US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 37 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-18-2008, 06:51 PM   #721
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 11:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
What do you mean by this? That smaller states don't get campaigned hard?

I actually see where this could be an advantage, it could actually lead to a more informed vote rather than just this commercial vs that commercial.

Absolutely the smaller states would be ignored. Under this system, the swing states are not always the same. It moves. If you want cities to dominate elections, then by all means. I do not believe that a city demographic is going to be representative of the needs of the country as a whole.

My 2 cents....
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-18-2008, 07:09 PM   #722
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,724
Local Time: 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Huffington Post

In an interview with the Kansas City Star, John McCain says Barack Obama was labeled as having the "most extreme" record in the Senate.

"Extreme? You really think hes an extremist? I mean, he's clearly a liberal," interviewer Dave Helling asks.

"That's his voting record," McCain responds. "All I said was his voting record, and that is more to the left than the announced Socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont."

"Do you think he's a socialist, Barack Obama?" Helling asks.

McCain responds with a with a shrug, "I don't know."


Helling One on One with McCain
If Obama is a Socialist, we are all hopeless Communists.
__________________

Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-18-2008, 08:48 PM   #723
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
no, i smell McCain's, and Bush's, desperation. they want to remove Iraq as an issue.

"we've won. troops are coming home. no need to discuss anything."

McCain and Bush want to move more troops to Afghanistan -- just like Obama's been saying.

we've recently learned that the White House sent a top diplomat to directly negotiate with the Iranians over nuclear power -- just like Obama's been saying he will.

and, clearly, McBush has moved closer to Obama's position on withdrawing troops from Iraq -- today, we now have a "time horizon" from the White House with claims of "victory!" from McCain.
It's just like when Bush bombed Libya and North Korea to get them to shut down their weapons programs...
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-18-2008, 09:02 PM   #724
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,257
Local Time: 10:28 AM
An excellent article by Krauthammer in the Washington Post. I think it's dead on.


The Audacity of Vanity

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 18, 2008; Page A17

Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Ronald Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)


Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

Obama may think he's King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.

After all, in the words of his own slogan, "we are the ones we've been waiting for," which, translating the royal "we," means: " I am the one we've been waiting for." Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his lectern, until general ridicule -- it was pointed out that he was not yet president -- induced him to take it down.

He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish" -- a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how "embarrassing" it is that Europeans are multilingual but "we go over to Europe, and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup.' " Obama speaks no French.

His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism . . . that you come out of your isolation. . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when "our planet began to heal." As I recall -- I'm no expert on this -- Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.



2861U2 is offline  
Old 07-18-2008, 09:05 PM   #725
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Is Obama pro-slavery?
Quote:
There's a weird irony at work when Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul of the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery.

For those who don't remember, the 13th Amendment says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime ... shall exist within the United States."

I guess in Obama's mind it must be a crime to be born or to go to college.

In his speech on national service Wednesday at the University of Colorado, Obama promised that as president he would "set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year."

He would see that these goals are met by, among other things, attaching strings to federal education dollars. If you don't make the kids report for duty, he's essentially telling schools and college kids, you'll lose money you can't afford to lose. In short, he'll make service compulsory by merely compelling schools to make it compulsory.

It's funny that, when the right seeks to use the government to impose its values, the left screams about brainwashing and propaganda. When the left tries it, the right thunders about social engineering. But when left and right agree -- as seems to be the case on national service -- who's left to complain? As ever, the slipperiest slopes are greased with the snake oil of "bipartisanship."

After all, Obama's hardly alone. Sen. John McCain is a passionate supporter of Washington-led (and paid-for) "volunteerism," as is President Bush. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and John Edwards both campaigned for the presidency on compulsory national service.

Perhaps thanks to the JFK cult, which sees the refrain "Ask not what your country can do for you ..." as an all-purpose writ for social meddling, even the idealistic hipster crowd is on board. Devotees of Rolling Stone and MTV, who normally preen like cats in a pool of sunshine over their alleged libertarianism when the issue is sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, see nothing wrong, and everything right, with involuntary servitude -- as long as we just call it "voluntary."

Volunteerism is good. But why does every good thing need to be orchestrated by government? Most people think that churchgoing is a good thing. Does that mean the government should fund churches? That's what they do in Europe and -- surprise! -- most pews sit empty.

Americans are vastly more generous with their time and their money than Europeans. According to social demographer Arthur C. Brooks, in 1995 (the last year international comparative data on giving was available), Americans gave 3 1/2 times as much money to charities and causes as the French, seven times more than the Germans and 14 times more than the Italians.

In 1998, Americans also volunteered 21% more than the Swiss and 32% more than Germans -- two countries with compulsory national service. And yet we're continually told we should emulate them so that America too can have a "culture of service."

But we already have a healthier culture of service without -- as Obama would do -- doubling the size of the Peace Corps or pushing another 250,000 into AmeriCorps.

Indeed, there's ample evidence that countries with intrusive and expensive welfare states stifle their citizens' spirit of charity and volunteerism precisely because people conclude that every problem should be solved by government. Merely paying your taxes substitutes for charity, and cleaning up roadside litter for two years absolves you from doing anything more.

Time magazine's Richard Stengel speaks for many who insist that American government must consecrate everything. "The reason private volunteerism is so high is precisely that confidence in our public institutions is so low," he wrote last year in praise of universal national service. "People see volunteering not as a form of public service but as an antidote for it."

Really? I would have thought that the world's most charitable and voluntaristic nation -- one with a tradition of service that predates the decline of confidence in public institutions by generations -- might see volunteering as a good in and of itself.

This is the real problem with national service mania: It seeks to fix what ain't broke. No, national service isn't slavery. But it contributes to a slave mentality, at odds with American tradition. It assumes that work not done for the government isn't really for the "common good."

"The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society," Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously observed. "The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself."

Moynihan was right, of course. But politics can change a culture for the worse too. Indoctrinating an entire generation with the idea that public service is something you do at the government's behest would not only steamroll the culture, it would help fewer people in the process.
Obama and volunteering: Forced servitude in America? - Los Angeles Times

It's from Jonah Goldberg (author of Liberal Fascism etc.) so you know it's fair and balanced
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-18-2008, 09:22 PM   #726
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:28 AM
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-18-2008, 10:54 PM   #727
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:28 AM


So long, Mr. Magoo



I won't miss him.

I don't care about the "nation of whiners" statement
as much as I care about his entanglement with Enron
and all that bad deregulation / corruption and that goes for his wife, too
deep is offline  
Old 07-19-2008, 04:32 AM   #728
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,724
Local Time: 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post

Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Ronald Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)

Bah, this is such a ridiculous story and really embarrassing to be honest. And it's such nonsense that you have to "earn it" to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate. It's right, his campaign made a mistake in announcing the plan to speak there before asking if it would be ok to do so, but at first no one cared. Then, suddenly, Merkel thought it necessary to oppose those plans and make this weird reference to the historic symbolism of the place. In fact, they are just afraid it would look like some kind of support of the Democrats and as long as nothing is decided, i.e. as long as the election hasn't been held, they want to appear as neutral as possible.
Most Germans don't give a damn that Obama wants to speak at the "Pariser Platz" (in fact, I think it would be great. He would see the new American embassy and could apologize for it right away. ).
I really would like to see him speak and I think many would be interested. For so many people the Brandenburg Gate would be perfect as it probably is the largest place to take so many people.
I'm so terribly sorry, but we are neither rendering hommage to Kennedy, nor to Reagan, nor to H.W. Bush every time we pass the Brandenburg Gate (I also don't fall on my knees when I go past the Schoeneberg Rathaus where Kennedy finally held his speech), and this place, in my progressive mind, isn't in some way holy or however one wants to call it. I would even tolerate W. Bush or McCain to hold a speech there, but that's just me.
Some people really like to interpret things into everything.

Oh, this place has such a historical meaning! Come on, whole fucking Berlin has a historical meaning!

Thank you.

Just read, he will now hold his speech in front of the triumphal column. I know where I will spend my Thursday.
Can't wait what weird interpretations now will come up. Will he turn into a Nazi supporter?
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-19-2008, 04:48 AM   #729
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 11:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
Bah, this is such a ridiculous story and really embarrassing to be honest. And it's such nonsense that you have to "earn it" to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate. It's right, his campaign made a mistake in announcing the plan to speak there before asking if it would be ok to do so, but at first no one cared. Then, suddenly, Merkel thought it necessary to oppose those plans and make this weird reference to the historic symbolism of the place. In fact, they are just afraid it would look like some kind of support of the Democrats and as long as nothing is decided, i.e. as long as the election hasn't been held, they want to appear as neutral as possible.
Most Germans don't give a damn that Obama wants to speak at the "Pariser Platz" (in fact, I think it would be great. He would see the new American embassy and could apologize for it right away. ).
I really would like to see him speak and I think many would be interested. For so many people the Brandenburg Gate would be perfect as it probably is the largest place to take so many people.
I'm so terribly sorry, but we are neither rendering hommage to Kennedy, nor to Reagan, nor to H.W. Bush every time we pass the Brandenburg Gate (I also don't fall on my knees when I go past the Schoeneberg Rathaus where Kennedy finally held his speech), and this place, in my progressive mind, isn't in some way holy or however one wants to call it. I would even tolerate W. Bush or McCain to hold a speech there, but that's just me.
Some people really like to interpret things into everything.

Oh, this place has such a historical meaning! Come on, whole fucking Berlin has a historical meaning!

Thank you.

Just read, he will now hold his speech in front of the triumphal column. I know where I will spend my Thursday.
Can't wait what weird interpretations now will come up. Will he turn into a Nazi supporter?

To quote Ronald Reagan:

"There you go again. . ."

Making sense yet AGAIN! What is with you, Vega!
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-19-2008, 04:56 AM   #730
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 11:28 AM
All I need to do is read the opening lines of these articles and I already know they're going to be crap:

"Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials."

"There's a weird irony at work when Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul of the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery."

And these op-ed pieces (for they can certainly be nothing more) are supposed to provide me with CREDIBLE reasons not to vote for Obama? You gotta be kidding me. "fainting frauleins". . .Obama wants to bring back slavery. . .WTF?

I'm sure there are lots of credible reasons not to vote for Obama (Heck, I consider deep's big objection--his lack of experience--to be at least reasonable and worthy of debate) but these are not among them.

If you want to critique Obama's candidacy at least bring something sensible to the table. . .geez.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-19-2008, 04:56 AM   #731
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,724
Local Time: 06:28 PM
Semester ending, term papers, exams... they drive me crazy.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-19-2008, 07:58 AM   #732
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,724
Local Time: 06:28 PM
'As Soon as Possible': Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plans - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

What a traitor.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-19-2008, 02:38 PM   #733
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:28 AM
This is priceless !!!!


Quote:
White House sends press corps al-Maliki praise for Obama plan
Posted: 02:40 PM ET

From CNN Correspondent Kathleen Koch


CRAWFORD, TX (CNN) – An embarrassing slip up for the White House press office Saturday, when an aide hit the wrong button and mistakenly sent to the news media a Reuters article saying Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki backs presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's troop withdrawal plan.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel says, "It was a mistake. Clips list for staff was supposed to be the addressee."

The Obama campaign quickly took advantage of the mistake, forwarding an ABC report detailing the incident to its press list.

This is not the first time the White House has emailed in error. But its timing is particularly embarrassing as the Bush administration's recent agreement with al-Maliki on a "general time horizon" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq is being cited by some as resembling Obama's proposal that U.S. forces should leave within 16 months.
deep is offline  
Old 07-19-2008, 02:57 PM   #734
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post

Oh, this place has such a historical meaning! Come on, whole fucking Berlin has a historical meaning!

Can I just say this is probably the funniest/most awesome thing I have ever read in FYM?


U2democrat is offline  
Old 07-19-2008, 03:08 PM   #735
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,724
Local Time: 06:28 PM
Thank you.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-19-2008, 03:14 PM   #736
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
It's just like when Bush bombed Libya and North Korea to get them to shut down their weapons programs...


i know! appeasement! talking to leaders of bad countries is appeasement! in our time!
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-19-2008, 10:56 PM   #737
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:28 PM
.
Quote:
Associated Press, July 20

...While officially a part of a congressional delegation on a fact-finding tour expected to take him to Iraq, Obama arrived Saturday amid the publicity and scrutiny accorded a likely Democratic nominee for president rather than a senator from Illinois. Security was tight and media access to Obama was limited by his campaign; his itinerary in the war zones was a closely guarded secret. Obama and others in the delegation received a briefing inside the U.S. base in Jalalabad from the Afghan provincial governor of Nangarhar, Gul Agha Sherzai, a no-nonsense, bullish former warlord. "Obama promised us that if he becomes a president in the future, he will support and help Afghanistan not only in its security sector but also in reconstruction, development and economic sector," Sherzai told The Associated Press.

...The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Saturday that after intense U.S. assaults there, al-Qaida may be considering shifting focus to its original home base in Afghanistan, where American casualties are recently running higher than in Iraq. "We do think that there is some assessment ongoing as to the continued viability of al-Qaida's fight in Iraq," Gen. David Petraeus told The Associated Press in an interview in Baghdad.

Obama has expressed frustration with the efforts by Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan to go after militants in its territory. That stance may strike a chord with Karzai, who has directly accused Pakistan's intelligence service of supporting the Taliban insurgency by plotting bombings and other attacks in Afghanistan--claims that Pakistan, a key U.S. ally in its war on terror, flatly denies. But Obama has also chided Karzai and his government, saying it had "not gotten out of the bunker" and helped to organize the country or its political and security institutions.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-20-2008, 01:35 AM   #738
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Progressive
Quote:
New York tax filers reporting more than $375,000 a year in earned income may end up paying nearly 60% of their wages in taxes to the government under a Barack Obama presidency, economists who have analyzed his plan said.

The Democratic presidential candidate is proposing not only raising the federal income tax, but also adding a Social Security tax for those Americans earning more than $250,000 a year. For New Yorkers, that could mean that if the current Social Security rate is applied, the marginal tax rate, or rate on every extra dollar earned, could rise to 58%.

"This is a very eye-popping number," a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Alan Viard, said.

Under current law, there is a 12.4% Social Security tax on salaries up to $102,000 a year. While the Social Security tax is split equally between employers and employees, economists widely hold that employees shoulder the entire tax burden because employers simply pass along the cost of the tax in the form of lower wages.

Mr. Obama has spoken of creating a so-called doughnut hole, where those earning more than $250,000 would have to pay an additional Social Security tax; anyone earning between $102,000 and $250,000 would be exempt.

Mr. Obama has yet to clarify what that additional Social Security tax will be, although his campaign said it is not likely to be as high as 12.4%. Rather, it said the tax is not likely to run higher than 4%, translating into a marginal tax on wages of as much as 52% for New Yorkers, who are subject to income tax at the federal, state, and city levels. The current marginal rate is 42%, which would continue under the McCain proposal. Full calculations of these figures are available in the slideshow accompanying this article.
Tax Rates For New Yorkers Would Top 50% Under Obama - July 18, 2008 - The New York Sun
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-20-2008, 03:29 AM   #739
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,724
Local Time: 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post

Just read, he will now hold his speech in front of the triumphal column. I know where I will spend my Thursday.
Can't wait what weird interpretations now will come up. Will he turn into a Nazi supporter?
What did I say? Just a few hours later politicians from the conservative CDU and the "liberal" (not in any way the kind of liberal you are thinking of, in fact not even liberal at all anymore) FDP were complaining about the spot being a relic of the Nazi time.
The triumphal column, set up by the stupids at the place where it is now, and away from the Reichstag, the German parliament, to remind the public of the successes of the 19th century and making little Fritz and Franz forget that we screwed up terribly (and rightly so) in the 20th century, is now located about two kilometers to the west from the Brandenburg Gate. Both are connected by the Straße des 17. Juni, where U2 shot parts of the Stay video. The name Straße des 17. Juni is meant to celebrate the workers uprising of June 17, 1953 in the former GDR.
No one ever gives a damn about the history of the "Goldliese", but suddenly it becomes an issue. It's such a shame.

Let's see other places he could try:
Tempelhof airport: Uh, built by the Nazis, and no, not holy enough for the place of the airlift.
Olympiastadion: Built by the Nazis, I'm sorry.
Bebelplatz: What, the Nazis burned books there!
Gendarmenmarkt: No specific history during the Nazi era, but they will find something. Maybe something about the March revolution of 1848.

Well, CDU and FDP, why not have the guts to say right away: "We don't want you to speak here"? At least, that would be honest and not as ridiculous as looking for some cheap excuses.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-21-2008, 11:49 AM   #740
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:28 PM
Quote:
The Democrats' Baghdad Two-Step


By Peter Hoekstra
Monday, July 21, 2008; Page A15


It's hard not to have heard about the positive developments in Iraq lately. On Friday, the White House announced that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had reached agreement on a "time horizon" for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last Wednesday that "security is unquestionably and remarkably better." Iraqi security forces recently took responsibility for a 10th province and expect to assume responsibility for all 18 of the country's provinces by year-end. There have been virtually no sectarian killings in 10 weeks. The Iraqi government has made important progress in political reconciliation. Regional neighbors are reestablishing embassies in Baghdad, and some of Iraq's creditors have begun to forgive the enormous debts incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.

How have Democrats reacted to these developments? Have they reveled in the news that U.S. casualties have plummeted? Have they praised the achievements for which our troops have fought so hard? Have they congratulated the Iraqi government for progress in political reconciliation?

Not exactly.

Last Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continued to ignore recent gains and instead criticized Bush and Maliki for pushing a "vague" plan to withdraw U.S. troops. Addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual convention last month, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave major foreign policy speeches. Neither even mentioned Iraq. Last Tuesday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, the leading foreign policy expert among Democrats in Congress, ignored the achievements made in Iraq and the importance of promoting stability there when he said: "If John [McCain] wants to know where the bad guys live, come back with me to Afghanistan. We know where they reside. And it's not in Iraq."

Why are the Democrats in denial about recent gains in Iraq? Unfortunately, it appears that they realize that progress is being made and want to change the subject to some other policy they can use to attack the president. Indeed, they are so opposed to acknowledging America's hard-won achievements that in a May 28 interview Pelosi credited "the goodwill of the Iranians" for "some of the success of the surge. . . . They decided in Basra when the fighting would end." As Sen. Joe Lieberman noted in a speech last year, "Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus's new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq."

Over the past few years, Pelosi and Reid have taken full advantage of every piece of bad news in Iraq to attack the Bush administration. Whenever American fatalities went up or there were major terrorist attacks, they ran to microphones to denounce the war as a hopeless failure. Al-Qaeda took a similar approach, issuing audio and video messages from Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, statements that threatened more U.S. casualties and described their plans to drive America from Iraq so they could make it the center of their crazed fantasy of creating a radical Islamic global caliphate.

Sen. Barack Obama's (current) position on Iraq is hard to nail down. He still favors the same arbitrary 16-month withdrawal timetable he promoted when violence in Iraq was at a high point. After insisting for months that the troop surge was doomed to fail, Obama now credits it with some security improvements while simultaneously claiming in a speech last week that the surge did not meet all of its benchmarks and was too expensive. Setting aside Obama's verbal acrobatics on Iraq, his campaign was caught last week trying to purge his earlier harsh criticism of the surge from its Web site.

This is no time for our elected leaders to play games about the successes and challenges in Iraq. Our troops and the Iraqi people need and deserve the recognition and support of all U.S. elected officials for their efforts to stabilize that country. They need to know that we are with them and do not want them to fail.

While there is much still to be done in Iraq, recent events give many reasons for hope. Rather than always focusing on the negative of one front in the battle against radical jihadists, Democratic congressional leaders need to acknowledge success, highlight challenges and lay out a comprehensive long-term strategy to confront, contain and ultimately defeat the threat facing America. Our country cannot be led by naysayers who slide from issue to issue. The responsibilities of leadership go far beyond what Democrats in Congress are demonstrating today.

The writer, a representative from Michigan, is the ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
washingtonpost.com
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×