Jimmy Carter Redux - Obama Leads from Behind, Middle East Implodes

RLENT · Feb 10, 2012

witness23 said:
That article will ring hollow in here for most RLENT. Unfortunately.

Perhaps ...... nevertheless, it may make it somewhat less comfortable for the enemies of truth to tell their perverted lies ....

The truth remains the truth ...... regardless of how it "rings" for anyone ....

And truth is something that one ignores at their own peril ..... if the not peril of one's children, their children, and so on .....

Surely divine justice will require that one will reap what one has sown .....

...... and the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the children ..... even unto the third and fourth generations ......

RLENT · Feb 10, 2012

Pilgrim said:
You've missed the point .........

You've missed so many frickin' points that I stopped keeping track long ago ....

Apparently, you believe that some ought to just be exempt from the rule of law ..... so that they might inflict their criminality on anyone without regard to any consequences .....

Get a clue - the time is rapidly approaching where those who escaped justice temporarily will no longer be able to do so .....

Pilgrim said:
which is that they are being detained in the first place, effectively being held hostage in our own embassy.

..... don't do the crime .... if you can't do the time .....

RLENT · Feb 10, 2012

What he sez:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the “Belarus Democracy Act” reauthorization. This title of this bill would have amused George Orwell, as it is in fact a US regime-change bill. Where does the United States Congress derive the moral or legal authority to determine which political parties or organizations in Belarus — or anywhere else — are to be US-funded and which are to be destabilized?

How can anyone argue that US support for regime-change in Belarus is somehow “promoting democracy”? We pick the parties who are to be supported and funded and somehow this is supposed to reflect the will of the Belarusian people?

How would Americans feel if the tables were turned and a powerful foreign country demanded that only a political party it selected and funded could legitimately reflect the will of the American people?

I would like to know how many millions of taxpayer dollars the US government has wasted trying to overthrow the government in Belarus. I would like to know how much money has been squandered by US government-funded front organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, Freedom House, and others meddling like the old Soviet Union in the internal politics of a country that has neither threatened nor attacked the United States.

It the arrogance of our foreign policy establishment that leads to this kind of schizophrenic legislation, where we demand that the rest of the world bend to the will of US foreign policy and we call it “democracy.” We wonder why we are no longer loved and admired overseas.

Finally, I strongly object to the sanctions that this legislation imposes on Belarus. We must keep in mind that sanctions and blockades of foreign countries are considered acts of war.

Do we need to continue war-like actions against yet another country? Can we afford it?

I wish to emphasize that I take this position not because I am in support of the regime in Belarus, or anywhere else. I take this position because it is dangerous folly to be the nation that arrogates to itself the right to determine the leadership of the rest of the world.

As we teeter closer to bankruptcy, it should be more obvious that we need to change our foreign policy to one of constructive engagement rather than hostile interventionism.

And though it scarcely should need to be said, I must remind my colleagues today that we are the U.S. House of Representatives, and not some sort of world congress. We have no constitutional authority to intervene in the wholly domestic affairs of Belarus or any other sovereign nation."

- Dr. Ron Paul, July 8, 2011

witness23 · Feb 10, 2012

Amen Dr. Paul!!!!!

Listen up Neocons and try and get a friggin' clue.

The last paragraph summed it up quite well.

And though it scarcely should need to be said, I must remind my colleagues today that we are the U.S. House of Representatives, and not some sort of world congress. We have no constitutional authority to intervene in the wholly domestic affairs of Belarus or any other sovereign nation."

witness23 · Feb 10, 2012

4 reasons why the Neocons will lose this election.

- Foreign Policy

- Social Issues

- Thinking this election is going to be a referendum on the president’s economic policies

And the most obvious reason:

- They don't have a capable candidate to go up against the President. Except for the guy staring them straight in the eye, Ron Paul. To Mr. Paul's credit, he is not a Neocon. There is hope for Dr. Paul and his supporters, the GOP have gone through every candidate so far, Santorum being the last, and his days are numbered. The GOP will only be left to choose from Romney or Paul. May the best man win.

RLENT · Feb 10, 2012

witness23 said:
4 reasons why the Neocons will lose this election.

Here's another two - 5. they suffer from low motivation .... and 6. at the grassroots level, they fail to understand how the game is actually played.

The following graphic from the recent primary caucus in Colorado showing three precincts will assist in understanding the matter, and show how true this is (it happened in MN as well) - the delegates are what matter, not the straw vote .... meanwhile Frothy and others in the MSM babble on about his "win":

greg334 · Feb 10, 2012

Pilgrim said:
You've missed the point which is that they are being detained in the first place, effectively being held hostage in our own embassy. This would not have happened under Reagan, and it's doubtful that Bush would have tolerated it either. This display of weakness by Obama will have serious consequences if he allows it to drag on as Carter did with Iran.

Well let's see... nope didn't miss the point at all. The idea that we send people there as some NGO to do something 'trapped' at our embassy and no way out is somewhat puzzling and not the president's problem. His weakness is using foreign aid to rectify a problem when a helocopter to our embassy would solve the problem.

I don't beleive that Reagan would have done better, seeing that it was under his administration that allowed the expansion of foriegn aid to Egypt while we were dealing with problems in Lebanon.

As for those who are 'trapped', they are citizens who went there on their own accord, not a reason for a war or air strike or anything like that unless the NGO isn't an NGO. Remember an NGO is ... well here is a little wikiquote comment that may show the problem with this issue being a non-issue - NGOs are difficult to define and classify due to the term’s inconsistent use.

witness23 said:
4 reasons why the Neocons will lose this election.

- Foreign Policy

- Social Issues

- Thinking this election is going to be a referendum on the president’s economic policies

Actually there are four but the forth one has to do with the culture of congress and the parties. Today we have a new naval ship being named for a congressman who did nothing for the country but everyone has bent over to give praise. I can not think of a better example of how contemptuios congress towards outsiders, like those who gave their lives to fight for our country or the citizens of the country. With the issues we face, both parties and their players have done nothing to show us they are serious in changing the country for the better and if the republicans pick one of the three leading people trying to get into the presidental campaign, then they are no better than the guy sitting there in the WH.

witness23 · Feb 10, 2012

greg334 said:
...........and if the republicans pick one of the three leading people trying to get into the presidental campaign, then they are no better than the guy sitting there in the WH.

I am assuming you are not including Mr. Paul in that statement, considering their are 4 nominees left. If so, you are correct if the three you are talking about is Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. I will say however, out of those three, they would be worse than our current occupant of the oval office for America as a whole. In my opinion.

greg334 · Feb 10, 2012

Paul is not one of them

RLENT · Feb 10, 2012

greg334 said:
Paul is not one of them

.... except for the fact the latest Retuers/Ipsos poll shows him in 2nd place nationally, just ahead of Newt, and a little behind Romney .....

layoutshooter · Feb 10, 2012

How do we get rid of the 'Neo-cons', 'Neo-libs' and all the other scum running this country. Obama is no different than, Romney, than Newt, than Bush, than Clinton, than Carter, see a pattern? Paul can't win. What choices do we have? Revolt?

greg334 · Feb 10, 2012

layoutshooter said:
Paul can't win.

He won't with an attitude like that.

layoutshooter · Feb 10, 2012

greg334 said:
He won't with an attitude like that.

My 'attitude' has nothing to do with it. I may not even get a say, it may well be over before our primary. My 'attitude' is not the problem, Paul is. He cannot pull the votes needed. Has not in the past, is not now. When has he won anything last?

greg334 · Feb 10, 2012

When he was reelected in 2010

layoutshooter · Feb 10, 2012

greg334 said:
When he was reelected in 2010

Being reelected in your own district proves nothing. You only have to look at Dingel, Levin and Stabenow to see that.

I am asking what he has won, lately, in the primaries.

greg334 · Feb 10, 2012

Look if he was to run with the party behind him, there would be a exit of the hardcore 'comservatives' but I think he would attract a lot more votes then the other possible candidates.

layoutshooter · Feb 10, 2012

greg334 said:
Look if he was to run with the party behind him, there would be a exit of the hardcore 'comservatives' but I think he would attract a lot more votes then the other possible candidates.

If he was a 'leader' he would not need a 'party' behind him. He is not 'exciting' and seems unable to get his message across. Too bad. Right now he is having trouble attracting flies.

greg334 · Feb 10, 2012

Well name me one president in our lifetime that got to the office with out the party behind them?

I understand what you are saying but reality is quite different from theory. Even if we speak of CEOs or military people, there are not many of them who come close to inspiring people through their leadership skills, left alive today that is.

layoutshooter · Feb 10, 2012

greg334 said:
Well name me one president in our lifetime that got to the office with out the party behind them?

I understand what you are saying but reality is quite different from theory. Even if we speak of CEOs or military people, there are not many of them who come close to inspiring people through their leadership skills, left alive today that is.

The reality is that he cannot win, not matter what the excuse. We no longer get quality candidates. Have not for years. Leadership has nothing to do with military or business, it has everything to do with the ability to excite people to rise to their highest level. To inspire others to answer the challenges they face. We don't see that in politics. We see 'bosses', rulers and puppets. No leaders.

Anyone can 'lead' the weak. It takes a strong leader to bring out the best in the strong. That is what Paul, or any of the rest of bunch, cannot do. Not in the numbers needed. Dry toast just crumbles and blows away in the winds of time.