The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 263

Strangler Lewis · 10-05-2007, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

You sexist, Strangler. You didn't even mention Amy Carter. Would you vote for a daughter of a former President or are they not even worthy of mention?

I would love to watch Amy Carter debate Chelsea Clinton.

And by "debate" I mean . . .

Never mind.

Morrigoon · 10-05-2007, 05:01 PM

This is a harsh, but excellent, article. Very thought provoking.

Interestingly, saw it referenced on a blog about non-custodial parents' rights (where he related the 10 steps to the ways the "system" works against fathers)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

I could related the 10 things to a few other things, but for now, I'll let the article stand for itself.

Moonliner · 10-11-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN

House resolution would call the World War I massacre of Armenians by Turkish forces genocide

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN

Democratic leaders said earlier if the Foreign Affairs Committee passed the resolution, they intended to bring it to the House floor

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN

President Bush and key administration figures lobbied hard against it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN

Turkey, a NATO member, has been a key U.S. ally in the Middle East and a conduit for sending supplies into Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN

U.S. commanders "believe clearly that access to airfields and roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN

Turkey recalls ambassador to U.S.

OK I get it. The Democrats have failed to stop the Iraq war so now they are going to make it hard to pursue the war by cutting off supply routes.

Huh. Somehow I always thought that was more or less the enemy's job.

sleepyjeff · 10-11-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonliner

OK I get it. The Democrats have failed to stop the Iraq war so now they are going to make it hard to pursue the war by cutting off supply routes.

Huh. Somehow I always thought that was more or less the enemy's job.

Yep...it's amazing what they do in "support" of our troops. One has to wonder why many of these legislators didn't support this same resolution 12 years ago when Clinton opposed it.

Don't like the war....show some backbone and end it straight up; don't undercut those fighting it

innerSpaceman · 10-11-2007, 12:35 PM

Oh, so we should support rank hypocricy and, by extension, GENOCIDE ... just because it was our allies whom we depend on militarily who commited the GENOCIDE?!?

That's pretty fu<king disgusting. Bad enough that we declare it genocide 60 years later, and do nothing about Darfour's genocide in the here and now. But to say we should hide our heads in the sand over such atrocities because it suits our military purposes is frelling NAZISM.

Yes, I godwined this thread. Sue Me.

Moonliner · 10-11-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

to say we should hide our heads in the sand over such atrocities because it suits our military purposes is frelling NAZISM.

And how would you characterize using Genocide as a tool of political expediency? That's what the democrats are doing in this case. A vote on this amendment now is not a vote of conscience, it is an end-run to try and reverse an unpopular political situation.

sleepyjeff · 10-11-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Oh, so we should support rank hypocricy and, by extension, GENOCIDE ... just because it was our allies whom we depend on militarily who commited the GENOCIDE?!?

That's pretty fu<king disgusting. Bad enough that we declare it genocide 60 years later, and do nothing about Darfour's genocide in the here and now. But to say we should hide our heads in the sand over such atrocities because it suits our military purposes is frelling NAZISM.

Yes, I godwined this thread. Sue Me.

So it wasn't Genocide 12 years ago when Dole was pushing for this resolution but now it is?

As for Darfur....The State Department has called it genocide(something the UN refuses to do).

sleepyjeff · 10-11-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Yes, I godwined this thread. Sue Me.

Don't worry....

When the actual subject is genocide I think exceptions should be made.

innerSpaceman · 10-11-2007, 02:45 PM

This resolution, as sleepyjeff pointed out, has been in the works for years. If the democrats have, only since the last election, come into enough of a majority to pass it ... that can only most cynically be called politically expedient timing to damage the opposing party.

A resolution about a 60-year-old genocide could hardly be expected to be at the top of the Dems legislative agenda, and it could - mind you, could be an innocent matter of timing.

That said, I'll concede that nothing in politics is an innocent matter of timing. It could be timed with electoral politics in mind. But to suggest that the timing is treasonous, and designed specifically to cut off supply lines to our own troops in wartime, is a scurolous accusation of dispicable political intent.

scaeagles · 10-11-2007, 05:30 PM

The only reason it is politically timed now is because it is widely believed in both parties that the surge is working very well. The dems need to make the surge not work. What possible other explanation could there be? The best way to damage the republicans politically is to make the war go as poorly as possible without making it look like they want the war to go as poorly as possible. Perhaps it is more that their own opposition to the surge and continuous rhetoric about failure and how it is unwinnable makes them look for ways to have the war go more poorly.

But make no mistake. If the dems win the Presidency, nothihng is going to change except they will find a way to support doing whatever is necessary to win in Iraq. Troops will not be withdrawn (in any less than a small symbolic way).

10-05-2007, 05:01 PM	#2622
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	This is a harsh, but excellent, article. Very thought provoking. Interestingly, saw it referenced on a blog about non-custodial parents' rights (where he related the 10 steps to the ways the "system" works against fathers) http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html I could related the 10 things to a few other things, but for now, I'll let the article stand for itself. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

10-11-2007, 12:35 PM	#2625
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Oh, so we should support rank hypocricy and, by extension, GENOCIDE ... just because it was our allies whom we depend on militarily who commited the GENOCIDE?!? That's pretty fu<king disgusting. Bad enough that we declare it genocide 60 years later, and do nothing about Darfour's genocide in the here and now. But to say we should hide our heads in the sand over such atrocities because it suits our military purposes is frelling NAZISM. Yes, I godwined this thread. Sue Me.
	Submit to Quotes

10-11-2007, 02:45 PM	#2629
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	This resolution, as sleepyjeff pointed out, has been in the works for years. If the democrats have, only since the last election, come into enough of a majority to pass it ... that can only most cynically be called politically expedient timing to damage the opposing party. A resolution about a 60-year-old genocide could hardly be expected to be at the top of the Dems legislative agenda, and it could - mind you, could be an innocent matter of timing. That said, I'll concede that nothing in politics is an innocent matter of timing. It could be timed with electoral politics in mind. But to suggest that the timing is treasonous, and designed specifically to cut off supply lines to our own troops in wartime, is a scurolous accusation of dispicable political intent.
	Submit to Quotes

10-11-2007, 05:30 PM	#2630
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	The only reason it is politically timed now is because it is widely believed in both parties that the surge is working very well. The dems need to make the surge not work. What possible other explanation could there be? The best way to damage the republicans politically is to make the war go as poorly as possible without making it look like they want the war to go as poorly as possible. Perhaps it is more that their own opposition to the surge and continuous rhetoric about failure and how it is unwinnable makes them look for ways to have the war go more poorly. But make no mistake. If the dems win the Presidency, nothihng is going to change except they will find a way to support doing whatever is necessary to win in Iraq. Troops will not be withdrawn (in any less than a small symbolic way).
	Submit to Quotes