The Middle East

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by BondJmsBond

For years now I've thought we'd be much better off if we sacked congress and the President and replaced them with 536 random people out of any phone book.

Well I wouldn't go that far. Hell it could be you or me I mean at least make sure they are actually American citizens.

[9876543210]

SanteeFats,

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Not all R's are war mongering rabid wolves that need to be put down.

Just wondering. Which Republican isn't a war monger-er? I know there must be one out there somewhere, just don't know who that would be.

And you are correct. There are lots of Dem. war monger-ers. I think Hillary is probably one of them.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Just wondering. Which Republican isn't a war monger-er? I know there must be one out there somewhere, just don't know who that would be.
And you are correct. There are lots of Dem. war monger-ers. I think Hillary is probably one of them.

Ahhh you got me there

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

C'mon 9 why just the R's??? Not all D's are peace loving doves you know. Not all R's are war mongering rabid wolves that need to be put down. Yes the military suppliers love it for the profits, I admit that freely. Can they lobby enough with the current admin to get wars to go on or start?? Give me a break on that, buddy. Plus there is plenty of action world wide to keep the profits coming, although not as much as when the big ones start.

What was the last time you saw any Shareholder meeting where the statement "no reason for us to grow our industry as there is enough action right now" ever received a vote for the Board to get is extra bonuses?

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Man I agree with almost all of your post here. Your points are well taken by me at least.

No reason to 'requote it all though!" Even I annoy myself having to read that much of me again!

Then again... what exactly are you inferring when you write "almost all"? The errant spelling errors right? )

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Yes there is so much dissension not only between the parties but also with in the parties themselves that not much if any thing gets done any more.
Again I agree that both the POTUS's have exceeded their authority by the use of EO's .
I don't even know why Obama is trying to get them to give up making nukes. They won't, even if they say they will. Maybe he just wants to use it as his legacy. If so a piss poor one IMO.

Sadly the only way to wake up Congress is to do the unthinkable and have Blue and Red States vote their standard polarity. If Oklahoma has nothing but lesbian bull dykes representing Congress for two years the new Republican incumbent will actually listen to the population and not simply take his continued victory as a given as would be the case if Oregon suddenly became totally Red. How can anyone expect responsible Government as long as those in power feel that 10-15% approval rating is acceptable since they still get elected?

I am not entirely sure that expecting Iran to give up Nukes is even a reality for anyone. Saudi Arabia's latest 'independent action' in Yemen makes it pretty clear that they will be the next nuclear power and no doubt when the Iranians consider the Wahhabi they see them as equally as insane as the Ayatollahs so we are merely going to have face a whole new construct of 1950-70's detente. In reality the problem is not Iran or SA having a nuke, despite all the Republican ranting 'the sky is falling' since a launch is easily detected and mapped so Iran fires a nuke at Israel and then a few half lifes later Disney puts up a new theme park on what used to be Iran named "Glassland" but rather if Iran or for that matter Saudi Arabia would provide the material to like minded extremist groups. If that is the case then turn to North Korea or Russia for that matter who already have that ability and in both cases are equally as crazy.

Remember those salad days when Nikita Khrushchev indicated that via nuclear power "we will bury you" and the world shuddered in horror at the term "history will be on our side" only to be followed decades later by Ronald Reagan proposing that there was such a thing as a winnable nuclear war and that.. yet again.. "history will be on our side."

Things are pretty much same just that the salad is no longer iceberg but fattoush.

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Ah the founding Fathers. Some believed in God, some were agnostic and guess what? some were actually atheists. ALL of them put God into their government though. Otherwise why open every session of Congress with a prayer? Of course they are the same men who gave the vote only to white, property owning white men.

Well never forget that the initial migration to America was founded on the premise that England in the 1600's was just too damn liberal!

And as a property owning white male I find your tone offensive! Then again my lineage leads to Empire Loyalists and even to one relative involved in the Underground Railway so possibly I am a bit biased!


As an aside except for the 'resident bigot' I am rather impressed with how this forum is able to tackle issues and we all are seemingly able to deal with tough issues that in most online forums would result in utter stupidity. How telling that only on a site dedicated to one of the most important cultural revolutions, albeit 1960-1970's porn, is comprised of people who can seemingly accept all aspects of the diametric.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

I think its fair to ding Obama on this, as he is someone who taught Constitutional Law, and criticized Bush on precisely this point. And yet, in office, with the opportunity to right what he said was wrong, he not only hasn't, he's compounded the error.

Knowing better is rarely a motivation for doing better in politics. Besides it isn't if just because Bush was more flash than knowledge and Obama is more knowledge than flash that each did not have a plethora of far superior information sources telling each of them "NO! BAD PRESIDENT! BAD!"

The last real lone wolf President was Nixon and even then not by choice, (btw if you want to see a phenomenal performance of what might have been Nixon's last days I suggest you see Secret Honor with Philip Baker Hall which I can post if anyone is interested), as every President has dozens of friends/consultants/handlers etc. telling them what they can or cannot do. Even the lower echelons still survive after the fact that they demonstrated themselves as failures during the time, Alberto Gonzales is now a media consultant even though I would suggest any serious interviewer would ask him "what.. NOW YOU RECALL?" So I am not sure we can ever really believe that a President makes all that many solo decisions, (okay one I will say was solo was George Bush's refusal to pardon Scooter Libby and even then I think Bushy figured he should have gone to jail).

Originally Posted by deepsepia

I would agree that the mood of the times has made this possible, but you elect a President not because he'll do "whatever is possible", but he'll also act in accordance with some set of principles, presumably the ones that he's told you about.

I absolutely agree with you on this. Of course this all works in principle until one in a singular power tower finds himself at odds with another power tower and both believe that only they have it right and that the ends justify the means. The old adage two wrongs do not make a right seems clear, although in practice three lefts do make a right, and it does seem that both branches of Government essentially stand on equivalent authorities:

Congress: We won in 2014 therefore the population repudiates your policy.

President: I won in 2008 on the policy of the Afforadable Health Care Act and I was again elected in 2012 therefore the population rejected your rejection of my policy.

Meanwhile this from our reporter in the field:

"Hello Deepsepia.. Tarkus do you hear me? .. jeez I can't hear either of them.. okay I'll just talk... the voters hate EVERYONE!"


At this point what exactly are we hoping for? Just a little less worse than what we already have or any attempt to actually do their job?

[Mal Hombre]

Can We get back on topic Please,This is The Middle East thread.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

Can We get back on topic Please,This is The Middle East thread.

Unless you want to debate the price of figs suggesting that the Western world politics does not directly impact the Middle East seems a bit lost?

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

What was the last time you saw any Shareholder meeting where the statement "no reason for us to grow our industry as there is enough action right now" ever received a vote for the Board to get is extra bonuses?

Oh Tarman are you saying that only the R's are rich and share in companies? Do you how D's are over the top rich?

Billionaire S. Daniel Abraham (Slimfast).
Billionaire Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway).
Billionaire Bill Gates (Microsoft).
Billionaire David Geffen (director/ filmmaker).
Billionaire William Randolph Hearst III (media/ publishing).
Billionaire Chris Hughes (co-founder, Facebook).
Billionaire Irwin Mark Jacobs (Qualcomm).
Billionaire George Kaiser (Kaiser Insurance/ Health Care).
Billionaire Peter B. Lewis, Dec’d Nov. 2013 (Progressive Auto Insurance)
Billionaire Sheryl Sandberg (COO, Facebook).
Billionaire Eric Schmidt (Google).
Billionaire Steven Spielberg (director/ filmmaker).
Billionaire George Soros (who is not a U.S. citizen).
Billionaire Oprah Winfrey (TV/ media)..

Do you think they don't want the maximum income they can get???

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

Well never forget that the initial migration to America was founded on the premise that England in the 1600's was just too damn liberal!
And as a property owning white male I find your tone offensive! Then again my lineage leads to Empire Loyalists and even to one relative involved in the Underground Railway so possibly I am a bit biased!.

Gee man sorry if you feel that way. It is a historical reality of our constitution. When they said all men were created equal they did not mean any one who was not white otherwise there would have been no slavery after the Rev War was won. Don't get me wrong I am very proud to be an American but I try not to be blinded, not saying you are my friend.
Oh by the way I not only own my own home but I have a rental as well. No I am not a slum lord either. The slum lord owns the property next to mine.