Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The intended effect of the echo chamber, it is said, is so that one hears the same phrases and talking points over and over...<< I am well aware of the phenom. As a supervisor (in the past) one of my less pleasant tasks was tracking down rumors. They would apparently spring from multiple sources, yet would track back to the same individual. She didn't have talk radio in her pocket, but then it was a rather small property. Would the way the 24/7 news nets, the Dems in Congress, and the internets all simultaneously began chattering about how Bush's speech to the Knesset was really all about Obama be an example of the noise machine? Hmm?
Originally Posted By dshyates No, thats news. And it was about Obama. And they are trying to paint him as anti-semetic. And a friend of Hamas. McCain was also doing it at the same time stateside. It appears that the GOP feels it will be easy to sway the jewish vote.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh While I don't believe Senator Obama is anti-semitic, when I hear him call Isreal a "constant wound", a "constant sore", and likens it to an infection, I can see why a few might suspect him to be.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>when I hear him call Isreal a "constant wound", a "constant sore", and likens it to an infection, I can see why a few might suspect him to be<< Oh brother. That isn't what he said at all. Here's the exact quote. He is talking about the constant conflict in the middle east, not Israel. In fact he says "no, no, no" when asked if Israel is a drag on America's reputation. >>Jeff Goldberg:--- Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas? Barack Obama:--- No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically.<< Clearly, in context, the "wound" and "sore" is the unresolved conflict, not Israel.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Clearly, in context, the "wound" and "sore" is the unresolved conflict, not Israel.> I don't find it that clear. Especially when he follows it with the idea that the "hawkish" position on the conflict is "blind" and that those politicians who espouse it are only doing so because they seek political safety. Does he really think he's going to solve the conflict by telling Israel "the truth"?
Originally Posted By dshyates It is clear in his interview with The Atlanic he was referring to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the sore, Not Israel itself. He said, "the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land." He then said, "Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security." When asked if Israel besmirches the United States' reputation, Obama said "No, no, no." Then he said: "But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that ... I want to solve the problem..." Clearly he is talking about the conflict. During the same interview Obama denounced Hamas as a terrorist organization and said that the U. S. "should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements." But facts don't stop the GOP. House Republican leader John Boehner immediately shot off a press release using a 2 word quote. And then expressed his outrage: "Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a ‘constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims," "Obama’s latest remark, and his commitment to ‘opening a dialogue’ with sponsors of terrorism, echoes past statements by Jimmy Carter who once called Israel an ‘apartheid state.’" siad Boehner Talk about your intellectual dishonesty.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It is clear in his interview with The Atlanic he was referring to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the sore, Not Israel itself.> If it's clear, then why does he say he's going to solve the problem by talking to Israel? Doesn't that imply that Israel is the problem? <Talk about your intellectual dishonesty.> Yes, let's. Did the Senator condemn President Carter's meeting with Hamas?
Originally Posted By dshyates "If it's clear, then why does he say he's going to solve the problem by talking to Israel? Doesn't that imply that Israel is the problem?" It implies that Isreal is part of the Israeli/Palistinian conflict, Duh!. Since he has said that he thinks that before we talk to the palistinians they need to meet a few criteria. Tha only leaves Israel. He could got talk to a tree, but that won't help much. Man you really do want to hate this guy don't you. Obama said of Carters visit: "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction," Obama said. "We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements," he added.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It implies that Isreal is part of the Israeli/Palistinian conflict, Duh!.> Duh! If it obviously implied that, we wouldn't be debating it, would we? <Since he has said that he thinks that before we talk to the palistinians they need to meet a few criteria. Tha only leaves Israel.> To do what? What can the Israelis accomplish as long as Hamas refuses to recognize Israel, abide by past agreements, and renounce terrorism? <Man you really do want to hate this guy don't you.> Clearly not as much as you want to hate Republicans. <"We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction," Obama said.> Then why does he want to engage in unconditional Presidential talks with Iran?
Originally Posted By dshyates "unconditional" Now your just makin' stuff up. Or did someone else do that for you.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Clearly not as much as you want to hate Republicans." Oh, I don't "want" to. I do. I believe we went to war for Haliburton and have killed over 600 thousand iraqi for profit. They in my book are monsters. And I believe that FOX News is a dangerous propaganda machine, and the GOP has duped honest god fearing people, real patriots, and simpletons.
Originally Posted By dshyates By the way I believe that MSNBC has become a democratic propaganda machine. And I believe all propaganda machines are dangerous.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Now your just makin' stuff up.> No, I leave making up stuff to the liberals.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Now your just makin' stuff up.<< Not at all. The whole reason this came up is because of an answer Obama gave to a question in a public debate last July. >>Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea? OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration--is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.<< <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2007_YouTube_Dems_Foreign_Policy.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ontheissues.org/Arc...licy.htm</a> Obama has expressed modified positions on this at different times, but his opponents didn't simply "make up" the notion that he has publicly stated that he would meet with various hostile leaders without preconditions.
Originally Posted By planodisney Post 71 is ignorant, and I mean genuinely un-educated, brain washed, cool-aid drinking ignorant. We wnt to war for Halliburton is probably one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Not just on here, I meen EVER. It is amazing just how much ignorance there is out there.
Originally Posted By dshyates I will explian my ludicris view that We went to war for Haliburton. First I don't visit any partisan websites or watch partisn news channels, or listen to Talk Radio of any kind. I loathe partisan media. i hate being spoon fed conclusions from a biased source. It inspires people to feel smart without the brain work. And then they spew their "educated" opinion. I believe it is all toxic to the brain. I was aware of the radical lefties with their signs saying all this Haliburton stuff, but wrote it off as loopy crazies. All during th run up to the war I was as caught up in the "Patriotic" fervor surrounding 9/11 as anyone else. And I really wanted to believe what the administration is saying. But it just really didn't feel like we were getting the truth. It just didn't gel for me. One big reason was the intensity in which the administration wanted to go in there. It wasn't until after the 2004 election that I really stared to put it together. The second Chaney resigned from Haliburton to take the spot on the ticket the rhetoric against Iraq started. They expressed a desire to go in to Iraq during the campaign for the 2000 election. Then how they immediately and falsely tied it to 9/11 and really keep pushing this lie. I honestly got the feeling they really, really really wanted to go in there, and were NOT going to take no for an answer. They distroyed ANYONE that opposed them in a very determined way. Then the second they went in, the administration grated $80 billion NO-BID contracts to Haliburton. Then immediatly started outsourcing the war to Haliburton subsideries like Blackwater. It is no secret that Haliburton has made out like bandits from this first ever "pre-emptive war" we started. Given WHO started it, Where he came from, when he came from, how we ended up there, who made out like bandits. This has sadly turned out to be my conclusion. I don't state my conclusion lightly, and I did come to it from kool-aid drinking but by obsrving and thinking. And as far as I know, no credible source out there has offered up this particular pitcher of kool-aid to drink from. But as I said I don't visit them so I wouldn't really know. You net savvy guys will probably dig one up and say that I'm parroting it. Whatever. Truely the only websites I visit regularly are amusement park sites, The googlWiki, imdb, and Merriam-Webster. This is the conclusion I have come to all on my own. So I am probably wrong. I was married for 18 years, I'm used to it.
Originally Posted By dshyates "and I did come to it from kool-aid drinking but by obsrving and thinking." Sorry that should have been "didn't".
Originally Posted By X-san ***We wnt to war for Halliburton is probably one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard.**** Funny that a person who accuses someone else of making "one of the dumbest statements" he/she ever heard, can't even spell. Maybe you should go back to grammar school first, THEN comment. Good luck with that. Hope you get an "A". Maybe George Bush can help you with those darned phonetics that are so complicated. Off you go.
Originally Posted By X-san Also, "we went to war with Halliburton" (notice the correct spelling there?) works better in quotes if you want to quote what somebody said. I know you can do it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't find it that clear.<< Well, that doesn't surprise me, frankly. But if you read it again, it is very clear that he did not call Israel the things you claimed he did. If it is unclear to you, then your statement that he specifically called Israel itself "a constant sore" and a "wound" isn't based in fact. Let me help you... "The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions..." "The lack of a resolution" you see, is the subject here, not Israel. As I said, it is very clearly stated. If someone asked me the question, "Do you think African Americans in this country hold us back economically?" I would anser, "No, no, no. But the constant sore of race relations in this country, unresolved in some places and with too many incidents of racist activity still going on, does hold infect our economy and keeps the American dream out of reach for too many." POP QUIZ: Did I call black people a "constant sore" in that statement? Or did I say that unresolved racial issues are a constant sore?
