The president's warmongering remarks on the Iranian threat suggest he is psychotic.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Oct 28 2007, 04:47 PM) [snapback]531674[/snapback]</div>

For the rest of us, yes.

For NeoCon Republicans it's anyone who doesn't think/believe the same way they do.

See also: nutjob, whackjob, Liberal (Oh, he used that one already), pinko commie freak, terrorist-sympathiser, traitor, the list goes on.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Oct 28 2007, 02:59 PM) [snapback]531680[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

 

First, if you listen (or read) translations of what the Iranian's say about the U.S. in Iran, the President's remarks would appear quite tame, reasoned and restrained. No time to link yet to translations but will post when available.

Second, Iran is suffereing from dellusions of granduer, and the Soviets are going to capitolize on it! They are priming Iran to do something stupid in an attempt to draw the U.S. into Iran, which would weaken us and as a consequence strengthen Russia. Very smooth plan actually, knd of the way wwe used Afghanistan to sap the USSR.

 

Of course Bush and Cheney are psychotic. You knew that a long time ago. One newspaper commentary does not make it news. It's very old news.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Oct 27 2007, 06:41 PM) [snapback]531382[/snapback]</div>

If I knew, just from listening to the radio and reading the news, that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the start of the second Gulf war, then the Dems have no excuse. Sure the administration lied to them. But anyone with half a brain knew it was lies. The Dems chose to pretend that they believed, so that they could blame Bush for the mess afterwards.

And even though the Dems did not control anything, the tired but powerful institution of the filibuster gave the Dems the power to stop it. They chose to go along with the war hysteria.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Oct 28 2007, 06:20 PM) [snapback]531687[/snapback]</div>

just because another country's leader is loony, does not require ours to follow suit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 29 2007, 01:03 PM) [snapback]531721[/snapback]</div>

I would beg to differ Daniel. I think Mandela correctly assessed the situation when he said they
"were drunk with power".


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Oct 29 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]531725[/snapback]</div>

A real difference is that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is recognised as a clown within Iran AND has no significant power. He is useful to draw attention to and from what the Ayatollahs want noted or hidden and he provides entertainment for the devout masses.

It's fine to have a rodeo clown in the office, you just don't want them making the big decisions, it goes to their head like tequila on an empty stomach.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Oct 28 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]531674[/snapback]</div>

While environmentalism might be a positive aspect of their policies, I was speaking of history, and history does indeed show they like to destroy their countries in pretty regular intervals (wars, get it?). However, the fact that they formed the EU makes that less likely, so they can defend themselves, and no longer need American support. They can also defend themselves against regional threats; we don't need to assist them in Bosnia, or in Iran, or anywhere else.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 28 2007, 08:17 PM) [snapback]531779[/snapback]</div>

I understood your reply just fine. Mine was aimed to bring attention to the fact that despite their history they are making headway towards something more sustainable, much more so than the U.S. is so therefore I don't see how we have any room to critisize them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ Oct 28 2007, 05:37 PM) [snapback]531730[/snapback]</div>

I grant you that they are drunk with power. But I assert that they are psychotic also. Mandela is far too peaceful and diplomatic to call them psychotic. Diplomacy often requires one to refrain from calling people madmen, even when they are.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Oct 27 2007, 08:41 PM) [snapback]531382[/snapback]</div>

Dodging what facts???

Iran. Iraq.

Same logic.

Even IF they have "WMD" so what? Having nuclear weapons does not mean that they a threat. We have plenty of WMDs. North Korea, India, Pakistan have them. None of them have started wars lately. We have...

Plus Bush had the credibility of a used-car salesman. There were plenty of conflicting reports. But no one wanted to check them out. Plenty of "reasonable doubt"...

I agree with Godiva that standing up wasn't "popular", but if they don't. Who will?

We have three branches of government for a reason. Checks and balances. Congress can't duck their responsibility.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Oct 29 2007, 03:48 AM) [snapback]531864[/snapback]</div>

Ahh, but Congress can duck responsibility. They can, and they do because they can. There are no repercussions if they duck their responsibilities are there? What are you going to do, vote for the democrats to punish the republicans? Vote for the republicans to punish the democrats? We piss and moan about government that fails us but we don't ever really do anything about it do we? Do we even really know what kind of government we DO want? No, we know what we don't want after it happens. Even if the voter takes responsibility for the mess that we're in, what then? Bush I was part of the problem so we voted in Clinton who was part of the problem so we voted in Bush II and now it looks as if we'll vote in Clinton II. What changes? Nothing. That's the way we like it, despite the fact that there comes a time very soon afterwards when the way we like it isn't convenient and then we complain but we never really change because we like it that way. Change, real change, scares us a lot more than the status quo, Bush, Clinton, terrorism or any other bugaboo that they parade before us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Oct 29 2007, 02:08 AM) [snapback]531877[/snapback]</div>

I think most voters just want a government that will provide them, personally, with economic security and the ability to buy plenty of stuff: bigger faster more powerful cars, cheap gas to drive them, appliances, gadgets, cheap food, pills to cure them when the cheap food makes them sick, and protection from the boogeymen (criminals, aliens, people whose language or skin color is different than their own; communists before the fall of the USSR, "terrorists" now).

The Roman emperors gave their citizens bread and circuses. (Food and entertainment.) Americans are a bit more demanding. We want big cars and cheap gas as well. You want to be president? Promise the people cheap gas. If you can make them believe you, you'll be elected. (Of course, your opponent will be using the same tactic. The hard part is getting them to believe you instead of your opponent.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ 2007 10 29 07:39 AM) [snapback]531943[/snapback]</div>

Part of being a good parent is not giving children what they want, but what they need. If a good leader were more like a good parent, they'd say gas should be more expensive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 29 2007, 07:59 AM) [snapback]531949[/snapback]</div>

Agreed, as long as that added expense is going to clean up costs as in "True Cost Pricing". Screw perverse subsidies.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Oct 28 2007, 05:47 PM) [snapback]531674[/snapback]</div>

Yep that pretty much sums it up, The Liberal way of thinking..

We should have had a liberal president in office as they would have shown us what to do...... Minimal diplay of force and sit back and focus on other more important issues, like health care or rebuilding New Orleans..
Because we really could care less about terrorists they are all over there.

9/11 wasnt real, it was just an excuse to go to Iraq.. (they dont have a vomiting smiley)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Oct 29 2007, 08:35 AM) [snapback]531958[/snapback]</div>

Ahh such simplemindedness.... Try looking into the roots of problems and their connectedness to other problems. Or.... Go back to school (IE. educate yourself in a broad manner).

 

"Liberal". "Conservative".

(Where's that puking smiley when you need it? )

Those two words are WAAAY used out of context. Plus they are way too simplistic.


To use the definition of conservative, you would call Al Gore conservative for his environmental stances. Meanwhile you'd call Cheney liberal for his environmental stances.

Then you'd call Jimmy Carter conservative for his views on marriage, while you'd call Giuliani liberal for his...


And the single dimensional "line" view of liberal - moderate - conservative is quite constraining.

Where does a Libertarian fit on this "line"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 29 2007, 07:59 AM) [snapback]531949[/snapback]</div>

Yes, but in a democracy that leader will never get elected.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Oct 28 2007, 09:15 PM) [snapback]531812[/snapback]</div>

There's an old saying about not learning from history, but OK, I'll let you learn it yourself.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 29 2007, 10:15 PM) [snapback]532310[/snapback]</div>

I don't understand that reply. Please elaborate.