|
Iranian Election: The Revolution Will Be Youtubed (pg. 18)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| CHRles |
17ss, you need to look up the word despicable in the dictionary.
I am disgusted at how Fox News and those on the extreme right (not the moderate ones) are focusing on Obama rather than on what's actually going on in Iran. What the Iranian government is doing to it's own people is despicable. To a lesser degree the way some Republicans are criticizing the President, and somehow trying to find a way to even blame him for what's going on is dispicable.
Anyone watch Fox News lately? Watch Gretta or Brit Hume and others, these guys are such sore losers. They attack the president day in and day out, and afterwards they cry about "why is the president picking on me?", or "why is all the mainstream media so biased in favor of Obama?"
Suddenly, Fox News doesnt see itself as mainstream media and that's they're biggest problem - they've lost touch with mainstream America. The real question is why hasn't Fox News figured out yet that the majority of Americans voted for Obama, and mainstream America approves of Obama.
There's a vast difference between American and Iranian culture, but some on the far right just can't get around the idea that when Obama tried reaching out to the people of Iran that they in turn did take his voice into consideration.
A president has to know when to interfere (if at all) and when to step back and let things unfold, for the most part, on their own.
If Republicans wish to speak out against the horrors in Iran and use strong condeming words I applaud them - it's their right, and their voice. They're also free to criticize the president, which is a healthy thing to do in a democracy. What is despicable is the way conservative Republicans have disproportinately harnassed their anger towards Obama rather than the Iranian government, to the point that they are trying to bully him into saying what they want to say. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Your tirades against this administration have stopped being vexing and have landed squarely in the land of the comical. A staffer in the White House privately credits his boss with giving a speech that influenced people, and you work yourself up into a froth about it?
At least when you were criticizing Obama for not inserting the US directly into the conflict, your issue was with policy. Now it's... well, I don't know exactly what it is that you're on about.
Well played, sir. |
*yawn*... and your desire to refute every syllable of what I say for the sake of letting everyone know you don't see eye to eye with me is equally boring.
"A staffer" in the White House had that P.O.V.? I believe it says "Obama advisorS", buddy. Advisorsssss (plural) doesn't = 1 staffer. Besides, Obama himself last week (before it really got out of hand) said he was glad his speech lead to the "robust debates" we were seeing in Iran. Give me an F-ing break. It's not just about poilcy that I disagree with, I can't stand his attempt to be all things to all people. How quickly we forget the spoiled brat-like tantrums your side threw on a daily basis about every word uttered from W's lips. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
17ss, you need to look up the word despicable in the dictionary.
I am disgusted at how Fox News and those on the extreme right (not the moderate ones) are focusing on Obama rather than on what's actually going on in Iran. What the Iranian government is doing to it's own people is despicable. To a lesser degree the way some Republicans are criticizing the President, and somehow trying to find a way to even blame him for what's going on is dispicable.
Anyone watch Fox News lately? Watch Gretta or Brit Hume and others, these guys are such sore losers. They attack the president day in and day out, and afterwards they cry about "why is the president picking on me?", or "why is all the mainstream media so biased in favor of Obama?"
Suddenly, Fox News doesnt see itself as mainstream media and that's they're biggest problem - they've lost touch with mainstream America. The real question is why hasn't Fox News figured out yet that the majority of Americans voted for Obama, and mainstream America approves of Obama.
There's a vast difference between American and Iranian culture, but some on the far right just can't get around the idea that when Obama tried reaching out to the people of Iran that they in turn did take his voice into consideration.
A president has to know when to interfere (if at all) and when to step back and let things unfold, for the most part, on their own.
If Republicans wish to speak out against the horrors in Iran and use strong condeming words I applaud them - it's their right, and their voice. They're also free to criticize the president, which is a healthy thing to do in a democracy. What is despicable is the way conservative Republicans have disproportinately harnassed their anger towards Obama rather than the Iranian government, to the point that they are trying to bully him into saying what they want to say. |
CHRles- I don't totally disagree with you at all. There is a mix of everything going on ON ALL NEWS CHANNELS... not just Fox. There's despicable happening, and honest reporting as well about the plight of the Iranian people; I've seen it. I have changed the channel from Fox & the others on several occasions this past week when the conversations started getting way too far out of bounds.
Haha... so if Fox has "lost touch" with mainstream America, tell me which network is in tune with the mainstream (and ignore that more people watch Fox news that MSNBC and CNN combined). A better question should be, why does Obama constantly bring up Fox news? Even George Stephanopolous asked the other day, "What's with Obama's obsession with Fox?" to which George Will accurately stated, "that's because it's the discordant note in an otherwise harmonious chorus."
Surely you'll listen to Juan Williams of NPR who even says,
| quote: | | What really, you know, strikes me is the celebrity nature of the treatment, the coverage of him as a celebrity versus the policy-maker...So you know, the problem here is he's not being treated as a politician. The press is not being sufficiently adversarial, which is its role, to hold him accountable. |
So, please... get off the "Fox is evil" bandwagon. Didn't Hillary say "dissent is patriotic"? Well, you have the one ing network that actually criticizes the President regularly, and with good reason, and you want to silence all of it because of some crazy Glenn Beck rant or Brit Hume prodding relentlessly. What do you want, more stories like the ones given by CBS White House correspondence writers about the flavors of ice cream Obama and his daughters, AND DOG enjoyed the other day? LOL! Give me a break.
The last sentence in your comment is patently false by the way... I have heard non stop condemnation by the Republicans about the Iranian regime's treatment of its people. You must be kidding with that part of your statement. It's the DEM's that are the hesitant ones.
Edit: forgot to mention, those people you are blasting such as Beck, Hume, etc.... them along with several other Conservatives absolutely killed Bush over his push for amnesty, deficit spending, and many other issues. They went crazy against McCain all the way up to the election on countless issues. All of that is being ignored. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
*yawn*... and your desire to refute every syllable of what I say for the sake of letting everyone know you don't see eye to eye with me is equally boring.
"A staffer" in the White House had that P.O.V.? I believe it says "Obama advisorS", buddy. Advisorsssss (pulural) doesn't = 1 staffer. Besides, Obama himself last week (before it really got out of hand) said he was glad his speech lead to the "robust debates" we were seeing in Iran. Give me an F-ing break. It's not just about poilcy that I disagree with, I can't stand his attempt to be all things to all people. How quickly we forget the spoiled brat-like tantrums your side threw on a daily basis about every word uttered from W's lips. |
My side? If you can point out my criticisms of Bush's verbiage, be my guest. And why would I want people to know that I disagree with you? Wouldn't it be more realistic to assume that I am in a discussion and debate forum to put forth my own opinions and argue against those with whom I disagree? As your opinions are the ones I tend to disagree with most frequently, I'm sorry if you feel victimized by my replies to some of your more inane posts.
To go back on topic, I still see no issue at the core of your outrage. Anonymous staffers are as entitled to private opinions as you or I - projecting them on to some sort of official White House statement of arrogance is not a small stretch.
And why are you so intent on the idea that Obama is "trying to be all things to all people?" In my opinion, he's just trying to be the President of the United States, who, as you might recall, swears an oath to faithfully execute the office, which entails protecting the Constitution and serving the electorate. You're the only one around here calling him "The One" or "Messiah" - that again is simply an exaggeration of your disgust at his popularity as President. Notice that nobody uses these terms seriously - they are the sole property of rabid right-wing discontents seeking to embarrass Obama supporters through snark and sarcasm.
Nobody has suggested that the speech given in Cairo directly led to what is going on in Iran. What has been suggested is that it softened the grip on legitimacy held by a regime that builds its support through casting America as devil. If the speech even implicitly encouraged sentiments of civic responsibility or toned down the political opportunism of anti-Americanism, then it was certainly worth giving, and I would hope that he is courageous enough to reach out to the Muslim world again. I wouldn't expect you to recognize its success even if there were empirical evidence to suggest a connection, so I don't know why we're still belaboring the point. In your opinion Obama is wrong if he does, wrong if he doesn't. Your dissatisfaction with his governance, by your own admittance, goes beyond policy or product and is in the radical world of pettiness. If you can't get traction criticizing the substance of his policy, might as well be "disgusted" by the "despicable" character habits or beliefs of the guy. Hell, when that fails, you might as well blow a gasket at the behavior of the guy's supporters, who are clearly a uniform "side" that are representions par excellence of the anointed one himself! |
|
|
| Shakka |
| I actually quite enjoy and appreciate Brit Hume. I think he is one of the best and brightest on Fox. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
My side? If you can point out my criticisms of Bush's verbiage, be my guest. And why would I want people to know that I disagree with you? Wouldn't it be more realistic to assume that I am in a discussion and debate forum to put forth my own opinions and argue against those with whom I disagree? As your opinions are the ones I tend to disagree with most frequently, I'm sorry if you feel victimized by my replies to some of your more inane posts.
To go back on topic, I still see no issue at the core of your outrage. Anonymous staffers are as entitled to private opinions as you or I - projecting them on to some sort of official White House statement of arrogance is not a small stretch.
And why are you so intent on the idea that Obama is "trying to be all things to all people?" In my opinion, he's just trying to be the President of the United States, who, as you might recall, swears an oath to faithfully execute the office, which entails protecting the Constitution and serving the electorate. You're the only one around here calling him "The One" or "Messiah" - that again is simply an exaggeration of your disgust at his popularity as President. Notice that nobody uses these terms seriously - they are the sole property of rabid right-wing discontents seeking to embarrass Obama supporters through snark and sarcasm.
Nobody has suggested that the speech given in Cairo directly led to what is going on in Iran. What has been suggested is that it softened the grip on legitimacy held by a regime that builds its support through casting America as devil. If the speech even implicitly encouraged sentiments of civic responsibility or toned down the political opportunism of anti-Americanism, then it was certainly worth giving, and I would hope that he is courageous enough to reach out to the Muslim world again. I wouldn't expect you to recognize its success even if there were empirical evidence to suggest a connection, so I don't know why we're still belaboring the point. In your opinion Obama is wrong if he does, wrong if he doesn't. Your dissatisfaction with his governance, by your own admittance, goes beyond policy or product and is in the radical world of pettiness. If you can't get traction criticizing the substance of his policy, might as well be "disgusted" by the "despicable" character habits or beliefs of the guy. Hell, when that fails, you might as well blow a gasket at the behavior of the guy's supporters, who are clearly a uniform "side" that are representions par excellence of the anointed one himself! |
It's not very realistic to assume you are interested in actual discussion with me on issues, no. You aim below the belt first, then when I react to the smug wisecracks, you try to paint me as an overreactor.
Plenty of people have suggested that speech is a reason for Iranian protesting, actually... which we all know is absurd. I would say it's much more likely that Iraq's example was more of a tipping point for years and years of simmering Iranian dissent against an oppressive regime than the Cairo speech. People want that speech to be so much more than it was. By nature, people want to live in freedom from oppression and 30 years is a long ass time.
There is no traction to be gained with those who willfully carry his water on every issue. I simply can't, for the life of me, understand how you can actually be happy with the bulk of what he's done and intends to do. Did you vote for quadrupling the annual deficit from last year to this, and putting us over $12 trillion in debt SO FAR in the 10 year projections? Is that what you consider solid governace? I'm outraged at his policies and his slick disingenuous behavior/words. Some of us can just smell a rat better than others I guess.
p.s.- funny you mentioned the duties a new president swears to make... protecting and defending the constitution is in fact one of them, NOT remaking it in one's own image, which is his M.O. (I'm not tying that to the Iran situation btw). |
|
|
| Shakka |
Oh yeah. Here's one W. used to take a lot of criticism for (though I see no problem with it).
| quote: |
Media Cheer Obama's Golf Outings; Criticized Republicans' Trips to Course
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama has gone to the golf course at least 11 times since he took the oath of office a little more than six months ago--three rounds were played during the late January, 12-day holiday Obama took with his family in Hawaii; one at Andrews Air Force Base; and seven at Ft. Belvoir Golf Course, including a round on Sunday, Father’s Day, with Vice President Joe Biden.
These 11 rounds played by the president are documented through media reports of his golf trips. The White House press office told CNSNews.com that to confirm every round of golf played by the president since he took office would take “hours” because the only records kept are those sent to the media through e-mails that are not posted on the White House Web site because they are for media planning only.
Despite ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ongoing violence in Iran, and an economy that Obama has described as the worst since the Great Depression, the president has golfed multiple times in the past several weeks--on April 26, May 16, May 25, May 31, June 7, June 9, June 14 and June 21.
Obama’s golf outings have generated favorable reports from the media, in contrast to his predecessor, George W. Bush.
On Aug. 5, 2002, The Washington Post wrote about President Bush golfing near his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine. Under the headline “Before Golf, Bush Decries Latest Deaths in Mideast,” staff writer Mike Allen described Bush as he “sprang from his golf cart at 6:15 a.m. and said he was distressed to hear about the latest suicide bombers in Israel.”
“Bush, wearing khakis and a knit shirt, was holding a driver in his gloved left hand,” Allen wrote.
“However incongruous the setting, the president plunged ahead,” Allen wrote.
“There are a few killers who want to stop the peace process that we have started, and we must not let them,” he [Bush] said. “I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers.”
“His business out of the way,” Allen wrote, “Bush barely paused for breath before saying, ‘Thank you. Now watch this drive.’”
A search of news reports on Nexis revealed that photographers, but not reporters have access to Obama when he is on the links. But his outings have been covered, including by The Washington Post on June 9, 2009, in an article with the headline “Just the Sport for A Leader Most Driven.”
“What’s the deal? Why golf?” Post staff writer Richard Leiby wrote. “The attraction seems to be simple. It’s a great escape; the game demands such attention that nothing else matters. It’s time spent with friends, an unhurried afternoon in loose clothing (shorts seem to be Obama’s preference).”
Leiby continued, “To some, Obama’s frequent outings reflect a cool self-confidence.”
Leiby even quoted a sports psychologist who said Obama seemed able to play golf despite the grim reports by the media about the wars and the economy.
In August 2003, Bush said he decided to stop playing golf to show his respect for the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families.
“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” Bush said in an interview with Politico and Yahoo News on May 13, 2008. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”
Bush said he made the decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner of human rights. He was golfing when he got the news.
“I was playing golf--I think I was in central Texas--and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It’s just not worth it anymore to do.’”
Bush was criticized for giving up golf, including by presidential historian Robert Dallek who was quoted in a May 14, 2008 article in The Washington Post.
Dallek said Bush’s remarks about Iraq “speak to his shallowness.” Dallek added: “That's his idea of sacrifice, to give up golf?”
Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, also was criticized for golfing in a time of war.
In an Aug. 3, 2006 article in USA Today entitled “No Rest for the President,” it noted that George W. Bush cut his summer vacation to 10 days because of the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, and a sidebar reviewed other presidential vacations.
Among other things, the sidebar said, “George H.W. Bush: In 1990, Bush was criticized for playing golf and fishing at his Kennebunkport, Maine, summer home and seeming indifferent as U.S. troops were being deployed to the Persian Gulf in anticipation of a war with Iraq.”
Obama golfed on May 25 after he spoke and placed a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetery on Memorial Day. Presidential aides told the media that Obama observed a moment of silence at 3 p.m. while on the links.
Obama also played golf on June 7, the day he returned from his trip to Egypt and Germany, where he visited Holocaust concentration camps, and Normandy, France, where as many as 6,000 American troops died when Allied Forces invaded the country during World War II.
“With his wife and daughters still in France, the president ducked out of the White House 90 minutes after getting home and headed out to the Andrews Air Force Base course with his clubs to enjoy a round, with skies only partly cloudy and temperatures about 80 degrees,” United Press International reported on June 7.
The following U.S. troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan while Obama was on golf outings, according to records of U.S. troop casualties kept by the Department of Defense:
-- Spc. David A. Schaefer Jr., 27, of Belleville, Ill., died May 16 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, 172nd Infantry Brigade, Schweinfurt, Germany.
--Cmdr. Duane G. Wolfe, 54, of Port Hueneme, Calif., died May 25 from injuries suffered as a result of an improvised explosive device attack on his convoy southeast of Fallujah. Wolfe was assigned to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Gulf Region Division in Iraq.
-- Spc. Eduardo S. Silva, 25, of Greenfield, Calif., died June 9 at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, of a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 563rd Aviation Support Battalion, 159th Combat Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky. The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation. |
I love golf. It's a great, peaceful and cerebral game that requires a clear mind and focus. I have probably put in about 15-20 rounds this year (with a round lined up for Thursday evening after work). |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Oh yeah. Here's one W. used to take a lot of criticism for (though I see no problem with it).
I love golf. It's a great, peaceful and cerebral game that requires a clear mind and focus. I have probably put in about 15-20 rounds this year (with a round lined up for Thursday evening after work). |
See, I had no problem with W. playing golf either - even after 9/11. I just struggle to see why personal attacks against Obama are justified by phantom attacks alleged to have been waged by me against Bush.
 |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
See, I had no problem with W. playing golf either - even after 9/11. I just struggle to see why personal attacks against Obama are justified by phantom attacks alleged to have been waged by me against Bush.
|
dude, stop taking my stuff out of context all the time. I said "your side".... I didn't implicate you personally for waging Bush attacks. I'm sure it happened, but I have no proof of their frequency and depth since he was a lame duck by the time I signed up to TA. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
It's not very realistic to assume you are interested in actual discussion with me on issues, no. You aim below the belt first, then when I react to the smug wisecracks, you try to paint me as an overreactor. |
Agree to disagree.
| quote: | | Plenty of people have suggested that speech is a reason for Iranian protesting, actually... which we all know is absurd. I would say it's much more likely that Iraq's example was more of a tipping point for years and years of simmering Iranian dissent against an oppressive regime than the Cairo speech. People want that speech to be so much more than it was. By nature, people want to live in freedom from oppression and 30 years is a long ass time. |
Well, clearly you read a lot of Andrew McCarthy.
I'm not attributing anything to his speech - after all, rhetoric is a slow-moving tool of foreign policy. But you do have to admit that Obama is uniquely situated to speak to the Middle East. His acknowledgment of his favorite Urdu poets this week was another masterful gesture to South Asia and Pakistan - apparently it was the talk of Lahore and Islamabad today.
The speech isn't a panacea - but it symbolizes a re-orientation of American policy, and a softening of hard-line militarism toward the Middle East. I don't think it's absurd at all to recognize that it has the power to resonate among moderates there.
I'll just post this once more since you may not have seen it:
| quote: | | "OK, let me see if I've got this right. Since Barack Obama has taken the presidential oath of office we have witnessed: a) Hezbollah lose a shoo-in election in Lebanon, b) Pakistan begin serious efforts to control the Taliban and al Qaeda elements inside its borders, c) Netanyahu of Israel mumble support about a two state solution and rethink settlements and, d) A major awakening of the Iranian citizenry against the heavy-handedness of the mullahs. What hasn't changed? The simple-minded thuggery of the Right when it comes to foreign policy (and Grover Norquist, someone should gently remind him that it's 2009, not 1989). They have long preferred a modified Teddy Roosevelt approach. Speak loudly and wail away with the biggest stick you can find. I don't know if all this is the results of one speech in Cairo by the President but if it is I hope he gives a second, and soon." |
http://www.politico.com/arena/
Again, causation isn't provable, but the speech certainly didn't hurt anything so I don't see the point in berating it.
| quote: | | There is no traction to be gained with those who willfully carry his water on every issue. I simply can't, for the life of me, understand how you can actually be happy with the bulk of what he's done and intends to do. Did you vote for quadrupling the annual deficit from last year to this, and putting us over $12 trillion in debt SO FAR in the 10 year projections? Is that what you consider solid governace? I'm outraged at his policies and his slick disingenuous behavior/words. Some of us can just smell a rat better than others I guess. |
I don't agree with him on every issue - I've made that very clear several times. In fact, I hesitate to say I'm happy with "the bulk" of his work in office. The majority? Yeah, probably. But I have plenty of criticisms. As you might imagine, those criticisms don't mirror your own, and are in most cases not in the same policy issues. This thread is about Iran, so I won't go into the national debt/stimulus debate here, but I am firmly in Krugman's camp on that subject.
| quote: | | p.s.- funny you mentioned the duties a new president swears to make... protecting and defending the constitution is in fact one of them, NOT remaking it in one's own image, which is his M.O. (I'm not tying that to the Iran situation btw). |
Now that just seems absurd - re-making the Constitution? Please. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
dude, stop taking my stuff out of context all the time. I said "your side".... I didn't implicate you personally for waging Bush attacks. I'm sure it happened, but I have no proof of their frequency and depth since he was a lame duck by the time I signed up to TA. |
And who is on my "side"? Krypton? I disagree with him all the time. pkc? I love the guy, but he's way to the left of me. By insinuating that I am on the "side" of people who lob petty insults at Bush, you did indeed insinuate that I do the same. This is a core problem I have with people in general - the extrapolation of individual acts upon a larger demographic. Because you know a few supporters of Obama who froth at the mouth to personally attack Bush, that means I do it too? |
|
|
|
|
