Iran

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's called "marginalizing", to get a somewhat accurate big picture view. If I've left out the under reported anti-Obama riots in Belize, please forgive me.

In regard to Zakaria saying that Obama's speech was well received ALL OVER THE WORLD except in ONE PLACE, he must not consider much of the trepidation in East Europe to be occurring in a place. There is much fear there with his "cooperation" with Russia. Especially when, in July a group of politicians and scholars from 9 of these countries published a lengthy open letter to Obama stating the need for continued and expanded US engagement in the security of that region, and specifically pointed to the need for maintaining the planned missile-defence installations and NOT to bow to Moscow's wishes.

He also must not think Israel is much of a place. 4% of Israelis see obamas policies as pro-Israel, 51% see them as pro-palestinian. 88% of Israelis, by the way, view Bushes administration as pro-Israel.

Because of the growing Islamic "problem," their are many in Western Europe who have become "right wing populists," some percentages as high as 25-30% or more. They do not have favorable views of Obama and his policies. But, of course, the MEDIA that Zakaria hears reports that everywhere in the world except America's right wing netherworld received Obama's speech well.

No, the point is loud and clear. It's precisely that the GOP has lost it's way that silly images and ideas like these are so easily tossed around by the opposition.


-spence

In regard to your photo, isn't it interesting that the Obama as Hitler photo is being held conveniently backwards right at the camera, the sign holders arms fully extended (which couldn't be held in that position very long due to circulation and gravity/weight problems) so as to place the photo prominently above the distraction of the messy crowd, dominating the photo in an almost perfect artistic "third" portion. And all so conveniently coinciding with the click of the camera.

And regarding Zakaria's saying the discourse of American conservatism today being death panels and Hitler, how about:

Gore Vidal, major leftist and Obama supporter, says the Republican party is a mindset, like Hitler youth, based on hatred, and conservatives are fascists.

Ted Turner, leftist CNN guy, compares Fox News to Hitler.

CNN host D. L. Hughley said the Republican National Convention looked like Nazi Germany.

Allen L Roland (lefty radio host) said Bush was like Hitler.

Edward Jayne said Bush was like Hitler.

George Soros compared Bush to Nazis.

Democrat Senator Robert Byrd said Bush reminded him of Goering.

Al Gore referred to republican computer teams as brownshirts.

Novelist Andrew Greeley depicted Bush as a Hitler figure.

Judge Guido Calabresi said Bushes rise to power was like the rise of Hitler and Mussolini

Various leftists depicted Bush as Attila, Ted Bundy, Mussolini, Hannibal Lecter, the Anti-Christ, Frankenstein.

Anti-war protests of 2003-2007 was rife with images of Bush with Hitler Mustache and Nazi uniform.

The Hitler/Nazi thing is not new, certainly practised by the left as much IF NOT MORE than the right, and is not part of either parties platform or official views.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Hitler/Nazi thing is not new, certainly practised by the left as much IF NOT MORE than the right, and is not part of either parties platform or official views.

Agreed, but that not the point that Fareed was trying to make. It was quite simply, that the GOP has offered little but to demonize Obama in the hope of stalling his Administration.

That liberals have used the analogy is moot. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's the context of the recent dialogue that's important when discussing his commentary.

As for the missle shield in Europe...are we fighting the Cold War or the War on Terrorism? One observation (ok, also made by Fareed) is that US foreign policy too often tries to have it all. It calls for behavior modification and regime change and then complains when it gets neither.

It's quite possible that Obama's concession to Russia could add to our hand in Iran, and that this has a larger long-term net value for our security.

Does this mean that some reporting has glossed over these concerns? Perhaps, but was that of interest to the American media consumers? Perhaps not as much.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Agreed, but that not the point that Fareed was trying to make. It was quite simply, that the GOP has offered little but to demonize Obama in the hope of stalling his Administration.

That liberals have used the analogy is moot. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's the context of the recent dialogue that's important when discussing his commentary.

-spence

So why do you show us that stupid, probably staged, photo?

Fareed not only went beyond merely calling Republicans obstructionists to Obama (which he never really did--that's just your throw-in). The only actual Republican politician he mentioned was Nixon. He painted ACTUAL UNNAMED Republican politicians as fools-by-proxy. He immediately excoriated a "right-wing netherworld" comprised of Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh and a debate in The National Review, and then proclaimed that today's discourse of American conservatism is: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler. As an editor of Newsweek, either he KNOWS that actual Republican politicians have not discoursed Hitler and have discoursed every major topic, or he is too ignorant to be an editor of a major news journal. Does he, or you, know that there are 32 bills on health care reform submitted by House Republicans? Of course, when Republicans speak, as far as the media to which Zakaria pays heed, its like an insignificant little gust passing away. Because Republican views differ from the politically accepted norm of the select media, when they are given attention, they, naturally being different than Obama's, are considered obstructionism, or demonization to defeat him. IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IF YOU DISAGREE? Is that not what the Dems did throughout much of Bushes terms? SUCCESSFULLY?

Much of Zakaria's article was about diplomacy, but he was very undiplomatic and sarcastic toward the right.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So why do you show us that stupid, probably staged, photo?

How do you know it was staged? If I were attending a rally you'd better believe I'd bring a double sided sign.

If it were an image of Obama as the Joker would that be any different? I'm sure I can find plenty of those.

Fareed not only went beyond merely calling Republicans obstructionists to Obama (which he never really did--that's just your throw-in).

Sorry if my critical thinking clouds your judgment.

The only actual Republican politician he mentioned was Nixon. He painted ACTUAL UNNAMED Republican politicians as fools-by-proxy. He immediately excoriated a "right-wing netherworld" comprised of Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh and a debate in The National Review, and then proclaimed that today's discourse of American conservatism is: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler. As an editor of Newsweek, either he KNOWS that actual Republican politicians have not discoursed Hitler and have discoursed every major topic, or he is too ignorant to be an editor of a major news journal. Does he, or you, know that there are 32 bills on health care reform submitted by House Republicans? Of course, when Republicans speak, as far as the media to which Zakaria pays heed, its like an insignificant little gust passing away. Because Republican views differ from the politically accepted norm of the select media, when they are given attention, they, naturally being different than Obama's, are considered obstructionism, or demonization to defeat him. IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IF YOU DISAGREE? Is that not what the Dems did throughout much of Bushes terms? SUCCESSFULLY?

I've yet to see any real GOP leadership on these issues. Are there legitimate ideas out there? Of course there are, but they are not the focus of attention because the party is in a reactionary position and looking towards the quick emotional hit, the pundits, rather than those who might actually make a difference.

About the only rationale I've seen from Republicans on the issue of health care has come from Republican "business executives".

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How do you know it was staged? If I were attending a rally you'd better believe I'd bring a double sided sign.

I see other signs in the picture that are not double sided. I don't see any other signs being held up arms fully extended. That would be difficult to do for more than a moment or two and there is no need to do so. If you want to make a photo with IMPACT, you ask the holder to hold the sign above the crowd so it stands out and dominates, and you also ask the holder to turn his back so as not to detract from the sign because the first thing a viewer looks at in a photo is a living human face. You compose your picture, click, tell the holder that he can lower his tired arms, chuckle devilishly and know you've got a hit. It is VERY convenient to have these factors accidentally converging at the same time a camera is right behind the sign holder ready to shoot the picture. I said it was PROBABLY staged.

Sorry if my critical thinking clouds your judgment.

You DO think well of yourself, don't you.

I've yet to see any real GOP leadership on these issues. Are there legitimate ideas out there? Of course there are, but they are not the focus of attention because the party is in a reactionary position and looking towards the quick emotional hit, the pundits, rather than those who might actually make a difference.

You DON'T think well of Republicans, do you. They just don't meet your standards of leadership.

About the only rationale I've seen from Republicans on the issue of health care has come from Republican "business executives".
-spence

HR77, HR109, HR198, HR270, HR321, HR464, HR502, HR544, HR917, HR1086, HR1118, HJR1441, HR1458, HR1468, HR1658, HR1891, HR2520, HR2607, HR2692, HR2784, HR2785, HR2786, HR2787, HR3141, HR3217, HR3218, HR3356, HR3372, HR3400, HR3438, HR3454, HR3478.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I see other signs in the picture that are not double sided. I don't see any other signs being held up arms fully extended. That would be difficult to do for more than a moment or two and there is no need to do so. If you want to make a photo with IMPACT, you ask the holder to hold the sign above the crowd so it stands out and dominates, and you also ask the holder to turn his back so as not to detract from the sign because the first thing a viewer looks at in a photo is a living human face. You compose your picture, click, tell the holder that he can lower his tired arms, chuckle devilishly and know you've got a hit. It is VERY convenient to have these factors accidentally converging at the same time a camera is right behind the sign holder ready to shoot the picture. I said it was PROBABLY staged.

Sorry if my critical thinking clouds your judgment.

I quickly grabbed a photo to spice up my post, not to serve as the backbone of the argument. Postulate all you want as to the origins of that photo, it does nothing to counter the assertion that as far as the GOP is concerned, demonizing Obama is prioritized over furthering any constructive debate.

You DON'T think well of Republicans, do you. They just don't meet your standards of leadership.

I don't really care about party. I vote based on the candidates and the issues, and I'm fairly certain I've voted for far more Republican candidates over the years than Democrats.

HR77, HR109, HR198, HR270, HR321, HR464, HR502, HR544, HR917, HR1086, HR1118, HJR1441, HR1458, HR1468, HR1658, HR1891, HR2520, HR2607, HR2692, HR2784, HR2785, HR2786, HR2787, HR3141, HR3217, HR3218, HR3356, HR3372, HR3400, HR3438, HR3454, HR3478.

So did you actually read any of these before you cut and pasted?

To provide for a credit for certain health care benefits in determining the minimum wage.

To amend the Small Business Act to make service-disabled veterans eligible under the 8(a) business development program.

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to analyze and report on the exchange rate policies of the People's Republic of China, and to require that additional tariffs be imposed on products of that country on the basis of the rate of manipulation by that country of the rate of exchange between the currency of that country and the United States dollar.

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to authorize assistance to improve security and promote economic development in Mexico.

Etc...

These are the great GOP ideas we've been waiting for? Did any make it past sub committee?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I quickly grabbed a photo to spice up my post, not to serve as the backbone of the argument. Postulate all you want as to the origins of that photo, it does nothing to counter the assertion that as far as the GOP is concerned, demonizing Obama is prioritized over furthering any constructive debate.

What is your connection of the GOP to that photo? Is the sign carrier a GOP congressman? Did the GOP give him the sign and tell him to display it? I have no idea who that person is, what his intentions are, to which party he is affiliated, for all I know, you sent him there. The photo does nothing to support the assertion that the GOP is demonizing Obama. And if it's a set-up, it is even worse.

I don't really care about party. I vote based on the candidates and the issues, and I'm fairly certain I've voted for far more Republican candidates over the years than Democrats.

So this is supposed to give you the bona fides to connect the GOP to that photo?

So did you actually read any of these before you cut and pasted?

To provide for a credit for certain health care benefits in determining the minimum wage.

To amend the Small Business Act to make service-disabled veterans eligible under the 8(a) business development program.

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to analyze and report on the exchange rate policies of the People's Republic of China, and to require that additional tariffs be imposed on products of that country on the basis of the rate of manipulation by that country of the rate of exchange between the currency of that country and the United States dollar.

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to authorize assistance to improve security and promote economic development in Mexico.

Etc...

These are the great GOP ideas we've been waiting for? Did any make it past sub committee?

-spence

When you google the HR numbers, you will find numbers for various years. For instance the HR321 that refers to the foreign exchange rate policies of China is the 2007 bill. The 2009 HR321 is the health care version. The HR502 that refers to security in Mexico is the 2007 bill. The 2009 bill is the health care version. The majority of the HRs I listed are small items. The largest, most important one, in the list is HR3218. It is titled Improving Health Care For all Americans Act, introduced by Republican House Representative John Shadegg.

So which NON-EXISTENT Republican health care proposal is Democrat congressman Alan Grace referring to when he says the Republican health care plan tells you to die quickly? Is this demonizing rather than furthering the debate? Or is it demonizing and obstructing only if a Republican says it?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

As for the missle shield in Europe...are we fighting the Cold War or the War on Terrorism? One observation (ok, also made by Fareed) is that US foreign policy too often tries to have it all. It calls for behavior modification and regime change and then complains when it gets neither.

It's quite possible that Obama's concession to Russia could add to our hand in Iran, and that this has a larger long-term net value for our security.

Does this mean that some reporting has glossed over these concerns? Perhaps, but was that of interest to the American media consumers? Perhaps not as much.

-spence

Discussing the missile shield is another lengthy topic. I introduced the SIZABLE POPULATION AND AREA of East Europe, as well as Israel, as well as sizable numbers of West Europeans, as a rather huge block of folks that Zakaria left out of his everyplace in the world except in America's Right-Wing netherworld. You called it marginalizing (which I think is a mean thing to do), I call it willful ignorance, misinformation, which leads me to mistrust what he says.

There is a great deal in Eastern Europe that SHOULD concern "American media consumers". And they might well be very interested, but, we remain ignorant, perhaps Zakaria as well, because the "media" doesn't tell us. As I said before, if all the truth resided in media reports, you might have a point.