olyclimber Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 The real question is...when is someone going to take note of Obama's obvious biases on this issue and take him to account for espousing ideas that are contrary to those put forth by Jimmy Carter... I guess I don't have the same question ( I could care less about how Obama lines up with Carter). But I does make me wonder how honest Obama has been in his campaign speak (well he is a politician, so he must not be honest, right). I thought he was campaigning with the "Speak to our enemies" platform, and I thought Hamas was in power because of a democratic process? His statements in this case don't line up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Funny I would think Commentary and its history would be well known to most halfway informed people in the US. Ole Norman has been nothing if not putting himself out there for many years and I might ad changing his viewpoint along the way. Useful link Something not to be said for the English teaching neighbor of your man Obama. ;-) BTW way -I snagged front row tix for Felix Day!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 rags like that are for intellectual "book smart" people such as yourself peter. as a real world blue color worker with street smarts i don't have no time for your high faa-luting idears. congrats on the tickets! i hope you intend on giving that bobblehead to a child instead of hording the collectible to gather dust on some shelf! i have tickets for tomorrows game myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 seditious it seems strange that a man who dislikes all-powerful/despotic governments would use a word such monstrosities are so prone themselves to use I hope you teach PE........ still busy reading the commentary article, which is enjoyable in that i don't have an exhaustive knowledge of carter and enjoy hearing different takes on historical characters... still, checked by after page 2 to see how things were developing and feel compelled to issue my first, sincere "fuck you" to you, pete-y. fucking moron. what fucking gym teacher knows what the word "sedition" means? as i've said in the past, using words like "sedition" and "traitor" to describe people you have a difference of opinion on is horse-shit. those words meanings are diluted and destroyed when used for partisan bickering - save them for the times they're appropriate - for the aaron burrs, benedict arnolds and edumund ruffins. carter is trying to destroy the constitution? sell america to the martians? whatever. paranoid asshole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 what fucking gym teacher knows what the word "sedition" means? Let me guess Ivan!?!?!?! I was not commenting on your comments regarding the word "Sedition." I was commenting on your take that Carter was a man who dislikes all-powerful/despotic gooverments. Perhaps the definition of "Sedition" is taking up the place in your brain where reading comprehension should be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 My very large and well protected collection of bobble heads is, in fact, my retirement plan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Ahh the Bushies are trying to push down Carter. "See, he sucked" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 seditious it seems strange that a man who dislikes all-powerful/despotic governments would use a word such monstrosities are so prone themselves to use I hope you teach PE........ still busy reading the commentary article, which is enjoyable in that i don't have an exhaustive knowledge of carter and enjoy hearing different takes on historical characters... still, checked by after page 2 to see how things were developing and feel compelled to issue my first, sincere "fuck you" to you, pete-y. fucking moron. what fucking gym teacher knows what the word "sedition" means? as i've said in the past, using words like "sedition" and "traitor" to describe people you have a difference of opinion on is horse-shit. those words meanings are diluted and destroyed when used for partisan bickering - save them for the times they're appropriate - for the aaron burrs, benedict arnolds and edumund ruffins. carter is trying to destroy the constitution? sell america to the martians? whatever. paranoid asshole. I take back sedition and apply the word treason instead: "Put simply, sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state and has to do with giving aid to enemies or levying war. Sedition is more about encouraging the people to rebel, when treason is actually betraying the country." Carter has violated his allegiance to the state as represented by successor administrations, has given aid to our enemies, and betrayed out country. He has undermined democratically elected US administrations and overstepped his authority and bounds. And for what? To repair his failed legacy as the worst president of the 20th century. Well, he's only worsened it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Ahh the Bushies are trying to push down Carter. "See, he sucked" Actually, I'd say W sucks and Carter swallows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 what fucking gym teacher knows what the word "sedition" means? Let me guess Ivan!?!?!?! I was not commenting on your comments regarding the word "Sedition." I was commenting on your take that Carter was a man who dislikes all-powerful/despotic gooverments. Perhaps the definition of "Sedition" is taking up the place in your brain where reading comprehension should be? ah, in that case we simple have a misunderstanding - i was referring to KK, not carter (kk being a strong anti-communist, and communist nations being very quick to identify political opponents as "enemies of the state" and their writings as "sedition"). i thought that he would be opposed to engaging in the same sort of tyranny. am i the only history teacher to remember the low opinion the "alien and sedition act" occupies in american history? and how interesting, the logan act that the commentary piece deplores carter for violating was created by the same administration? shame, the hbo movie made adams seem like such a nice guy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 The real question is...when is someone going to take note of Obama's obvious biases on this issue and take him to account for espousing ideas that are contrary to those put forth by Jimmy Carter... I guess I don't have the same question ( I could care less about how Obama lines up with Carter). But I does make me wonder how honest Obama has been in his campaign speak (well he is a politician, so he must not be honest, right). I thought he was campaigning with the "Speak to our enemies" platform, and I thought Hamas was in power because of a democratic process? His statements in this case don't line up. Is the process of voting all that matters, or do the nature of the regime voted into office and the institutional framework it subsequently establishes for governing the country and exercising power over the population who cast the votes factor into the analysis of regimes that come into power via popular elections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 i thought that he would be opposed to engaging in the same sort of tyranny. apparently not come on, what carter is doing is NOT treason. treason is selling nuclear secrets to the bad guys, putting on their uniform, killing your fellow countrymen w/ your own hands, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 The real question is...when is someone going to take note of Obama's obvious biases on this issue and take him to account for espousing ideas that are contrary to those put forth by Jimmy Carter... I guess I don't have the same question ( I could care less about how Obama lines up with Carter). But I does make me wonder how honest Obama has been in his campaign speak (well he is a politician, so he must not be honest, right). I thought he was campaigning with the "Speak to our enemies" platform, and I thought Hamas was in power because of a democratic process? His statements in this case don't line up. Is the process of voting all that matters, or do the nature of the regime voted into office and the institutional framework it subsequently establishes for governing the country and exercising power over the population who cast the votes factor into the analysis of regimes that come into power via popular elections? it's all about how we "feel" about a candidate. does he/she look like a good guy/gal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 what fucking gym teacher knows what the word "sedition" means? Let me guess Ivan!?!?!?! I was not commenting on your comments regarding the word "Sedition." I was commenting on your take that Carter was a man who dislikes all-powerful/despotic gooverments. Perhaps the definition of "Sedition" is taking up the place in your brain where reading comprehension should be? ah, in that case we simple have a misunderstanding - i was referring to KK, not carter (kk being a strong anti-communist, and communist nations being very quick to identify political opponents as "enemies of the state" and their writings as "sedition"). i thought that he would be opposed to engaging in the same sort of tyranny. am i the only history teacher to remember the low opinion the "alien and sedition act" occupies in american history? and how interesting, the logan act that the commentary piece deplores carter for violating was created by the same administration? shame, the hbo movie made adams seem like such a nice guy... Come on every gym teacher knows that they were actually the"alien and sedition acts " The fact that there were more than one is important to fully understand how poor your argument is....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Ahh the Bushies are trying to push down Carter. "See, he sucked" Actually, I'd say W sucks and Carter swallows. spitters are always worse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 i thought that he would be opposed to engaging in the same sort of tyranny. apparently not come on, what carter is doing is NOT treason. treason is selling nuclear secrets to the bad guys, putting on their uniform, killing your fellow countrymen w/ your own hands, etc. Read the linked article. What he did in N. Korea was treason. Period. The Soviet/Chinese/etc dissidents do not even compare to Carter. Indeed most victims of Commie oppression hardly did anything that can remotely be construed as treasonous. Fuck, look what they did to Shostakovich. Carter deserves getting called a traitor, just as does that fuck McDermott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Ahh the Bushies are trying to push down Carter. "See, he sucked" Actually, I'd say W sucks and Carter swallows. spitters are always worse so, you dislike Hilary even more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 (edited) The real question is...when is someone going to take note of Obama's obvious biases on this issue and take him to account for espousing ideas that are contrary to those put forth by Jimmy Carter... I guess I don't have the same question ( I could care less about how Obama lines up with Carter). But I does make me wonder how honest Obama has been in his campaign speak (well he is a politician, so he must not be honest, right). I thought he was campaigning with the "Speak to our enemies" platform, and I thought Hamas was in power because of a democratic process? His statements in this case don't line up. Is the process of voting all that matters, or do the nature of the regime voted into office and the institutional framework it subsequently establishes for governing the country and exercising power over the population who cast the votes factor into the analysis of regimes that come into power via popular elections? what are you talking about? the process of voting? isn't that paramount to what "regime" takes power? (i.e. they don't if they aren't voted in). if you aren't voted in then it doesn't really matter what the regimes agenda is. *edit* lol, i now understand you were actually talking about Hamas, not the US pres. elections. Well, I wasn't speaking to the legitimacy of their election. I was talking more about that idea of engaging in a dialogs with our enemies. This was something that Obama said he would do, or so I thought. I would definitely include Hamas in the "enemy of the US" group, and didn't know that there was the condition that they had to be recognized as a country by the US and Isreal before any negotiations could take place (not that they might be fruitful anyway). Edited April 22, 2008 by porter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Ahh the Bushies are trying to push down Carter. "See, he sucked" Actually, I'd say W sucks and Carter swallows. spitters are always worse so, you dislike Hilary even more? I've always had a soft spot for dykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 The real question is...when is someone going to take note of Obama's obvious biases on this issue and take him to account for espousing ideas that are contrary to those put forth by Jimmy Carter... I guess I don't have the same question ( I could care less about how Obama lines up with Carter). But I does make me wonder how honest Obama has been in his campaign speak (well he is a politician, so he must not be honest, right). I thought he was campaigning with the "Speak to our enemies" platform, and I thought Hamas was in power because of a democratic process? His statements in this case don't line up. Is the process of voting all that matters, or do the nature of the regime voted into office and the institutional framework it subsequently establishes for governing the country and exercising power over the population who cast the votes factor into the analysis of regimes that come into power via popular elections? it's all about how we "feel" about a candidate. does he/she look like a good guy/gal? no, its about which lobbys dick is in your mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 WOW Porter you seem a bit grumpy today.....remember it's Felix Day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 WOW Porter you seem a bit grumpy today.....remember it's Felix Day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 no, its about which lobbys dick is in your mouth. Libertarians suck their own dicks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 sorry if the Truth seems a bit dark to you peter...but don't worry, those that play that game all seem to enjoy the oral arts, so it isn't so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 The real question is...when is someone going to take note of Obama's obvious biases on this issue and take him to account for espousing ideas that are contrary to those put forth by Jimmy Carter... I guess I don't have the same question ( I could care less about how Obama lines up with Carter). But I does make me wonder how honest Obama has been in his campaign speak (well he is a politician, so he must not be honest, right). I thought he was campaigning with the "Speak to our enemies" platform, and I thought Hamas was in power because of a democratic process? His statements in this case don't line up. Is the process of voting all that matters, or do the nature of the regime voted into office and the institutional framework it subsequently establishes for governing the country and exercising power over the population who cast the votes factor into the analysis of regimes that come into power via popular elections? what are you talking about? the process of voting? isn't that paramount to what "regime" takes power? (i.e. they don't if they aren't voted in). if you aren't voted in then it doesn't really matter what the regimes agenda is. *edit* lol, i now understand you were actually talking about Hamas, not the US pres. elections. Well, I wasn't speaking to the legitimacy of their election. I was talking more about that idea of engaging in a dialogs with our enemies. This was something that Obama said he would do, or so I thought. I would definitely include Hamas in the "enemy of the US" group, and didn't know that there was the condition that they had to be recognized as a country by the US and Isreal before any negotiations could take place (not that they might be fruitful anyway). There may not be a disconnect between Obama's rhetoric and his statements on this issue unless you interpret his remarks as a committment to unconditionally engage in dialogue with every organization - government or otherwise - that has a grievance with the US. If he's rejecting the "engage in unconditional dialogs with every group that has a grievance and base your policies on uncritical acceptance of their statements concerning their intentions resulting from the said dialog" model, there's still plenty of room to navigate between his handling of Hamas and the model advanced by Jimmy Carter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.