Archive

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;777292 wrote:10's of millions of Americans believe in the same Judeo-Christian God.
    What does that matter?
    Its in our constitution that we have religious ties with no one? Please show me where in the Constitution that the people of the United States are forbidden to have religious ties with any nation. The context is not state sanctioning of any religion.
    We should not fund a nation's considerable military because they share some religious ties with us.
    I have posted countless times on our governments wrong doings. Many times directly related to our foreign policy. I can't recall a time I called some one an "American hater" because they disagreed with me. I always try to be respectful to posters especially those that are knowledgeable on the matter being discussed. I would never insult their intelligence by claiming they hate this country. Perhaps at times my sarcasm appears arrogant or condescending. It is only meant to drive home a point. You know me by now. We have locked horns many times. I would think you would know that I would never claim someone hates America unless it were truly so. But carry on with your labels.
    So that's why you never respect me? :)

    I could have made that last point a lot better without being a dick.
  • believer
    Writerbuckeye;777415 wrote:Here is the date and first paragraph of the story footwedge says wasn't reported here:

    Israeli Navy attacks aid ship
    4Share
    31/05/2010 - 07:08:41
    Israeli warships attacked at least one of the six ships carrying pro-Palestinian activists and aid for blockaded Gaza today, killing at least ten and wounding an unknown number of people on board, reports said.

    Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/israeli-navy-attacks-aid-ship-459763.html#ixzz1NBdOdVqn

    Here is a link to the same story on MSNBC...which was also carried on NBC.

    So much for the idea that the story wasn't carried in the US. It was given to every news outlet via AP.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37423584/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/bloody-israeli-raid-flotilla-sparks-crisis/
    Well we can't let facts get in the way for sake of the argument.
  • majorspark
    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/24/its-all-your-money-foreign-aid-muslimarab-nations
    While America's standing in the Middle East couldn't get much lower, you wouldn't know it looking at the U.S. foreign aid budget. Of proposed U.S. assistance for 2012, almost two-thirds is earmarked for Muslim nations and one-third goes to Arab countries
    According to some we better stop sending aid before some Jewish radicals start blowing up our shit. We should also need to watch out for the Hindus. India is a historic enemy of the Pakistanis.
  • jhay78
    Footwedge;775791 wrote:Your statement here is so innaccurate it doesn't really warrant a response. People that practice religion in Israel that differs from their national religion are blatantly discriminated against. Some if not all are not allowed to vote. Pretty strange for a so called democracy, don't you think?

    And secondly, you might want to google "Jews who live in Iran" or Syria, or Lybia for that matter. Not only are they free to live their religion, they have flipped off Bibi when he has asked them to come "home". Like I said, your innaccurate staement doesn't deserve a response.
    Umm, it deserves a better response than the one you gave . . .

    You don't have to endorse every single action by every single Israeli since the beginning of time to see that with regards to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, the modern state of Israel is light years ahead of the nations that border it, as well as pretty much every single Middle Eastern/North African (may as well throw in Indonesian) nation.

    Iran, Libya, and Syria, really? Shining beacons of religious freedom all.

    Haters can hate, but Andy McCarthy wrote another excellent piece on this subject recently:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267796/borderline-treachery-andrew-c-mccarthy
    Would that the president of the United States were as worried about Arizona’s border as he is about “Palestine’s.”


    The president stumbled into a bracing truth when he compared the change achieved by the people in the region, on the one hand, and by terrorists on the other. The change both are seeking is the same: the creation of sharia societies. Obama and Democracy Project promoters like to frame the Arab Spring as the ultimate rejection of al-Qaeda. But it is, at most, a discovery that there are better tactical routes to the promised land than al-Qaeda’s crude brutality. That promised land is not Western liberalism; it is Islam in all its repression of free speech, religious liberty, and equality — American principles the president spoke of his boundless determination to promote, while avoiding a single mention of Islam or sharia, which make achieving those principles a pipedream in this region.

    Speaking of the promised land, the real one, Israel, is apparently getting smaller. This was Obama’s news-making treachery, and its ramifications are impossible to predict, other than that they bode ill.

    For the first time in history, an American president explicitly called for a settlement of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict premised on the 1967 borders — i.e., the 1949 armistice line, the tenuous state of play before Israel captured the West Bank (actually, Judea and Samaria), the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights in the Arab war of aggression to destroy the Jewish state. To be sure, Obama said that there would also have to be territorial “swaps” to satisfy security concerns. This caveat, though, is cold comfort for Israel, America’s only true ally in the region.

    To begin with, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to point out, the 1967 borders are “indefensible.” That is why they have never been the starting point of U.S. policy, even though they always hover over negotiations. In its implacable hostility to Israel, the “international community” chooses to forget how and why the Arab side first grabbed, then lost, the territory in question. For nearly a half century since the adoption of U.N. Security Council resolution 242, the Washington Institute’s Robert Satloff explains, American administrations of both parties have called for eventual Israeli withdrawal to “secure and recognized” borders, a phrase interpreted as “not synonymous with the pre-1967 boundaries.”

    By his new articulation, President Obama would deny Israel crucial negotiating leverage. If there is to be a peace settlement (which there cannot be until there are two parties that want peace), Israel must have the latitude to make territorial concessions in exchange for reliable concessions on security and other matters. It cannot be coerced into accepting an Obama-imposed fait accompli that leaves it fatally vulnerable to enemies whose ferocity is only encouraged by this bullying.

    Bear in mind that what are called the “1967 borders” were never agreed-upon national boundaries. The Jewish claim on Judea and Samaria has roots in antiquity. This fact was intentionally obfuscated by Obama’s earlier suggestion in Cairo that Israel’s creation was an ill-conceived payback for the Holocaust, as it is by the convention of referring to Judea and Samaria as “the West Bank,” the name Jordan gave them when it seized and occupied them at the conclusion of Israel’s war of independence. The Arabs, of course, never created a Palestinian state when it was within their power to do so. Thus, the final disposition of this territory has never been resolved. It is a subject for negotiations, not predetermined Palestinian sovereignty.

    When, in the decades after the 1967 war, Israelis built homes in Judea and Samaria, they were building on ancient Jewish land. Hundreds of thousands of them now live in the thriving communities that the world, in its glossary of delegitimization, calls “settlements.” But recognizing how dramatically conditions on the ground had changed since 1967, President Bush declared in 2004 that that there could not realistically be “a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” As the Washington Times’ Eli Lake reports, Prime Minister Netanyahu — who was sandbagged by Obama’s newly announced policy only a day before his scheduled meeting with the president — will now press for a reaffirmation of this U.S. commitment, reminding Obama that Bush’s conclusion was overwhelmingly supported by Congress.

    Not only is Obama’s new position on the borders a sellout of this American commitment to Israel; it is an adoption of Hamas’s position. This is palpably alarming for several reasons. The first involves rewarding terrorism, the Islamic practice of which Obama purports to be eradicating. Hamas (i.e., the Palestinian branch of the same Muslim Brotherhood that is poised to take the reins in neighboring Egypt) remains pledged to Israel’s destruction. In his speech, Obama paid lip service to the pie-in-the-sky assumption that Hamas will ultimately come to see terrorism as futile (even as the jihadists reap the benefits of practicing terror). But he did not demand that Palestinians convincingly renounce terror and accept without reservation Israel’s permanent existence as a Jewish state. This president’s demands are made only on Israel; Hamas gets hopey-changey cajoling.

    Because it will never recognize Israel’s right to exist, Hamas’s support for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders does not translate into support for the dreamy two-state solution. It is a way station to Hamas’s goal of a one-state solution. This is to be reached by an inside/outside strategy: The newly formed “Palestine” would continue to pressure Israel with terror attacks from without, while within Israel, Islamists would exploit democracy, assembling the critical mass of Israeli Arabs, leftists, and returned Palestinian “refugees” needed to destroy Israel’s character as a Jewish state.

    Then there is the matter of timing. The president chose to announce his new position on the 1967 borders only days after the Palestinian Authority — run by Fatah, the “moderates” who maintain their own terrorist wing, the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades — formed a unity government with Hamas. Again, while from one side of his mouth the president claims the Arab Spring is a rejection of terror, from the other he tells the terrorists that their methods work.

    In the course of insisting that the Palestinians must have their own sovereign state, Obama also slipped in the stipulation that it must be a contiguous state. Oughtn’t it to go without saying that Gaza does not abut Judea and Samaria? You can’t make them “contiguous” without ceding to the Palestinians the swath of Israel that would be needed to connect them.

    To be fair, Obama is not the first to use this disturbing formulation. Bush State Department officials, who often seemed every bit as eager to placate the Palestinians, used to say “contiguous,” too. Still, hearing this word from a U.S. president who has already called for a territorial contraction that would make their country indefensible, and who seems decidedly blasé about its contiguity, Israelis cannot be blamed for wondering whether the land “swaps” Obama has in mind will carve Israel into separate slices.

    For all the appalling things Obama did say, however, the worst was what he didn’t. In the greater scheme of things, borders are a subordinate issue, and they’d be a trivial one were it not for Israel’s existential security problems. Many rival countries have territorial disputes, but they either live with them or settle them because they do not question each other’s right to exist as sovereign nations. The Palestinians, by contrast, do not accept Israel’s existence. They do not want peace and they will not renounce terror. And why would they? Terror is serving them quite well, the “international community” having embraced the terrorists while making pariahs of the region’s only true democracy and beacon of human rights.

    An American president who really wanted to outline the only worthy settlement of this intractable conflict could have given a very short speech. The Palestinians must accept Israel, they must convincingly renounce terrorism (none of this “resistance” legerdemain), and they must drop the ludicrous demand for a right of return that would effectively overrun Israel. If they did those three things, the territorial boundaries would take care of themselves, and Obama could go back to not worrying about America’s borders.
  • believer
    An American president who really wanted to outline the only worthy settlement of this intractable conflict could have given a very short speech. The Palestinians must accept Israel, they must convincingly renounce terrorism (none of this “resistance” legerdemain), and they must drop the ludicrous demand for a right of return that would effectively overrun Israel. If they did those three things, the territorial boundaries would take care of themselves, and Obama could go back to not worrying about America’s borders.
    Excellent point. It is ironic that BHO is openly concerned about Israel's borders, but doesn't seem to care about our own southern border.
  • QuakerOats
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/obama-skirts-rule-law-reward-pals-punish-foes


    Change we can believe in ..........
  • jhay78

    The Obamacare waivers should be campaign fodder for every single Republican candidate in 2012. You seriously can't make that stuff up.
  • QuakerOats
    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/163003-house-lawmakers-side-with-netanyahu

    obama tilts toward terrorist hamas..... a little more change we can believe in.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;780205 wrote:http://thehill.com/homenews/house/163003-house-lawmakers-side-with-netanyahu

    obama tilts toward terrorist hamas..... a little more change we can believe in.
    I guess everyone missed Obama's speech last weekend where he specifically stated:
    Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties. (Applause.) And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. (Applause.) No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. (Applause.) And we will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognizing Israel’s right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements. (Applause.) And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years. (Applause.)
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/text-obama-s-aipac-speech-20110522

    But, no, let politics come in play.
  • I Wear Pants
    Ptown: 1,000,000

    QuakerOats: -7
  • believer
    ptown_trojans_1;780726 wrote:But, no, let politics come in play.
    From BHO's speech:
    And so long as there are those who long for a better future, we will never abandon our pursuit of a just and lasting peace that ends this conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. This is not idealism; it is not naïveté. It is a hard-headed recognition that a genuine peace is the only path that will ultimately provide for a peaceful Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and a Jewish state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. (Applause.) That is my goal, and I look forward to continuing to work with AIPAC to achieve that goal.
    If BHO honestly believes that centuries of hatred, violent conflict, and bitter religious animosity are going to somehow magically disappear if the two parties would simply kiss and make-up; if he seriously believes the Jewish people are willing to give up what they believe is rightfully theirs; if he thinks the Palestinians are willing to settle for just a sliver of what was once known as Palestine; and if Obama thinks the Arab world in general and more specifically radical Islam will stand idly by and allow Jews to defile the land of Mohammad - then he is indeed idealistic and naive.

    In fairness these "can't we all just get along" speeches have been issued by every American president since Israel declared its independence.

    Obama talks a good game, but do I think he privately and honestly believes true peace is possible between the Israelis and the Palestinians? No way.
  • stlouiedipalma
    And you would have him say what? That peace between these two parties is all but impossible and we give up? I believe it is in the best interests of freedom and democracy that we never give up the idea of these two coexisting in peace. To do otherwise says that America has no hope and can no longer be counted on to promote freedom.
  • Ty Webb
    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/05/26/obama_approval_spikes_in_florida.html
  • Writerbuckeye
    And then there's this...

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-five percent (35%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends).

    Those being the voters most likely to go to the polls.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
  • jhay78
    ptown_trojans_1;780726 wrote:I guess everyone missed Obama's speech last weekend where he specifically stated:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/text-obama-s-aipac-speech-20110522

    But, no, let politics come in play.

    That's great, but that was in front of AIPAC. Why, in his earlier speech, did he expect Israel to return to the '67 borders (with land swaps, of course), and allow for a contiguous Palestinian state (which would split Israel in two), by dealing with people who don't acknowledge their right to exist?

    Israel has acknowledged the right of a Palestinian state to exist (even though they didn't form one when they had the chance), but that feeling has not been reciprocated. Until the other side acknowledges Israel's right to exist, there should be no burden on the Israelis to make large concessions, like Obama mentioned in his first speech.
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;780726 wrote:I guess everyone missed Obama's speech last weekend where he specifically stated:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/text-obama-s-aipac-speech-20110522

    But, no, let politics come in play.

    Nice try .... want a real speech, see here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/netanyahus_historic_speech_109982.html

    This man has courage and integrity that obama could only dream about.
  • KnightRyder
    Writerbuckeye;782055 wrote:And then there's this...

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-five percent (35%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends).

    Those being the voters most likely to go to the polls.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    the bias and iinaccuracy of the ramussen polls are wel documented http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
  • believer
    stlouiedipalma;781836 wrote:To do otherwise says that America has no hope and can no longer be counted on to promote freedom.
    Tell that to the Iraqi people.
    jhay78;782162 wrote:That's great, but that was in front of AIPAC. Why, in his earlier speech, did he expect Israel to return to the '67 borders (with land swaps, of course), and allow for a contiguous Palestinian state (which would split Israel in two), by dealing with people who don't acknowledge their right to exist?

    Israel has acknowledged the right of a Palestinian state to exist (even though they didn't form one when they had the chance), but that feeling has not been reciprocated. Until the other side acknowledges Israel's right to exist, there should be no burden on the Israelis to make large concessions, like Obama mentioned in his first speech.
    It all depends on which audience BHO is speaking to and what scrolls across the teleprompter.
  • believer
    jhay78;782162 wrote:That's great, but that was in front of AIPAC. Why, in his earlier speech, did he expect Israel to return to the '67 borders (with land swaps, of course), and allow for a contiguous Palestinian state (which would split Israel in two), by dealing with people who don't acknowledge their right to exist?

    Israel has acknowledged the right of a Palestinian state to exist (even though they didn't form one when they had the chance), but that feeling has not been reciprocated. Until the other side acknowledges Israel's right to exist, there should be no burden on the Israelis to make large concessions, like Obama mentioned in his first speech.
    Well it all depends on which audience BHO is speaking to and what scrolls across the teleprompter doesn't i?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    jhay78;782162 wrote:That's great, but that was in front of AIPAC. Why, in his earlier speech, did he expect Israel to return to the '67 borders (with land swaps, of course), and allow for a contiguous Palestinian state (which would split Israel in two), by dealing with people who don't acknowledge their right to exist?

    Israel has acknowledged the right of a Palestinian state to exist (even though they didn't form one when they had the chance), but that feeling has not been reciprocated. Until the other side acknowledges Israel's right to exist, there should be no burden on the Israelis to make large concessions, like Obama mentioned in his first speech.
    Huh? What 1967 agreement splits Israel in half? It is the way around. As he stated in the speech, 67 is the starting point, then it gets complicated. He would have been better to go back to 1992 and Oslo and then back to 1999 and bring that deal up, but 1967 is the basis for all that. No one is saying Israel go back to the 67 border at the end, just that it is a starting point and from that we get into the nitty gritty details about settlements, water, etc.
    Abbas has acknowledged the right for Israel to exist, Hamas needs to as well now (as the President said). But, the right of return has them boxed in. Palestinians do not want to give up and because of that can't say they accept a Jewish Israel as that is a tacit acknowledgement to giving up the right of return.
    Now, I'll be the first one to say, honestly the Palestinians need to face reality and accept they will never get that right. It hurts, but they have to accept it. But, they cannot face reality.
    QuakerOats;782185 wrote:Nice try .... want a real speech, see here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/netanyahus_historic_speech_109982.html

    This man has courage and integrity that obama could only dream about.

    Ehhh, typical hawkish speech by Bibi. I'm not a fan at all
    I'm also not a fan of Congressmen cheering on Israel with blind love.
    I prefer a balanced approach toward Israel, but that's just me.
  • majorspark
    ptown_trojans_1;782294 wrote:Ehhh, typical hawkish speech by Bibi. I'm not a fan at all.
    What is so hawkish about this speech?
    Netanyahu said he was ready to make "painful compromises" to achieve peace, adding that those compromises would include giving up parts of the ancestral Israeli homeland. Some Israeli settlements on the West Bank, he said, would fall outside Israel's final borders.
    Quote from the article. Seriously how can you call this speech hawkish? Imagine Bibi even suggesting the annexation of the West Bank and full Israeli citizenship for all those that accept it and live withing the known borders. This has been my proposed solution. You yourself have concurred with it. Netanyahu does not even come close.
    ptown_trojans_1;782294 wrote:I'm also not a fan of Congressmen cheering on Israel with blind love.
    Speaking of congressman cheering on a foreign leader. Felipe Calderón chastised an American state in the well of congress. Insinuated racial bias. Backed up by the roaring cheers of certain congressman. Netanyahu never once called out an American state. Never once insinuated that American laws are promoting racial bigotry. He would never do so because of his great respect for our country and it laws and institutions.

    Felipe Calderón has no such respect. The bitter taste of Mexico's defeat in the Mexican/American war still poisons his tongue. Yet some in congress cheer it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnV7i7suuY8
  • believer
    majorspark;782848 wrote:Speaking of congressman cheering on a foreign leader. Felipe Calderón chastised an American state in the well of congress. Insinuated racial bias. Backed up by the roaring cheers of certain congressman. Netanyahu never once called out an American state. Never once insinuated that American laws are promoting racial bigotry. He would never do so because of his great respect for our country and it laws and institutions.

    Felipe Calderón has no such respect. The bitter taste of Mexico's defeat in the Mexican/American war still poisons his tongue. Yet some in congress cheer it.
    At least our Congressional "leadership" practices equal opportunity blind love, eh? ;)
  • jmog
    QuakerOats;782185 wrote:Nice try .... want a real speech, see here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/netanyahus_historic_speech_109982.html

    This man has courage and integrity that obama could only dream about.

    Think we could find a Hawaiian certificate of live birth for Netanyahu so we can elect him our President? ;)
  • QuakerOats
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/debbie-wasserman-schultz-nissan-.html

    She is as repugnant as they come.
  • I Wear Pants
    OMG she bought a vehical she liked! How outrageous!!!!