Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Freudian slip?
Barack Huissen Obama stated the other day that during his tour, he has visited 57 states. Unless he's planning on annexing part of Canada and/or Mexico, we have 50 states. Obama's representatives have been saying that he made the mistake because he was tired. That's a possibility.
However, there is another possibility.
This could be a Freudian slip... There are 57 Islamic states...
Coincidence?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
...and this guy wants to be president...
even Bush knows how many states there are.
Freudian slip seems pretty dead on...
wow how jingoistic to make a relation to the 57 islamic states... Why do you know that? Are you a terrorist?
I am not serious in my accusation, but I will say the way I perceived it was humorous. The man has been all over the nation and to say he's been to 57 states to me implies that he has visited so many it seems like he's been to more than we have.
If you want anyone to take you seriously you will do professional work and question the man for his mistake. Is he that unfamiliar with America to think there are 57 states? Probably not, has be been to 57 venues in several states, probably. God knows your show-pony Mr. Bush likes to misspeak.
No, I am not a terrorist. I just do my research.
To me, it seems like the man is not what he appears.
And P.S. At least Bush knows how many states there are... Obama clearly doesn't.
First off, what would be so bad about focusing on cooperation w/ the middle east?
Are you afraid it would change our culture? What about when we decided to get involved in East Asia's development in the 50's and 60's? Careful how you respond, you might insult someone's heritage.
Names are worthless. Drop this Hussein bullshit. I am Min Ho Park. But you will address me as Andrew Thomas Goral... Oh wait, what if I sympathize with Kim Jong Il because I was born in Korea? Hell I am have more reason to be allied with North Korea than Barrack has to be with terrorists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWf7w--TwyU
And your homeboy McCain thinks Iraq is training Al-Qaeda.
I'd see this as MUCH more frightening... someone who may be our next President not knowing who we're fighting against...
...y'know, if I cared. Or if it mattered. Because a "Freudian Slip" doesn't mean a goddamn thing.
Mountains out of molehills, people.
you mean Iran, but I gotcha, HOLY CRAP SOMEONE MISSPOKE AND I STILL UNDERSTOOD THEIR INTENT
Ironic, I do the same thing being discussed.
Iran training Al-Qaeda. Not Iraq.
...Hope I get this off before someone calls me on it, claiming it invalidates my argument.
Yeah, seems rather illogical to jump on the "57 Islamic states" thing because of one mistake.
This Hussein emphasis thing makes you look unprofessionally biased. Yes, all blogs have bias which is usually portrayed through what they cover, but this seems to me like you're trying really, really hard (and grasping at straws, perhaps?) to make him look bad. I'm very unimpressed.
That makes this blog look bad. It makes me wonder why I keep coming back here.
First off, it's not that hard to make BHO look bad. And what if McCain or Bush said this? You libs would be all over him.
Hussein is his middle name. It's not like we're lying when we use it. We don't try to align Barack w/ terrorists because of his middle name, he does it quite well on his own with the terrorist company that he keeps, Bill Ayers, His mentor for 20 years J. Wright who is sympathetic to Hamas. Look at BHO objectively and you'll see that his "hope and change" speak is not the hope and change that you want. He's even said that he would meet with Ahmadinejad without pre-condition...This guy is dead set on destroying israel and it's allies and barack thinks he's gonna sweet talk him like he's done with his blind followers. Ahmadinejad with make Barack the biggest tool of iran. Barack is Jimmy Carter on steroids.
ah yes because Hamas and Ahmadinejad have no right to rule their own regions as they see fit. I'd like to see how you would react if Europe played hardball with us the way we like to play hardball with the middle east.
also, I would like to state that politicians you like you to forget that Hamas, Al Qaida, Communists, including Iranians, and North Koreans are human beings, you know, people. They make mistakes, just like us, as they react in the way they see best fit to defend their own interests. Is there anything wrong with trying to open a discourse with these people (hard for you to believe, I know) to solve human rights issues peacefully?
I guess it is quicker to drop a bomb smarter than most American high school graduates on them, but it sure as hell makes their kids hate us too. Maybe that is part of the problem. You think dropping bombs has no negative consequence if it kills the people who hate America. The problem therein is that the survivors will grow to hate us as well.
I would also like to note the "you libs" that TGA pulled out.
I hate that. I would have mocked people for making such a mistake, but I wouldn't have made the leap to "Islamic states."
But thanks for the generalization.
Always appreciated. :)
(the korean)Andrew,
When islamo-facists commit terrorist acts, they don't do it by mistake. They know exactly what they are doing! It is their mandate. The only talking these terrorists want to hear is our muffled prayers while we're face down on our prayer mats facing mecca.
Ponder this: In war, when one side understands that it is at war (Islamic terrorist), and the other side(people like yourself) thinks that its adversaries are apostles of peace, which side has the advantage?
Is it going to take another 9/11 for you people to understand the threat we face?
amelia,
Sorry about "you libs". What works better? you facists, you commies, you socialists, you can choose...
I have to agree with the Great American, the threat is greater than I think some of you realize. Our troops aren't over there baking cakes with the terrorists or painting their portraits. They are giving their lives every day making it safer for us here at home.
Wow Great American. That was lame. I'm done with this blog.
That seems pretty typical for your sort, amelia...Cut and Run...true form!
I could do what your type does, and declare war you you for disagreeing. Also I think its funny how we bomb our ally Pakistan, killing their citizens, yet the "terrorists" are the bad guys. Here's an novel idea, let's let the retarded violence stop with us first. its better to be a victim in the right than what this nation has become today.
also tga, youre wrong. We could have won this war. We could have skipped this fucking bullshit hearts and minds, and broken their will to fight. Carpet bombing, shoot on sight etc. But you guys had the big stiffy for war, and had to be the goddamn heroes. You don't win a war by winning hearts and minds you do it by killing enemies. While I disagreed with the entrance into this war I still think it should have been fought right and let the history books decide if we violated human rights. Now its just a human rights shitfest.
And I never said that they are apostles of peace. They are vicious murderers. But it would be better to negotiate now than be sorry for another 9-11. You that what we are doing over there now is just instilling more hate in their minds for this great nation, because all it has ever done to them is kill them.
I would always rather talk with someone than to harm them. Is the agnostic here who is certain that Christ (an all other religous figures) had no special "divine powers", is a better Christian than you all are? That would be pitiful.
TKA,
You clearly don't understand our enemy. We aren't fighting a country that has a leader that we can sit down and talk with. We are fighting terrorists, al-qaeda specifically. Who should we negotiate with? This isn't World War II where we are going to have some big treaty signing on the USS Missouri and then POOF fighting stops. These are terrorists who don't adhere to any type of rules of war. From the very beginning President Bush said that this war is going to be a type of war that you've never seen. They don't hate us because "we kill them", they hate the freedom we enjoy and they hate the fact that we don't bow down to Allah. They won't negotiate. Plain and simple. If you can think of some plausible way to negtiate with these idiots, I'd be more than happy to hear you out.
Also, TKA, I do declare war against anyone that disagrees with me. Currently I'm killing NON-conservative christian Red Wing fans who hate bulldogs, pizza and my wife.
great logic though TKA
I giggle of your use of "you libs" The Great American, because it's a humorous childish insult thrown by what looks to be a petty, childish man hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.
Besides, I may be a "bleeding-heart liberal," or whatever-the-hell you want to label me these days, but especially on the internet, I argue from a moderate-slightly-left-of-center position, because let's be honest.
Your opinion means nothing. My opinion means nothing. The moderates, like normal, are going to decide the election.
But on to the "logic" you seem to have. Let's start with this.
"We aren't fighting a country that has a leader that we can sit down and talk with. We are fighting terrorists, al-qaeda specifically. Who should we negotiate with?"
If a region is infested with terrorists, and you're having a hell-of-a-time getting them out, you look to the dominant powers in the region. We already do, Saudi Arabia. We're VERY friendly with this hard-Islamic nation.
Sadly, there is one other major power in the region (besides Israel, as well, but nobody likes them in that region), and that is IRAN.
So should we talk to Iran? Hell yes. Hamas? Go for it. Without asking for a goddamn thing.
I don't demand a dollar whenever a "conservative" (yes, I use quotes, I'll argue you're not a true conservative any day, just based on your comments) wants to talk to me, and our foreign policy shouldn't work the same way. Obviously, for the last god-knows how many years, requiring terms BEFORE we send diplomats hasn't been working. Our diplomatic policy has been completely useless, and our standing in the world has decreased. Ask for the general opinion of John Bolton as our UN delegate. You'll hear he's pompous, arrogant, irate... a variety of things that you don't want out of a diplomat.
Besides.
Iran and North Korea are still going nuclear.
Syria is still messing with Lebanon.
Iraq is still infested with terrorists, after we created a giant power vacuum.
And, after all this, we stay the course. Keep requiring things of countries before we speak to them.
And then we wonder why they don't like us or our allies.
Also, on to Barack's middle name.
If it's a non-issue, why keep using it?
Why is it only used to further the myth that the guy is a Muslim? And who cares if he is?
You can't have it both ways. Either the guy is a Muslim, or he has a nutter of a preacher. Pick one.
Oh, and I missed this in my last post.
"And what if McCain or Bush said this? You libs would be all over him."
Did you watch that Youtube video? Did you not see me call it a non-issue?
l0que - there is such a thing as being "in the closet" about something. It is possible that BHO is still a closet Muslim and puts on the front of being Christian with an absolutely insane pastor. Because he probably realizes, the chances of a Muslim president being elected post-9/11 are very very slim.
I say "you libs" because I just call 'em like I see 'em.
I'm not "hiding behind the anonymity of the internet" I will say the exact same things to anybody face-to-face, in fact I do say the same things to peoples faces daily.
If we talk to Iran or Hamas, it 1. legitimizes them. I know, I know "they won democratically" bullcrap! Two, if we go with no pre-conditions they will use us. We have now become a tool of Iran and Hamas.
And I would like to hear you argue how I'm not a "true conservative"
"If we talk to Iran or Hamas, it 1. legitimizes them. I know, I know "they won democratically" bullcrap! Two, if we go with no pre-conditions they will use us. We have now become a tool of Iran and Hamas."
It doesn't legitimize them until we say it does.
Both of them are potentially making our job in Iraq more difficult. If this is the case, we NEED to get them to the table, and figure out how to get them to stop. Period.
Besides, the only reason we don't like them is because they don't like Israel. Israel is a big kid now, he'll be fine.
And as for Obama being a closet Muslim, the issue never took root, nobody believed it except for the rightist talking heads. He'd have no reason to conspire up a crazy preacher, especially one that has done so much damage to his campaign.
"Besides, the only reason we don't like them is because they don't like Israel. Israel is a big kid now, he'll be fine"
And we don't like them because they hijacked some plane and killed over 3,000 of our citizens.
So now we sellout Israel. Our strongest middle-east, if not strongest ally period. That makes absolutely no-sense!
"If this is the case, we NEED to get them to the table, and figure out how to get them to stop. Period."
Convert to Islam and let them take target at Israel and oppress our women and deport Jews and kill christians and restrict our simple freedoms...shall I go on? They won't stop until THEY rule us!
Iran and Al-qaeda aren't in league with each other, for one. So no, Iran didn't kill 3000 of our citizens. Neither did Hamas, for that matter.
w
Mute point, uneducated point, and just a scare tactic used by the right. Seen that youtube link I posted yet? McCain was refuted on the same point.
For two, we don't have to denounce our alliances to TALK to people. Nor do we have to "sell out."
It's always struck me as ironic that the conservatives are the ones pushing for hard line foreign policy, especially because just 20 years ago, they were OK with Reagan selling arms to the same people we want an excuse to attack.
And, we get along so damn-well with the Saudis, who are in the SAME goddamn boat. They don't like Israel, yet we still deal with them. A lot.
10que said:
"Iran training Al-Qaeda"
and then said
"Iran and Al-qaeda aren't in league with each other, for one."
Which one is it?
You said you want to get them to the table to figure out what will get them to stop. Like I said, giving them what they want to stop is 1. rule over us and 2. Israel. plain and simple
We deal with the Saudi's for one reason. Oil. Which we need to stop doing...by drilling our own oil. Not to mention that the Saudis aren't the ones talking about wiping Israel off the map.
We don't need to talk to them to understand what they want. Don't forget, we don't negotiate with terrorists. How do we expect them to be people of reason when they do the things they do? It's an absurd and ignorant expectation.
Don't tell me that Iran, Iraq, Hamas etc. had no sort of hand of anything in terrorist attacks against our civilians. the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Just like us and Russia in WWII, we hated each other, but we both fought the nazis.
Ok. Clarification time. I'm not only L0que, but I'm also Dale. When I said
"Iran training Al-Qaeda. Not Iraq."
It was in response to the typo in my first comment, under Dale. Before I learned to work this damn blogging system.
Also, in regards to you STILL assuming Iran and Hamas are helping Al-Qaeda, you're dead wrong. Your ignorance of Islam is showing.
Al-Qaeda is a SUNNI ISLAM organization, while Iran is a SHI'A nation. The two DON'T get along, and would NOT work together, whatsoever. They have completely opposite goals. Getting them to work together would be as easy as getting the Israelites to support Iran.
Hamas, while Sunni, isn't aiding Al-Quaeda, either. If you think they are, enlighten me with a link. Because I can't find a connection.
And your assumption that ALL Iran and Hamas want is the destruction of Israel, and to become our rulers, get realistic.
It should be OBVIOUS we wouldn't give them what they want, and, y'know, we could COMPROMISE on something.
But, the best part of this entire thing was your quote:
"Don't tell me that Iran, Iraq, Hamas etc. had no sort of hand of anything in terrorist attacks"
Because NONE of the hijackers were from any of those nations. 15 were from SAUDI ARABIA, two from the UAE, and one from Lebanon.
So no, Hamas and Iran had nothing to do with it. At all.
And, just as a general rule: Just as not all Christians are alike in North America, not all followers of Islam are the same in the middle east.
Also, link me to an act of Iranian terrorism. I'd like to see it.
Also, Saudi Arabia has spearheaded a middle-eastern embargo of Israeli trade, and has no relations with them what-so-ever. They don't like Israel, but won't denounce them because we'd get pissed.
And, I'd like to remind you. The foreign policy we've been using (Y'know, ignore Hamas, Iran, and Syria until they go away) has not worked what-so-ever. Isn't it time for a change?
"Because NONE of the hijackers were from any of those nations. 15 were from SAUDI ARABIA, two from the UAE, and one from Lebanon"
I wasn't referring solely to 9/11, I'm talking about terrorist attacks in general. Not to mention, Iran is the guiding hand behind the insurgency. That should be a sufficient link.
Please tell me what we could COMPROMISE on? I'm very curious...
Well, when you say
"Don't tell me that Iran, Iraq, Hamas etc. had no sort of hand of anything in terrorist attacks against our civilians."
...yeah.
I want an article, ANYTHING, saying that Iran is the "master hand," because if any of my foreign policy research / classes have taught me anything, it's that there are ALOT of different factions trying to fill the power gap, and all Iran is doing is selling weapons to them.
As for a compromise, how about this scenario?
"Hey, Iran, quit saying you want to destroy Israel, and quit selling arms to Iraqi insurgents. In return, we'll help you with your PEACEFUL nuclear program, and we'll throw in some foreign aid."
Is that so bad? Does that enslave us?
Also, anything else on my points? Or are you content arguing semantics?
How about the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. They both said that Iran is behind the insurgency!
"Hey, Iran, quit saying you want to destroy Israel, and quit selling arms to Iraqi insurgents. In return, we'll help you with your PEACEFUL nuclear program, and we'll throw in some foreign aid."
WoW! You are very dilluted if you actually think that is going to work...You clearly don't understand the whole Muslim/Jew thing. Ahmadinejad DOES NOT want a peaceful nuclear program. And sure we'll throw in some foregin aid that will SURELY see it's way to the citizens of Iran. People like Ahmadinejad are nutcases who don't understand reason. How do you not see that?!
Don't tell me that Iran wants enriched uranium for energy. They are sitting on a WEALTH of oil. But I'm SURE he just wants to be a good steward of the earth...riiiiigggghhht.
It's just an example, and allows us to make sure they AREN'T making weapons. Good job focusing on that part of the argument, though.
All you do is spout nonsense like the talking heads on Fox News.
"WoW! You are very dilluted if you actually think that is going to work...You clearly don't understand the whole Muslim/Jew thing. Ahmadinejad DOES NOT want a peaceful nuclear program. And sure we'll throw in some foregin aid that will SURELY see it's way to the citizens of Iran. People like Ahmadinejad are nutcases who don't understand reason. How do you not see that?!"
Also, how do we know any of this if Washington refuses to try? You'd think we could give it a shot, and if they act like children, THEN we can ignore them.
Oh, and also, don't chide me on the history of Muslim / Jew relations when you don't know anything about the separate sects of Islam.
It's been made quite clear I've got a more firm grasp of middle-eastern religious relations, here.
"It's been made quite clear I've got a more firm grasp of middle-eastern religious relations, here."
CLEARLY! It really shows considering you think that if we offer to help Iran with a peaceful nuke program and ask them to stop threatening israel that it will happen.
If you don't believe what you previously said, Then please give me something that the US and Iran can seriously compromise on...
"It's just an example, and allows us to make sure they AREN'T making weapons. Good job focusing on that part of the argument, though."
It was the part of your "argument that I had requested. So of course when you say something as dumb as your "compromise" with Iran, Im going to call you on it. If you can't take the heat...
Anything that I say we can compromise on with Iran you're just going to shoot down anyways, with no evidence to back it up, because we've never tried.
And, there is a MAJOR difference between peaceful nuclear energy, and making nukes. If we help with the peaceful one, they won't have weapons. Takes different nuclear material, different facilities... yet again, you don't know what your talking about.
And as for threatening Israel, we have enough influence over the Saudis that all they do is boycott them, and don't interact with them diplomatically. With enough pressure / time, I'm sure we could get Iran to do the same.
Regardless, it's all a moot point until we try, something the right isn't even willing to do.
"Anything that I say we can compromise on with Iran you're just going to shoot down anyways, with no evidence to back it up, because we've never tried."
Wow, thats weak brother. So what if I shoot it down. I wanna hear what we can actually compromise with them on. You won't know if I'll shoot it down unless you try.
The only reason I said "nuke" was just to use a short hand way of saying "nuclear". I wasn't referring to nuclear bombs. Just to clarify...
Now, what's REALLY weak is that the issue you're focusing on is an example that I've used. There are a variety of other things I've called you on that you've chosen to ignore, so yes, I'll not find an example. I've no clue what they could possibly want from us. We could ask, though. Maybe they've got something they need that isn't completely off the wall. As I keep repeating, it's worth asking, especially when the end result could be less-armed militants in Iraq.
Also, scratch Hamas from the entire argument. Just read something on CNN saying Obama won't talk to them.
I'll ask again. What could we realistically compromise on?
If you're so hell-bent on something we can compromise on, you've already shot down foreign aid, cleaner energy...
How about we take them off of our "axis of evil" list, and we start loosening the many, many sanctions we have on the nation?
That's a start, and not off the wall.
But, I'm sure you'll have an issue with them, without any evidence to back it up.
Also, from this point forward, I am not near an internet connection until Sunday night.
"How about we take them off of our "axis of evil" list, and we start loosening the many, many sanctions we have on the nation?"
You think that will get them to stop rearing the insurgency, to stop developing nuclear technology which is clearly for building nuclear bombs, to stop threatening Iraq?
You truly underestimate them.
I meant to say "stop threatening *Israel*"
Post a Comment