AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > January > 26 > Entry
Is Homeland Security Too Focused on “Guns, Guards and Gates”?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
September 11th was a brutal reminder that there are people out there who have the desire and means to kill us in a mass attack, and we have to stop them. “The best defense is a good offense”, we like to say, but in this case it’s a little trickier than that. We need an offense mindful of long-term gains and a defense more nuanced than smash-mouth football.
“Guns, guards and gates,” our bulwark against external threats, remains an essential part of our defense. Yet consider this: attacks attempted or carried out in the UK involved insiders, young Brits willing to kill their fellow citizens. It’s hard to employ a simplistic “us vs. them” strategy, when “they” are living and working alongside us.
To better understand this quandry, I recently caught up with Juliette Kayyem, Undersecretary of Homeland Security for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a former adviser with the National Commission on Terrorism. “We need to minimize the number of people interested in hurting us,” Kayyem says. A systematic strategy of “incredible community involvement” is key: “You build relationships with people so that they want to help us ferret out potential terrorists.” If we focus on fence-building around these communities, the non-terrorists inside them have no incentive to align themselves with our government. Why should they, if they’re treated like terrorists themselves?
Without an unlimited budget for our protection, we must spend wisely. Americans like programs that are easily quantifiable—this many boats patrolling the harbors, that many guards added to the border. Meanwhile, long-term detective work here and abroad can better stop a threat before it ever reaches our shores.
Al Qaeda plans to wage both economic and literal war on us; let’s not fall into their trap by spending millions on creating a police state on the level of North Korea. Even with an unlimited budget it wouldn’t make us as safe as one would hope, and, as Kayyem puts it, “we won’t be the nation we want to be.”
Simply building a moat around the castle is tempting, but we’re not living in a fairy tale. In waging a war against an ever present enemy, trust-building and infiltration is just as important as shows of might. We forget that at our peril.
Rebuttal
September 11 woke Americans up to the fact that some people hate us so blindly, based on so many warped and inaccurate views, they will try to hurt us no matter what we do. That is the lesson we forget at our peril. I agree that we need big-picture efforts like community involvement. But that alone won’t protect us from a terrorist driving a suitcase nuke into Manhattan. For that, we need guards, guns and gates - and a willingness to recognize that hundreds of millions of people hate America for reasons that we simply can’t back down on. Should we eliminate our insistence that Jews be allowed to remain in Israel just because that infuriates many Muslims?
Relationship-building is critical - but when do we wake up to the reality that we have already spent decades of effort on exactly that? For example, to avoid the perception that we are anti-Palestinian, we have done more for Palestinians than the very Muslim nations who criticize us over Israel. America opens its doors to Palestinian immigrants - yet Refugees International points out that nearby Muslim countries like Lebanon often refuse all entry to Palestinian refugees.
We’ve also spent billions of dollars in aid to Muslim nations, and continuing to do so is the right thing to do. But it’s also not enough. We need the security measures that make the ACLU mad, like watch lists and terrorist profiling. We can’t lessen security measures in the name of winning our enemies’ favor. As Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff put it, if we weaken watch lists, “would you then get on an airplane or put your children on an airplane in that kind of environment?”
Perhaps because we have put so much attention on other methods, our last line of defense is very demoralized. And that is not good for security. Border patrol agents, for example, literally put their lives on the line trying to protect us: this is when we need to be applauding them and giving them whatever they need to do their jobs.
As Andy pointed out, the London attacks were inspired by discontented local Muslims. Locals who had more “big picture” freedoms and rights than in their home countries. And that, as we all know, didn’t stop them.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By serega
January 27, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
http://index1.etitv.com >calcium carbonicum
By NetBanker
January 28, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
Well I’m going to assume that something is very wrong with the posting because there isn’t a single response. To be honest, I don’t see a whole lot of difference in what the 2 columnists are saying when you get right down to it. It seems apparent that both sides are saying a mult-prong strategy is what is needed.
I do think there is one ‘fallacy’ (I can’t quite find the right word I’m looking for) in Shaunti’s statement “that alone won’t protect us from a terrorist driving a suitcase nuke into Manhattan. For that, we need guards, guns and gates.” In order to protect Manhattan from the scenario Shaunti offers one would need guards, guns, and gates to stop and search every single vehicle and individual entering the city via every mode of transportation (plane, motor vehicle, train, and boat). This is simply a physical impossibility without destruction of the local economy due to paralysis given the volume of people and vehicles with all those modes of transportation and all those bridges and tunnels. It would be akin to creating a giant “Gaza Strip” or “West Bank” in NYC.
By The Other Jack
January 28, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Al Qaeda plans to wage both economic and literal war on us; let’s not fall into their trap by spending millions on creating a police state on the level of North Korea.
This kind of statement is unreal. Has Andrea been out of her house in the last 15 years?
I appears that both people see that America has enemies. Shanti sees our enemies as radicals from foreign countries that want to continue what they have done in the past. Andrea sees the country’s enemies as Republicans. And she invents something to inspire fear, not against our real enemies, but instead against the group of people who see our nation’s politics differently than she does.
Obama claims that he wants to bring our country back together. He actually had me for a minute. All the ideas he has are great. I was actually thinking about voting Democratic for the first time since I started voting in 1976. And then I watched him on ABCs Sunday morning political show. On that show, I saw him first claim that “unison” platform, and then I saw him do everything he could to try and explain that he had not spoke favorably of Ronald Reagan, while in fact he had. He is already lying about what he is willing to do. So why on earth would anyone believe any of the other promises he is making?
Republicans see our country’s enemies as our country’s enemies. Democrats seem to think that our country has no enemies that a good “talking to” can’t fix. They see Republicans as the enemy. And apparently the only Democratic candidate that says he wants to unify the country is already lying about it.
By Snidely Buttright
January 28, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
netbanker, she also says that the people of other countries “hate us so blindly, based on so many warped and inaccurate views,” when in reality it’s been our meddling in THEIR business and our interfering in THEIR politics that have shaped their views.
Consider Iran. In the early years after WW2, they held elections and democratically chose themselves a leader. He wouldn’t toe the Washington line so our government toppled him, installed the Shah, and provided the new government with aid and support. Look where that got us. Same thing with other middle eastern countries. Although we may not have actually toppled those governments we certainly pressured them, bribed them, and threatened them to push them the way we wanted them to go. Just as we did with the Central and South American countries. From our training the Death Squads from Chile and Columbia to our willingness to allow weapons sales to anyone with the cash to pay for them, our actions have often been contrary to our words.
Between the coups, the assassinations, the payoffs, the spying and all that, it’s really a testament to the charm of the American citizens (as opposed to the American government, a distinction that most people emphasize) and the strength of the American ideal that MORE of the world doesn’t hate us.
By Pertinent Quote of the Day
January 28, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that. ……MLK, Jr.
By JokesOn
January 28, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
Snidely Buttright,
None of that sympathizer talk in here man! The imperialist machine must keep rolling! No compromising or reflection of our actions are allowed, for that shows weakness. (beats chest and growls)
By Quotor
January 28, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
Democracy is a Great Idea, just as long as you vote the USA’s way
By Archie
January 28, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
My answer to the topic question is yes and our leaders need counselling on the subject of fear and prejudice. Not everbody that’s not american hates americans to the point of violence. Most non-americans don’t want to do anything to americans but of course terrorists do want to harm americans and it may be a better strategy to actually identify the enemy rather than just bombing a country and then justifying such a bombing with a lie. America did business with the guy that is now accused of mass murder of american citizens so we know who the enemy is and we need to be honest about our dealings with people like that.
By JokesOn
January 28, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
Obama’s Quote:
I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing. I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we’re in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren’t working. We’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. **IE: Post Reagan Years**Read it all again if you want, you won’t find “better” or “good” in there, or synonyms or implications along those lines.
By Troglodyke
January 28, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
Am I alone in my thinking (slightly OT here) that trying to create “democracy” in Islamic states like Iraq and Iran is doomed to fail?
I mean, the people say they want democracy, and democracy sounds good. But is it ever possible in regimes like that?
Let’s let the people vote on their leaders. OK, who to choose from? The radical Muslim fundamentalist, or the even-more-radical Muslim fundamentalist?
Would any potential elected leader in those countries actually be able to rule democratically? I seriously doubt it.
Anyone who appeared poised to change the status quo would be assassinated either before the election, or soon into his regime. Witness the Bhutto murder. That woman had no chance.
Muslim fanatics do not want democracy. The majority of the population in those countries may want it, but the fanatics rule.
Does that mean we stay completely out of their politics and turn a blind eye to the problems of the citizenry? I don’t think so, but it seems to me that instilling democracy just isn’t going to work. At least, democracy in the form we know and cherish isn’t.
Fundamentalist Xtians in the U.S. aren’t crazy about pure democracy, but they are way more into it than fundamentalist Muslims in majority Muslim countries.
By Snidely Buttright
January 28, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
JokesOn, but Obama DIDN’T call St. Ronnie names or minimize his impact on the country. To those who agree with the idea that “if you aren’t for us, then you are against us” the opposite must also be true; “If you are not AGAINST Ronnie, you must be FOR Ronnie.” See? Obama must looovvveee Reagan, he’s just too much of a liar to admit it. :)
By NonFacts
January 28, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
Man, don’t confuse people with what Obama ACTUALLY SAID:
it is obvious, per the media and people(BC?) talking, that he:
dang. man.
By late to the party
January 28, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this
Jerry Curry for president! Check him out at www.curryforamerica.com
By Copyleft
January 28, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
Terrorists can only threaten lives and property. To truly bring down America, you need to destroy it from the inside.
Thus, the concern over our internal enemies of freedom (such as the entire Bush administration, and everyone who signed the PNAC) is entirely appropriate. They’re our country’s enemies as much as terrorists are, if not more so.
By NetBanker
January 28, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
Andrea sees the country’s enemies as Republicans. Really? I don’t see where she mentioned the administration, Republicans, or Bush at all in her post. And somewhere along the line Osama bin Laden also did intimate that part of the Al Qaida strategy is an economic one by “bleeding us”. Think about the impact this lovely war is having on the short and long-term financial health of the U.S. Not only are we in outrageously more debt, but the cost of oil has shot up in part due (although not entirely) to instability concerns in the region that started with the war. So economically we’re further impacted while the Muslims regimes are stuffing their coffers full of money.
Trog…instilling democracy just isn’t going to work. At least, democracy in the form we know and cherish isn’t. Here in lies the trap of spreading democracy…which goes hand-in-hand with a ‘be careful what you wish for.’ The double-edged part of democracy for the U.S. is that people may freely elect leaders who are not friendly or supportive of the U.S. or our positions. Just look at what happened in the last Palestinian elections where Hamas made major gains in an election whose results were not contested or considered corrupt. There seems to be an assumption on the part of Americans that if we bring democracy to a people then they will vote the way we want them to instead of the way those people think will be best for them.
And who says that our version of democracy is the best anyway? Rather than voting for the most qualified person based on experience or even the person whose policy positions best match up with one’s own, Americans seem to vote for the person they like the best based on impressions.
By USinUK
January 28, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this
Trog - I disagree with you that Iran and Iraq are incapable of democracy. Until we invaded Iraq, there was a burgeoning Iranian middle class and active student movement to bring about more “western” type of government. Then, we invaded and the mullahs were able to bang the drum of “western imperialism” and Ahmadenijad was elected.
Democracy is entirely possible there - but it can’t be installed like a DVD drive in your computer. It can’t come from the top-down and from outside in. It has to bubble up from the people and it HAS to be from the inside.
By The Other Jack
January 28, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this
USinUK
Jimmy Carter turned his back on Mohammed Reza Pahlavi during his administration. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi is sometimes called the Shaw of Iran, but Shaw just means monarch. There have been many Shaws of Iran. Pahlavi was supported by the British and Americans because of the fact that his predecessor had Nationalized the British funded oil industry, basically taking over all western investments in all aspects of the industry. In order to protect the Western investments, the British and Americans covertly installed a leader that would protect Western investments in Iran.
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi had asked Carter for permission and help to hold down the religious rights of Muslim extremists. Carter would not allow this. This started the reign of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who is still the supreme leader of the Iranian military and basically the real leader of the Iranian government.
We have had horrible relationships with Iran since the 1980s. But now you claim that it is all about the Iraq war that we don’t get along.
A burgeoning Iranian middle class is still there. It is being held down just like it had been held down since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gained power.
If there was one man that was hated in Iran, it was Saddam Hussan. But you claim that by taking him out of power, an anti-American president was elected.
So exactly who do you think would have been elected if we had not gone to war in Iraq? Do you think he would have been a pro-western leader? Without our invasion of Iran’s sworn enemy, do you believe that the Iranian middle class would have had the ability to put anyone in power that would be against the wishes of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has had nothing but murderous contempt for our country?
This is another attempt at saying that history started in 2001 and every country that we don’t get along with, all loved us until Bush took office.
By Copyleft
January 28, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
The one strategy that hasn’t been tried, that all the Arab world has been asking for, is “Staying the heck out of their land.”
Why do you suppose that’s never even been considered?
By kimberly
January 28, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
Americans seem to vote for the person they like the best based on impressions.
Good point, NetB, but I think as a whole, Americans vote for whomever launches the most well-funded, clever advertising campaign. Just as Americans think the stuff in paper wrappers from McDonald’s is food, Budweiser is beer, juice-like beverages are juice, and that they should ask their doctor if that new pill is right for them, Americans think the garbage they hear on TV reflects reality. D’OH! Marketing and advertising are the soul and spirit of 21st-Century America, and the election process is no different.
Until we remove money from elections, we’ll never really know the real qualifications or positions of our candidates, nor will the most qualified people actually get a chance to run or be heard. Ain’t gonna happen.
By kimberly
January 28, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
CopyLeft at 12:31 and 1:58,
Copy that, over.
By Newzwyre
January 28, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
What The Other Jack doesn’t say is that Pahlavi had abdicated the office of Shah and power was, for a time, held by the “National Front of Iran”, an organization founded to establish democracy and end the influence of foreigners in Iranian politics; especially the influence of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
Once the Iranians kicked B.P. out of their country, they changed their economy from somewhat fuedal style agriculture to a more collectivist/community type system. The Anglo-American “Operation Ajax” was the obvious result. Eventually the western plot to depose Mossadegh was successful and the Shah Pahlavi was reinstated to power and an agreement was soon reached with the oil companies to resume their business. And eventually led to the Iranian Revolution in ‘79.
The extent of the U.S.’s role in Mossadegh’s overthrow was not formally acknowledged for many years, although the Eisenhower administration was quite vocal in its opposition to the policies of the ousted Iranian Prime Minister. Eventually the CIA’s role became well-known, and caused controversy within the organization itself, and within the CIA congressional hearings of the 1970s.
In March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: “The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America.”
Despite TOJ protests, we DID plant the seeds of the Iranian Revolution and, ultimately, the rise of the Ayatollah’s and the Islamic Republic of Iran
By Jack
January 28, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
NAFTA is doin a good number on us too.
By Monica
January 28, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
*Just as Americans think the stuff in paper wrappers from McDonald’s is food, Budweiser is beer, juice-like beverages are juice, and that they should ask their doctor if that new pill is right for them, Americans think the garbage they hear on TV reflects reality. D’OH! Marketing and advertising are the soul and spirit of 21st-Century America, and the election process is no different.
Until we remove money from elections, we’ll never really know the real qualifications or positions of our candidates, nor will the most qualified people actually get a chance to run or be heard. Ain’t gonna happen.*
Well-said Kimberly. I read that Rudy has spent 1 mil per week on advertising. That makes me sick!
To be an American president, you must: 1) be an American citizen 2) be at least 35 3) have more money than God
By Troglodyke
January 28, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
To be an American president, you must: 1) be an American citizen 2) be at least 35 3) have more money than God*
You forgot, 4.) Pay lip service to that god in public
By Big Corporate Dog
January 28, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this
Newzwyre
Despite TOJ protests, we DID plant the seeds of the Iranian Revolution and, ultimately, the rise of the Ayatollah’s and the Islamic Republic of Iran
Once again: Please read what I write. Not what you think I write. Did you read this:
*In order to protect the Western investments, the British and Americans covertly installed a leader that would protect Western investments in Iran.
That is actually from my post. I actually said that we were involved in the Iranian Revolution.
My point was that USinUK seemed to think that our problems with Iran stemmed from the invasion of their arch enemy, Iraq. My point, much like your own point was that we had a constant conflict with Iran since long before either Bush was in office.
The frustration here is not that anyone counters my points, but that no one seems to comprehend my points.
By Archie
January 28, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
JokesOn it does sound like Obama praised Reagan just reading the quote you read. I mean when you say party of ideas that sounds complimentary. I don’t think it’s a lie to say Obama praised Reagan and he knows that. I do like Obama but I have a problem with some of his campaign tactics. I was in the same place as Obama on friday night and I didn’t like what he did and I can’t expound on it because other folk are involved.
By JokesOn
January 28, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
I mean when you say party of ideas that sounds complimentary.
I do not see how one can take it that way given he clarifies it by saying “in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom,” and he could not have even been talking about Reagan since he gave a time frame of 15yrs.
I agree that if listened to superficially one walk away with that feeling.
I was in the same place as Obama on friday night and I didn’t like what he did and I can’t expound on it because other folk are involved.
I have my ignore ears on….lets hear it.
By Archie
January 28, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
JokesOn I am concerned because I have been hearing people say that if Obama does not win they are leaving the party and I think that’s crazy. It as if people have forgotten about Iraq war,healthcare,crime sentencing, and the other issues. People seem to be voting for a man and not the ideas and that sounds like a cultish mentality. If Hillary wins I expect Obama supporters to logically vote for her in the general election because if he wins I will definitely support him in the general election. If I can be that objective as a black man I don’t understand why so many Obama supporters can’t be objective. The issues are what’s important not dislike of like of a person. Some of the stuff said about Hillary is ridiculous, I mean you have people evaluating why the WOMAN cried as if women don’t cry. I am all about the issues and my political beliefs not the personalities. Obama crashed a party friday night and I did not think it was appropiate but that won’t stop me from voting for him in November.
By JokesOn
January 28, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
People seem to be voting for a man and not the ideas and that sounds like a cultish mentality.
I agree. We have enough of the “all or nothing/my way or highway” mentality as it is.
By lozen
January 28, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
We live together, you and I, in a dark time when all official history is propaganda. If you want truth, you have to struggle for it. ~John Taylor Gatto
By kimberly
January 28, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this
Archie, good point! The attack stuff has gotten almost as ridiculous as the wh-o-re media’s spinning of it. Ditto JokesOn. (Nice quote, Loz!) Let’s get off the “with us or against us” merry-go-round. All three Democratic frontrunners bring something respectable to the table this year. Let’s reflect on what matters to us, and more importantly, who will be able to stand up to the slime machine and win in November. (The GOP has proven time and again that no trick is too low, slimy, or feces laden for their employ, lest we forget.) By the time summer gets here, we’d best be on the same side of the fence, because there will only be two choices, and four more years of a Republican executive branch raping the Constitution and Treasury for fun and profit is not acceptable.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 29, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this
Kimberly
(The GOP has proven time and again that no trick is too low, slimy, or feces laden for their employ,
I forgive you for your hate. You can’t help it. You belong to the party of hate. Without hate the democrats wouldn’t exist. It is satisfying to watching liberals as they are shocked at the trailer trash, slimy tactics of the Clintons. Everyone but liberals saw these despicable habits as far back as 1992. It’s good that even the most liberal democrat now sees what the rest of the world has clearly seen for so very long.
I urge you and others to join the peace and love of the Party that fought against the racist democrats in freeing all Americans.
Go in peace, I forgive you for your hate.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 29, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this
Monica
To be an American president, you must: 1) be an American citizen 2) be at least 35 3) have more money than God
Unfortunately, advertising costs a lot of mpney. TV stations live and die by that money and even though candidates get a special rate at many stations, they still need to pay the price.
McCain/Feingold would have fixed the problem except for the provision that any candidate can fund his or her own campaign. There’s always that loop hole.
I personally am much more concerned with lobby money. It corrupts Washington. It also always goes to the party in charge. Look for almost no mention of that money stream during these elections.
There are far too many politicians going to Washington with great ideas and not much money, and then going back home as jaded millionaires.
By USinUK
January 29, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
BCD - or TOJ - or whoever you are today …
As Uncle Ronnie would say, “Well, there you go again.”
My point was that USinUK seemed to think that our problems with Iran stemmed from the invasion of their arch enemy, Iraq.
I said nothing of the sort. Trog said she was wondering if democracy was possible in Iran or Iraq, to which I replied that they were beginning to make progress prior to our invasion of Iraq. There was a growing middle class and there was a growing student movement to take the country away from the Ayatollah-age. The mullahs were able to bang their drums when we invaded Iraq and say that this was “western imperialism”.
I said nothing about our relationship with Iran, sanctions, hostages, coups or anything about feelings one way or another. So, no, I never said that our problems with Iran started in 2003, I was just addressing Trog’s statement.
As for your loose history of Iran, you’re close but not quite there. When the ShaH (not ShaW) was politely asked to leave the country, the Ayatollah KhOmeini was the leader of the Iranian Revolution who then became the supreme leader, not the Ayatollah KhAmeni - and KhOmeini died in 1989.
Which leads to my last 2 points: 1) The Iranian Revolution refers to the deposing of the Shah in 1979, not the CIA-led coup of the prime minister back in the 1950s. We planted the seeds for the revolution, all right, but not in the way I think you think we did.
2) Just before Carter was elected, the Shah banned all opposition parties and pretty much became as bad as Saddam Hussein with his policies of torturing/killing political prisoners. So, yeah, Carter did a diplomatic dance around him and didn’t throw in the full weight of the White House behind his reign. For good reason - and let’s look at what happened when he DID show some support to the Shah: The US embassy personnel were taken hostage for 400-some-odd days because Carter allowed the Shah into the US for medical treatment.
By Newzwyre
January 29, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
Interesting. Without JFK and the generosity of the Kennedy Foundation, Obama Sr. would never have gotten the opportunity to study in the U.S., he would never have met his Kansas-born wife-to-be, Barack would never have been born, and we might be calling Hillary Clinton’s presidency “inevitable”. Funny how these things work.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/barackobama/story/0,,2238701,00.html
The bond began with Kenyan labour leader Tom Mboya, an advocate for African nationalism who helped his country gain independence in 1963. In the late 1950s, Mboya was seeking support for a scholarship program that would send Kenyan students to US colleges…Mboya appealed to the state department. When that trail went cold, he turned to then-senator Kennedy
Kennedy, who chaired the senate subcommittee on Africa, arranged a $100,000 grant through his family’s foundation to help Mboya keep the program running.
“It was not a matter in which we sought to be involved,” Kennedy said in an August 1960 senate speech. “Nevertheless, Mr Mboya came to see us and asked for help, when none of the other foundations could give it, when the federal government had turned it down quite precisely. We felt something ought to be done.”
One of the first students airlifted to America was Barack Obama Sr, who married a white Kansas native named Ann Dunham during his US studies. Their son, born in 1961 and named for his father, has only once mentioned his Kennedy connection on the campaign trail.
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Thanks for taking the time, but there is nothing there I disagree with, except the 1951 Iranian Revolution was one of many revolution that took place in Iran.
However you didn’t answer the question.
You wrote this:
Until we invaded Iraq, there was a burgeoning Iranian middle class and active student movement to bring about more “western” type of government. Then, we invaded and the mullahs were able to bang the drum of “western imperialism” and Ahmadenijad was elected.
I call that nonsense. If you weren’t saying that the invasion of the Iran’s arch enemy caused the mullahs to discourage the election of a pro-western leader, what were you saying?
Are you going to stand behind your statement and explain who they would have elected instead, or are you going to run away?
By USinUK
January 29, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
BCD/TOJ -
Um, excuse me, but run away? Please, don’t embarass yourself.
If you weren’t saying that the invasion of the Iran’s arch enemy caused the mullahs to discourage the election of a pro-western leader, what were you saying? That’s exactly what I was saying - the invasion paved the way for Ahmadinajad’s election.
What I was NOT saying was that the US and Iran were fine and dandy friends before that - which is what you said I said.
As for who would have won - Iran had been going through western-style reform since the election of Mohammad Khatami in 1997 - to put it bluntly, the people had had enough of the Ayatollahs. Khatami won the presidential vote and the reform movement was reinforced by a victory in the 2000 parliamentary elections.
After that, the Conservatives did what they could to block a lot of the Reformists plans, and the people started to grow frustrated at progress not being made, deciding not to vote at all in a city election in early 2003. Turnout in the 2004 election was better than expected, but only by about 10% - the people voted Conservative because of the mullahs’ “western imperialism” cries and because Khatami’s gov’t wasn’t doing what it promised to do.
By kimberly
January 29, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
Good morning TOJ, and bless you. You are too kind. So… there will be no “swiftboating” this year by the GOP? That’s GREAT news! Many of us soldier-loving Americans were horrified by the party’s trashing of a combat veteran’s record to facilitate the election of one who was nowhere near a combat zone. And the fact that eligible voters were purged from the rolls along with felons on order of the state’s head Bush committee gal and denied their right to vote. And how Bush campaigners torpedoed a fellow GOP’er by calling voters in South Carolina to report McCain fathered “a black baby.” And even going farther back, when the Honorable Gov. Ann Richards was branded a lesbian (not that there’s anything wrong with that) by a younger Rove man in Texas.
That is indeed GREAT news! No more slimy stuff from the GOP. We can all look forward to an honest debate this year; thanks TOJ!
By oOo
January 29, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
kimberly, you left out the mail campaign in Arkansas and West Virginia, when the Reublican National Commitee claimed that “liberals would ban the bible”, or the smearing of Max Cleland, or…
But what are facts to someone who self-righteously names democrats the “party of hate” and then goes on to froth and the mouth and call them every ugly name possible?
Poke the troll, people - poke the troll.
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
By USinUK
That’s exactly what I was saying - the invasion paved the way for Ahmadinajad’s election. As for who would have won - Iran had been going through western-style reform since the election of Mohammad Khatami in 1997 - to put it bluntly, the people had had enough of the Ayatollahs. Khatami won the presidential vote and the reform movement was reinforced by a victory in the 2000 parliamentary elections.
Katami’s efforts to open relations with neighboring countries is well documented, but his continued actions against the West is also well documented. He was certainly no friend to America.
But we were discussing the 2005 elections.
The FACTS state that there were only seven that were allowed to run out of the thousands of original candidates. The “Guardian Council” had disqualified all but the final seven.
The Guardian Council is elected by the Majlis who are nominated by the Head of the Judicial Power, who is appointed by the Supreme Leader: The Ayatollah.
Of that seven, there was a run-off between a past president of Iran: Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an Islamic Conservative and Ahmadinejad. So the person that lost to Ahmadinejad was not only an Islamic Conservative, he had already proven a record that had alienated most of Europe and particularly America.
So where is that pro-western leader that you claim was not elected because of US policies? The other five candidates had all passed the smell test of the Ayatollah so if you want to believe they were pro-western, you must not have been paying attention during the past 30 years.
After that, the Conservatives did what they could to block a lot of the Reformists plans, and the people started to grow frustrated at progress not being made, deciding not to vote at all in a city election in early 2003. Turnout in the 2004 election was better than expected, but only by about 10% - the people voted Conservative because of the mullahs’ “western imperialism” cries and because Khatami’s gov’t wasn’t doing what it promised to do.
Actually, Iranians took great pride in the turn out of 2005. There was no election of 2004. The turnout for the run-off was slightly lower than the general election (62.66%), but still managed 59.6% of the total population. I don’t know where you got 10%, but I also don’t know where you got that the US’s actions prevented a pro-western candidate from becoming president.
The bottom line is that the Ayatollah personally picks the candidates. If you believe the Ayatollah is going to allow a pro-western candidate, like I said, you have just not been paying attention.
By HeeHaw
January 29, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
No more slimy stuff from the GOP. We can all look forward to an honest debate this year; thanks TOJ!
I hope no one is holding their breath. That sounds like a recipe for someone’s quick unhealthy demise.
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
kimberly
I can’t guarantee that there will not be another conservative group that wants to tell the truth about the Democratic candidates. I will assure you that there will be no Republican George Soros who is financing hundreds of slimy organizations to stage trashy and untrue attacks on the opposition. Did the British government ever arrest Soros for trying to devalue the pound in order to destabilize the British government and make him billions? I know they and the French both have legal cases against him.
Your interpretation of the dishonestly of the election process is hilarious, considering you support the Democrats. Unions have already been caught, trying to alter the Democratic run-offs.
If you would like to go further back, maybe we could discuss Papa Kennedy’s relationship to the Chicago Mafia. And their influence in the illegal vote counting in that state.
Slippery slope, girl. You support one slimy party.
But I forgive you.
By Omar
January 29, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
I am sure that TOJ will say that the smear campaigns came from the Clintons and their administration. And just sure as I have brown eyes, he will bring up Ron Brown and all of the stuff during the Clinton Administration.
And then he will say that liberals or “progressives” are nasty, call Conservatives names, etc.
Plus, we will hear about the blacks being duped into the Democratic party and the lies they spread. He certainly won’t understand why somebody would vote for a racist party.
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
oOo
If you have a problem with what I am claiming, please present proof that will counter those arguments. It is no surprise that you don’t like me. But try to grow up a little a address issues.
K?
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
Omar
Thanks. Other than the idea that you could read my mind, everything you say is true, except the “duping” part.
So why would anyone vote for the party of George Wallace and Robert Byrd?
By USinUK
January 29, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
BCD/TOJ
He was certainly no friend to America fercryingoutloud. why do you keep banging on about relations between Iran and the US when that’s not what anyone is talking about? well, no one apart from you, anyway. The conversation was about democracy and if it’s possible in Iran/Iraq.
And, yes, there were parliamentary elections in 2004 - Feb 2004, to be precise.
And, yes, there was a presidential candidate in 2005 that was in a run-off with Ahmadenijad - Rafsanjani - who protrayed himself as more of a centrist and was expected to capture the reformist votes. In fact, Rafsanjani was leading in the polls and won the first round of voting before the run-off.
So, please get with the conversation - this is about whether or not countries in the middle east can become viable democracies, not whether or not they have friendly relations with the US.
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
By USinUK
fercryingoutloud. why do you keep banging on about relations between Iran and the US when that’s not what anyone is talking about? well, no one apart from you, anyway. The conversation was about democracy and if it’s possible in Iran/Iraq.
Did you write this: As for who would have won - Iran had been going through western-style reform since the election of Mohammad Khatami in 1997 - to put it bluntly, the people had had enough of the Ayatollahs. Khatami won the presidential vote and the reform movement was reinforced by a victory in the 2000 parliamentary elections.
What about that referred to Democracy? It is bad enough that you spout this Solon.com nonsense that you can’t defend, but this constant attempt at insulting me is just making you look foolish and uninformed.
And, yes, there were parliamentary elections in 2004 - Feb 2004, to be precise.
You try to make a case that I am not staying on topic, but out of a conversation about presidential elections which you started, ou try to divert to parliamentary elections. We were discussing the presidential election in Iran.
And, yes, there was a presidential candidate in 2005 that was in a run-off with Ahmadenijad - Rafsanjani - who protrayed himself as more of a centrist and was expected to capture the reformist votes.
A centrist in Iran is not a pro-western candidate. How many times do I need to ask you to defend the nonsense you posted? What about this man that never made any attempt to mend relations with the west do you think is Pro-western?
So, please get with the conversation - this is about whether or not countries in the middle east can become viable democracies, not whether or not they have friendly relations with the US.
No. The discussion is about homeland security. I was calling you on an absolutely ridicules statement that you had made in regard to the manipulation of the Iranian Presidential elections. Have you forgotten already? Do I need to yet again post what you wrote?
You still refuse to answer the question about who was the Pro-western candidate. I have spent the time to do the research and apparently you can’t dispute it. So I am pleased to learn that you actually learned something to dispute the propaganda you are fed every day. For that, I am a happy dude.
Thanks
By Snidely Buttright
January 29, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
USinUK, it sort of is about whether countries in the middle east (or latin america ftm) have friendly relations with the US because that if they DON’T, there’s a good chance that our government wouldn’t hesitate to sabotage the bugeoning democractic movement.
By USinUK
January 29, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
BCD/TOJ:
No, actually, the original question was:
By Troglodyke January 28, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this Am I alone in my thinking (slightly OT here) that trying to create “democracy” in Islamic states like Iraq and Iran is doomed to fail?
I mean, the people say they want democracy, and democracy sounds good. But is it ever possible in regimes like that?
To which I replied:
Trog - I disagree with you that Iran and Iraq are incapable of democracy. Until we invaded Iraq, there was a burgeoning Iranian middle class and active student movement to bring about more “western” type of government. Then, we invaded and the mullahs were able to bang the drum of “western imperialism” and Ahmadenijad was elected.
Democracy is entirely possible there - but it can’t be installed like a DVD drive in your computer. It can’t come from the top-down and from outside in. It has to bubble up from the people and it HAS to be from the inside.
So, yes, the conversation was and is about Democracy. Not about whether Iran is pro-US - no matter how many times you try to misquote me.
By Snidely Buttright
January 29, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
Beat that dead horse! Beat it!!! Movin’ on is for wussie-liberal! Harp! Harp on that there out-of-context sentence. Harp on it d@mn yer eyes!!! heee-YAHHHH!!
(/snark)
By USinUK
January 29, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
Snidely - true, that. which, unfortunately, we’ve done already in Iran, back in the 1950s.
By oOo
January 29, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this
Apparently naming various examples of scurrilous campaign behavior by Republicans doesn’t qualify as proof that will counter those arguments, even when the argument is that Democrats are evil maligners and Republicans are injured do-gooders.
How can you argue with that kind of logic?
By Jack
January 29, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
So why would anyone vote for the party of George Wallace and Robert Byrd?
The Republicans haven’t done a very good job now have they? Each party takes turns screwing up, they get booted out, and we go through it again. When we get a true conservative in office maybe things will get better. But it won’t happen because of greed.
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
USinUK
You made a statement which you can’t support. I called you on that and now you are avoiding supporting that statement. For that, I compliment you. At least you understand when you have made a mistake.
The topic this week is Is Homeland Security Too Focused on “Guns, Guards and Gates”?
If you were really concerned with staying on topic, you would have stayed on the topic of the blog.
Now that you have been proven wrong, is there anything else?
By oOo
January 29, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this
Speaking of staying on topic, I present to you Other Big Dog Corporate Jack’s first post “on topic”. Absorb the hypocrisy…
I appears that both people see that America has enemies. Shanti sees our enemies as radicals from foreign countries that want to continue what they have done in the past. Andrea sees the country’s enemies as Republicans. And she invents something to inspire fear, not against our real enemies, but instead against the group of people who see our nation’s politics differently than she does.
Obama claims that he wants to bring our country back together. He actually had me for a minute. All the ideas he has are great. I was actually thinking about voting Democratic for the first time since I started voting in 1976. And then I watched him on ABCs Sunday morning political show. On that show, I saw him first claim that “unison” platform, and then I saw him do everything he could to try and explain that he had not spoke favorably of Ronald Reagan, while in fact he had. He is already lying about what he is willing to do. So why on earth would anyone believe any of the other promises he is making?
*Republicans see our country’s enemies as our country’s enemies. Democrats seem to think that our country has no enemies that a good “talking to” can’t fix. They see Republicans as the enemy. And apparently the only Democratic candidate that says he wants to unify the country is already lying about it.(
On-topic? Or simply yet another in a long, long, long, long line of rabid rants about the unassailable perfection of the Reublican party and the undeniable perfidy of Democrats and liberals?
Oh, I know, Big Other Corporate Jack Dog…I kneed to grow up, lighten up, stay on topic, relax, run away, don’t be a playa-hata, chill in the ‘hood and back up off the shining perfection that is you. DO forgive me my presumption.
Luke 4:23
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
Jack
The Republicans haven’t done a very good job now have they?
At what? As far as fighting for equal opportunities, they have done a great job. Democrats fought against integration, Republicans fought for it. Is everything fixed and perfect? Of course not, but integration is now the accepted norm while it wasn’t before.
I don’t like the money influence of the Republican party, but it is certainly no worse than the Democrats. The dims are now the recipients of the big money in Congress, big money in the presidential elections and many far left liberal organizations have the support of one of the biggest criminal minds in history: George Soros.
Speaking in general terms, it is easy to follow the lead of the corporate media and declare the Democrats the better party. But when a person takes a look at actions instead of words, the Republicans win hands down.
Obama wants to unite America until he is asked to say something good about Republicans which he refuses to do. That’s not uniting anything or anybody. So he is lying before he is even nominated. This is the one promise that he could possible achieve, but even that is a blatant lie. So how in the world will he be able to accomplish any of the larger and more complicated ideas he is proposing. They are all great ideas, but he can’t even stick to his guns on the simple ideas.
It is easy to say that a person supports health care for everyone as the Clintons promised, but where is it? They had a Democratically led House, Senate and White House, but still couldn’t do it.
They promised to end the war in Iraq and regulate the Oil companies in the elections of 06. I would have voted for all their ideas, but they haven’t accomplished anything. Hell, they haven’t even tried.
Democrats win votes with great ideas that they have no intention of accomplishing. Great ideas are a dime a dozen.
By Copyleft
January 29, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
So why would anyone vote for the party of George Wallace and Robert Byrd?
I dunno… maybe because they tend to be RIGHT a lot more often than the Repugnants are?
Because they can govern better?
Because they don’t screw the poor quite as hard, or as often, as the GOP does?
Because they at least are AWARE that somebody other than rich, white Christians live in this country?
There’s a lot of reasons, OtherJack—but none that will make the slightest impression on a mind that’s already made up on the subject.
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
oOo
This is so sad. Why is it so important to continue this childish attempt at discrediting me? Is it just so completely impossible to discredit what I say? I make it easy for you, but you still just can’t perform.
USinUK is the one that claimed that I needed to stay on topic. She is the one that was off topic until she couldn’t defend her nonsense. So she claimed that I was off topic. I was gladly answering whatever she posted.
I have seen the topics here go waaaay off topic and have never had a problem with it. I still don’t but will point out when someone else is avoiding supporting their claims by saying that I am off topic.
Nice try, Joke, but you are no smarter than you were last week.
Sorry pal.
By JokesOn
January 29, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
Copyleft,
Because they don’t screw the poor quite as hard, or as often, as the GOP does?
For example under bush the richest 1% of the population on average received $30k on their taxes and the middle income families averaged $550.
Now that is a straight forward and honest party for the people!
By lozen
January 29, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
A new study by the Center for Public Integrity documents 935 public lies by leading members of the Bush clique in the two years after 9/11/2001 to mislead Americans into supporting their aggression against Iraq.
935 Lies by the Bush clique: http://www.publicin tegrity.org/ WarCard/
By JokesOn
January 29, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this
Nice try, Joke, but you are no smarter than you were last week.
But you are more ignorant and crying when people do not play your game. So you got me beat at stupidity again. Darn.
USinUK is the one that claimed that I needed to stay on topic.
Not quite - you twist other people’s words again. USinUK’s point was clear and accurate: the desire to look to america’s ideals were emerging until the US acted like imperialist yet again. You are the only one that could not grasp what she was saying. You actually think the US looks good because of the Bushisms - sad really.
By JokesOn
January 29, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
TOJ, I was gladly answering whatever she posted.
As long as you think your right. There have been dozens of times now that you dropped your position because you knew you could not defend it. “Running away” I think you call it.
Like your ignorant post:
You have problems with aligning civil laws with morality? Do you consider killing another person in cold blood a moral act? How about rape. Is the rapist committing a moral act? Civilized countries use morality to construct their criminal laws. Whether or not it is beyond your comprehension hardly matters. It is a fact of life.
And you not replying after I blew your overinflated ego out of the water:
Look up whether our legal system is based on morality or not. You will find that there is one set moral principles that all laws are to uphold: “These inherent rights… freedom/pursuit etc. You get all snotty as if what I am saying regarding morality is ignorant, when you post shows you yourself do not understand what our legal system is based on. This is what has, and will continue, to get you in the heated arguments that you have become accustomed to; then whine about. Example: The legal system punishes murder because it takes away another’s rights.
The only exceptions were blue laws which have just about been totally abolished. Guess why they have been abolished? Because they had no legal standing (violating others rights) and were purely based on religious ideas of morality. How do they try to justify making drugs illegal? It creates criminals which affect our rights. How about the abortion debate? The rights of the unborn child: try making a moral case in court regarding any issue and you will be laughed out of the courtroom by all repugs or democrats except for a couple loonies. I suspect you would be hanging with the loonies given your position though.
By lozen
January 29, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
but this constant attempt at insulting me is just making you look foolish and uninformed. The inability to debate with anyone without constant insults and put downs insinuating that you are the only intelligent person on the blog just makes you look foolish and nasty to the point that nobody cares whether you’re informed or not. And constantly defending Rep’s makes you look stupid. After the past seven years? Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan and Ollie North. An unnecessary war costing thousands of innocent lives and billions of American dollars based on hundreds of lies. It doesn’t look like you’ve convinced anybody of anything does it?
By Copyleft
January 29, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this
Tell you what, folks: let’s give OtherJack his point. Let’s all agree that OtherJack is, indeed, a poor little victim, wrongfully abused and shamefully treated by all the other Big Bad Posters here.
OtherJack is officially an endangered minority voice, who needs special care and handling to protect him from the evil ol’ liberals who would otherwise clobber him so unfairly. Perhaps a charity drive could be set up—or at least a hothouse to keep him safe and sheltered from the nasty old blog atmosphere?
Congratulations, OtherJack: you’re a victim and we all feel sorry for you. You’d better hope some high-minded liberal starts a program to protect you now, because you clearly can’t survive on your own.
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
Joke
Whatever, Pal. I can support what I say. You can continue to act like a child.
Don’t be surprised if I refuse to answer any more of this adolescent crap.
K?
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
lozen
I would ask you to actually read my posts, but you would rather blather on.
Knock yourself out.
By Snidely Buttright
January 29, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
“It doesn’t look like you’ve convinced anybody of anything does it?”
lozen, that’s not true. He convinced ME that there’s a massive difference between being an ideologue Republican and an honest conservative.
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
Anyone want to talk about issues or have you just given up trying to disprove what I actually say? These middle school attacks are just saying that you have nothing else.
I appreciate that.
Anyone?
Anyone?
By lozen
January 29, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this
… OtherJack is, indeed, a poor little victim, wrongfully abused and shamefully treated by all the other Big Bad Posters here. OtherJack is officially an endangered minority voice, who needs special care and handling to protect him from the evil ol’ liberals who would otherwise clobber him so unfairly. And TOJ is, indeed, the only smart person who really sees the merits of the Repubs and how big and bad the Dems are. And he’s such a gentleman! And everyone on here really looks forward to hearing what he has to say each day. We have all been enlightened and smartened up by TOJ!
By Jack
January 29, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
TOJ. We are screwed either way.
We the money, for the money, by the money.
Lovely Monica was right.
I know you don’t care but you do get more flies with sugar than you do vinegar.
By lozen
January 29, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
Congratulations, OtherJack: you’re a victim and we all feel sorry for you. You’d better hope some high-minded liberal starts a program to protect you now, because you clearly can’t survive on your own. Why don’t ya hold your breath and wait for your Repub buddies to do something for ya!
By HeeHaw
January 29, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
Don’t be surprised if I refuse to answer any more of this adolescent crap
Promises, Promises, and here we heard on such great authority that that was a Democrat thing.
Are you a closet Democrat, TOJ?
actually, if anyone has come across as infantile… oh, never mind.
By lozen
January 29, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this
Hey, all you children - all your middle schoolers! TOJ is so mature and grown up and all you can do is act childish! Shame, shame, shame. Stop your childish attacks on that nice man now. He’s just trying to teach you what’s right, and in such a nice way. How can you be so childish?
By HeeHaw
January 29, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
We have all been enlightened and smartened up by TOJ!
so what’s next? You got some great beachfront property 40 miles west of Miami? or something.
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
Iozen
I will tell you what I told the joke.
If you honestly think that a third party can look at the posts on this blog and conclude that I am the one that is being unfair, then please report me to the AJC. They can ban me.
Chances are, you will not, but I openly invite the scrutiny. Why wouldn’t you?
But this constant whining is getting old. Are you 9 years old? Is this the best you can do.
The way to “handle” me is to discredit what I write.
Obviously, you do not have the mental acumen to do that. So you continue to whine like a spoiled child. I never read more than the first line an any of your posts so that might save you some time, but I would offer that you like to rail in order to make yourself feel better.
So it serves two purposes. You feel better for not being able to debate the issues, and I understand that I am making points that cannot be refuted.
Again, contact the AJC or expect your childish attacks to be given all the attention they deserve.
By k
January 29, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this
Hey, Sugar! kiss!
By JokesOn
January 29, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this
They can ban me.
Do you have any idea how hard and most likely impossible that would be? Do you not know anything regarding web technology?
You are just making yourself look even more stupid.
By Jack
January 29, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
Lozen is good at fishing. Lozen you know how you picture what folks look like on the blog? I think of Liza Minelli when you post. Am I close?
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
Jack
If I had the choice of a party that does work for the middle class and is not accepting huge amounts of money, I would chose that on. But unfortunately, we don’t have that.
I know you don’t care but you do get more flies with sugar than you do vinegar.
If you look the entire length of this forum, you will see that I try to present points and issues. Those points and issues are seldom challenged. When they are, I defend the things I write.
What I do get is this constant barrage of middle school nonsense and it is always presented by the same few half-wits.
No I don’t care that I am not liked by the likes of Iozen and the Joke. I have never seen them present any argument of substance, so it encourages me to keep presenting facts and issues. Is it my fault that they can’t muster the intelligence to compose an argument to my points?
I took the time to give a detailed and respectful answer to your post. And all it took to get that from me was a single post from you that wasn’t attacking me personally.
That’s all it would take from anyone, other than the two mentioned above.
That’s life, Jack. Don’t attack me. Make a point and I will either agree or dispute your point. It’s not hard for you to understand because you are smart enough to carry on a civil conversation. Now you tell me why it is so hard for them?
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
Joke
Contact them. If they are convinced that I am the unfair one here, they can send an e-mail and I will gladly go away.
Put up or stop whining.
By lozen
January 29, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this
But this constant whining is getting old You are so right about that. I know how every one of your posts is going to end. Poor, poor me. Nobody will listen to me and I’m so smart! Everybody is so unfair to me. Everybody is so mean. Whyyyyyy meeeeee? Nobody will admit that I make my points and nobody else does. Whine, whine, whine is right!
By Jack
January 29, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
Back at ya Sweetness.
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this
Jack
By lozen
But this constant whining is getting old You are so right about that. I know how every one of your posts is going to end. Poor, poor me. Nobody will listen to me and I’m so smart! Everybody is so unfair to me. Everybody is so mean. Whyyyyyy meeeeee? Nobody will admit that I make my points and nobody else does. Whine, whine, whine is right!
See what I mean? How would you respond to this adolescent crap?
By lozen
January 29, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this
Jack honey. No, not Liza Minelli. I have been told I look like Natalie Wood. Remember her? Netbanker did a run through once, did you miss it. He described a number of people and said what he imagined they looked like. He nailed me. Long silver hair, bright colors, floaty skirts, hippie jewelry, tall, slim but curvy in the right places ;-). Okay, okay I might remember some things he didn’t exactly say….
By JokesOn
January 29, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
If they are convinced that I am the unfair one here, they can send an e-mail and I will gladly go away.
You sending them your email? You get even more stupid.
Put up or stop whining.
Where did I whine? You are the only one that demands rules that you yourself does not adhere to. I just poke fun at you and your hypocrisy.
Like this: What I do get is this constant barrage of middle school nonsense and it is always presented by the same few half-wits.
When you have written this: Oh boo hoo. A woman will be so persecuted for being a woman. Are we going to need to listen to this garbage her entire presidency if she manages to steal this election? Is this going to be her excuse?
And,
Something tells me that your dingaling has been shriveled since you became a “progressive”. It’s a common ailment.
And still waiting on your rebuttal regarding laws are based on morality…
By JokesOn
January 29, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
You are compared to “vinegar” by the one blogger that is ok with you. Think about it…
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this
Anyone want to defer from these constant personal attacks and discuss the issues presented this week?
By HeeHaw
January 29, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
Anyone want to defer from these constant personal attacks and discuss the issues presented this week?
actually this has more entertainment value, just like yesterday.
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this
AJC
See what I am talking about? Why have the forum if you are going to allow this kind of nonsense?
By JokesOn
January 29, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this
See what I am talking about? Why have the forum if you are going to allow this kind of nonsense?
And you are still whining…
By Jack
January 29, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this
Thank you Lozen. Natalie was fine. Now where is that fan, it’s getting warm in here. LOL
By The Other Jack
January 29, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this
AJC
Again. It never stops. This is what these people have reduced your forum to. Please review the posts from this week and if you have the posts from weeks past please look over those.
It is pointless to have the expense of having an interactive political forum and then allow anyone with opposing views to these few people to be treated like this.
By USinUK
January 30, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this
Yep … it’s time someone called BDC/TOJ a waaaaaahhhhhhmbulance.
By Big Corporate Dog
January 30, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Yesterday you said this:
Until we invaded Iraq, there was a burgeoning Iranian middle class and active student movement to bring about more “western” type of government. Then, we invaded and the mullahs were able to bang the drum of “western imperialism” and Ahmadenijad was elected.
I have repeatedly requested that you post the name of the Pro-Western candidate that was defeated by Ahmadenijad. Your response was to scold me for not sticking to the subject of the blog, which you believed was Democracy in Iran in spite of the large lertters at the top of the page that clearly says: Is Homeland Security Too Focused on “Guns, Guards and Gates”?
So would you like to continue our discussion of the 2005 Iranian Presidential race or would you like to discuuss this week’s Woman to Woman topic?
By JokesOn
January 30, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
Until we invaded Iraq, there was a burgeoning Iranian middle class and active student movement to bring about more “western” type of government.
When you use the words “bring about more western type of government,” you mean exactly that right? To move (slowly of course) in that direction? Or where you stating (somewhere hidden in your post) that they would elect a leader then and there?
And your post about keeping on subject was referring to the subject you all were discussing, no? (whether democracy would be possible in other countries, especially by force or coercion)
TOJ still seams confused and maybe you should spell it out for him.
By lozen
January 30, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
If you’re here today Jack, I’m imagining you look like Antonio Banderas. Whew!
By USinUK
January 30, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
Jokes On and BCD/TOJ/Appele du jour -
Jokes on - Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. The election of Khatami in 1995 and the elections of the reformist parliaments were the first steps towards moving to a less fundamentalist/more western TYPE of government. The society as a whole were moving away from the Ayatollahs and more towards a liberal/western form of governing themselves.
THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING PRO-WESTERN (or, to be more specific, pro-US), NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES BCDog with a bone TRIES TO SAY IT IS More to the point, I never said it was.
And, BCD, I did answer your question: Rafsanjani was the more “centrist” of the two candidates. G