Topic: Domestic and Economic policy ? Moderator: Bob Schieffer ? Staging: Candidates will be seated at a table ? Answer Format: Same as First Presidential Debate ? Closing Statements: At the end of this debate (only) each candidate shall have the opportunity for a 90 second closing statement. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All four debates will begin at 9pm ET, and last for 90 minutes. Both campaigns also agreed to accept the CPD?s participation rules for third-party candidate participation. All 4 debates will be broadcast on the major broadcast networks, including CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX. They will also be aired on cable news channels such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and C-SPAN.
Thank you very much for posting this!
-
I'm disappointed that neither candidate seems to be addressing the current financial issues. Anything that they've said seems to be lacking.
-
jaipur:
I'm disappointed that neither candidate seems to be addressing the current financial issues. Anything that they've said seems to be lacking.
What is even more disappointing, even though probably expected at this point, is that the current administration seems to be doing even less. The unfortunate good news out of this, is maybe the candidates AND the voters will start being concerned about the real issues rather than who said "Lipstick on a pig" when.