[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 28, 9:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 28, 8:39*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Jun 28, 2:55*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 28, 1:47*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 28, 1:03*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 27, 4:21*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 27, 12:39*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 27, 8:24*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:

In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

when the dust settles, this generation or the next,
and Iranian people can govern themselves, they will rememeber
who stood up for them and who didn't.

So you advocate the US denouncing the Ayatollah and the one he has
apparently chosen as President. I disagree unless we are willing to
back that up with more than words.

Is that what you're in favor of? Otherwise it's pretty meaningless.

Clyde is in favor of standing up for the oppressed the way we did for
Hungary in 1956 and the Shia in Iraq after Gulf War I.
I will have to go abck and look at our President's satements
to see if they are as mealy mouthed as Obama's

The U.S. President, Dwight Eisenhower, was aware of a detailed study
of Hungarian resistance which recommended against U.S. military
intervention,[110] and of earlier policy discussions within the
National Security Council which focused upon encouraging discontent in
Soviet satellite nations only by economic policies and political
rhetoric.[111][112] In a 1998 interview, Hungarian Ambassador Géza
Jeszenszky was critical of Western inaction in 1956, citing the
influence of the United Nations at that time and giving the example of
UN intervention in Korea from 1950–53.[113]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungari...56#Internation...

Statement by Dwight D. Eisenhower (25 October 1956) The United States
considers the development in Hungary as being a renewed expression of
the intense desire for freedom long held by the Hungarian people. The
demands reportedly made by the students and the working people clearly
fall within the framework of those human rights to which all are
entitled, which are affirmed in the charter of the United Nations, and
which are specifically guaranteed to the Hungarian people by the
treaty of peace to which the Governments of Hungary and of the Allied
and Associated Powers, including the Soviet Union and the United
States, are parties. The United States deplores the intervention of
Soviet military forces which, under the treaty of peace, should have
been withdrawn and the presence of which in Hungary, as is now
demonstrated, is not to protect Hungary against armed aggression from
without but rather to continue an occupation of Hungary by the forces
of an alien government for its own purposes. The heart of America goes
out to the people of Hungary.

http://www.ena.lu/statement_dwight_e...prising_25_ o...

We "deplored" the military intervention. Our "heart [went] out to the
people of Hungary".

And 35 years later they loved us in Hungary for making such a strong
statement, once the Soviet Union fell apart. LoL..

Jesus. What a stupid thing to whine about.

A lot better than Obama!

And about as effective!

Unless we went in militarily it's all just words, just as it was then!

(Or, in Eisenhower's day, it was just "political rhetoric"!)

It's not a very big ****ing deal no matter how hard you try to make it
one!

There's nothing anybody could do unless they went in with guns and
stuff!

The best words are still just words!

so, it does not matter hat he says,
LOL!!!!
he can just crawl into alittle mhidey-hole and say nothing.
Of course it matters!

No, Clyde, it's like this: if Obama walks softly the right lambasts
him for not having any balls. If he comes out swinging the right moans
about "Oh, so this is how he intends to woo the Iranians".

Meanwhile, there is still a repressive regime in power in Iran that
would be there no matter what Obama said.

So we can conclude:

1. No matter what Obama did the right-wingnuts would weep, wail and
gnash their teeth, and

2. The repressive regime would still be in power in Iran.

LOL!!!!!

So it really doesn't matter!

Let's email Obama and ask him to tell the iranians that our hearts go
out to them! That'll show that mean Ayatollah!!!!!!

It sure does matter.

BTW, what effect did Eisenhower's words have? I know you thought they
were "much better" than Obama's, but exactly what net gain accored as
a result?

Here, I'll help you: "Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a
big difference because..."

the rest of the world listened to them

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 9:12*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 28, 9:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Here, I'll help you: "Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a
big difference because..."

the rest of the world listened to them

LOL!!!!

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same.

The world listens to what they say too.

LOL!!!!!!

And you admit they had no effect.

Get upset about something better.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 29, 10:43*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 29, 9:12*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 28, 9:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
Here, I'll help you: "Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a
big difference because..."

the rest of the world listened to them

LOL!!!!

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same.

where did I say that???????
The comparaison that George made, and that I was respoinding to,
was about Eisenhower.


The world listens to what they say too.

Yes they do, but that does not make them the same as the President
of the US. Some people even listen to me, and I am not the President!
the world just does not listen to one leader,
all of the leaders of key countries are listenned to.
But that does not make them the same as the President of the US.
You are laying out lots of false arguments and strawmen, I am afraid
to light a match!



LOL!!!!!!

And you admit they had no effect.


I never admitted that Kim or Amad... had no effect.
I didn't even talk about them.
Quit lying.


Get upset about something better.


LOL, I don't want to talk about California's troubles, the F-22 and
illegal immigrants in my neighborhood

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 12:49*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 29, 10:43*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to wrote:
On Jun 29, 9:12*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 28, 9:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
Here, I'll help you: "Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a
big difference because..."

the rest of the world listened to them

LOL!!!!

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same.

where did I say that???????
The comparaison that George made, and that I was respoinding to,
was about Eisenhower.

Let me slow it down for you:

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because...the rest of the world listened to them."

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same. The
world listens to what they say too.

Yes they do, but that does not make them the same as the President
of the US. Some people even listen to me, and I am not the President!

So you admit that you said something pretty stupid.

the world just does not listen to one leader,
all of the leaders of key countries are listenned to.
But that does not make them the same as the President of the US.
You are laying out lots of false arguments and strawmen, I am afraid
to light a match!

No, I'm pointing out the stupidity of your argument. Here it is again:

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because...the rest of the world listened to them."

LOL!!!!!!

And you admit they had no effect.

See?

I never admitted that Kim or Amad... had no effect.

I'm referring to Eisenhower's words here.

The world listened and...

Nothing changed. They had no effect. Period.

I didn't even talk about them.
Quit lying.

I'm not,

Get upset about something better.

LOL, I don't want to talk about California's troubles, the F-22 and
illegal immigrants in my neighborhood

No, you'd rather try to prove that statements like the one you're
upset about have no effect and make no difference. And you've done so
admirably.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 4:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:49*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 29, 10:43*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to wrote:
On Jun 29, 9:12*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 28, 9:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
Here, I'll help you: "Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a
big difference because..."

the rest of the world listened to them

LOL!!!!

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same.

where did I say that???????
The comparaison that George made, and that I was respoinding to,
was about Eisenhower.

Let me slow it down for you:

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because...the rest of the world listened to them."

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same. The
world listens to what they say too.

The world listens to comedy central too. *Thanks for admitting Obama
is a joke.

The proper analogy would be that words spoken on Comedy Central have
about the same effect in Iran as Obama's did, or Eisenhower's did in
Hungary.

So, 2pid, your buddy Clyde bit the dust. Give it a go!

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because..."

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

So, 2pid, your buddy Clyde bit the dust. Give it a go!

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because..."

Ike was a war hero, you f-bomb traighter.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 4:50*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

So, 2pid, your buddy Clyde bit the dust. Give it a go!

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because..."

Ike was a war hero, you f-bomb traighter.

Your nose demands an extraction of that statement.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because..."

Ike was a war hero, you f-bomb traighter.

Your nose demands an extraction of that statement.

You're rhetoric has no integrity.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 5:12*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 29, 2:46*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 29, 4:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because...the rest of the world listened to them."

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same. The
world listens to what they say too.

The world listens to comedy central too. *Thanks for admitting Obama
is a joke.

The proper analogy would be that words spoken on Comedy Central have
about the same effect in Iran as Obama's did, or Eisenhower's did in
Hungary.

So, 2pid, your buddy Clyde bit the dust. Give it a go!

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because..."

*Ike wasn't a stupid power hungry "say anything to get elected" tax
and spend liberal like Obama whose words mean less than a comedy
central skit.

LoL.

So your position is that the people in Hungary thought that
Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because... they foresaw a liberal being elected President and realized
they were living in heady times indeed."

Sorry, 2pid, but Clyde's proposition actually made more sense than
yours does.

Since Clyde's response made no sense whatsoever you should be horribly
embarrassed. LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 29, 3:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:49*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On Jun 29, 10:43*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to wrote:
On Jun 29, 9:12*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 28, 9:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
Here, I'll help you: "Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a
big difference because..."

the rest of the world listened to them

LOL!!!!

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same.

where did I say that???????
The comparaison that George made, and that I was respoinding to,
was about Eisenhower.

Let me slow it down for you:

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because...the rest of the world listened to them."

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same. The
world listens to what they say too.



Yes, the world listens to them, like when Ahmad... talks about
destroying
Israel, sure, the worl listens to him, or like whenn Kim talks about
delarations of war. But that dopes not amke them the same as the US
President.


Yes they do, but that does not make them the same as the President
of the US. Some people even listen to me, and I am not the President!

So you admit that you said something pretty stupid.


No, I made no comment on the quality of what I say. I only said that
'I am not the Pres, and some
people listen to me.


the world just does not listen to one leader,
all of the leaders of key countries are listenned to.
But that does not make them the same as the President of the US.
You are laying out lots of false arguments and strawmen, I am afraid
to light a match!

No, I'm pointing out the stupidity of your argument. Here it is again:

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because...the rest of the world listened to them."

LOL!!!!!!

And you admit they had no effect.


It makes a difference in how he is perceived, and how
other leaders will react to situations 'in the future.
Your argument is that what a President says, or if
he says nothing at all, about events in another country, events
that he has no particular control over at the time,
do not matter. Put your feelings about Obama aside, I don't think
you want to go there, that is pretty ridiculous, that
a President shold say mothing about major events in the world,
happening outside of his own country. I don't think
you would be saying that if it were an event that you
felt something about, some type of oppression
that bothered your sensibilities



See?

I never admitted that Kim or Amad... had no effect.

I'm referring to Eisenhower's words here.

The world listened and...

Nothing changed. They had no effect. Period.

I didn't even talk about them.
Quit lying.

I'm not,

Get upset about something better.

LOL, I don't want to talk about California's troubles, the F-22 and
illegal immigrants in my neighborhood

No, you'd rather try to prove that statements like the one you're
upset about have no effect and make no difference. And you've done so
admirably.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 29, 3:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:49*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On Jun 29, 10:43*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to wrote:
On Jun 29, 9:12*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 28, 9:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
Here, I'll help you: "Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a
big difference because..."

the rest of the world listened to them

LOL!!!!

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same.

where did I say that???????
The comparaison that George made, and that I was respoinding to,
was about Eisenhower.

Let me slow it down for you:

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because...the rest of the world listened to them."

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same. The
world listens to what they say too.

Yes they do, but that does not make them the same as the President
of the US. Some people even listen to me, and I am not the President!

So you admit that you said something pretty stupid.

the world just does not listen to one leader,
all of the leaders of key countries are listenned to.
But that does not make them the same as the President of the US.
You are laying out lots of false arguments and strawmen, I am afraid
to light a match!

No, I'm pointing out the stupidity of your argument. Here it is again:

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because...the rest of the world listened to them."

LOL!!!!!!

And you admit they had no effect.

See?

I never admitted that Kim or Amad... had no effect.

I'm referring to Eisenhower's words here.

The world listened and...

Nothing changed. They had no effect. Period.


weak words, or no words, might have had a negative effect, so maybe
he helped avoid something worse happening.



I didn't even talk about them.
Quit lying.

I'm not,

Get upset about something better.

LOL, I don't want to talk about California's troubles, the F-22 and
illegal immigrants in my neighborhood

No, you'd rather try to prove that statements like the one you're
upset about have no effect and make no difference. And you've done so
admirably.-

I understand your opinion of the matter.
Fine, I'll hold you to it later on, on another issue,
when you have advocated or applauded
our President's words on an international event.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 6:30*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:34*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:12*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 29, 2:46*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 29, 4:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because...the rest of the world listened to them."

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same.. The
world listens to what they say too.

The world listens to comedy central too. *Thanks for admitting Obama
is a joke.

The proper analogy would be that words spoken on Comedy Central have
about the same effect in Iran as Obama's did, or Eisenhower's did in
Hungary.

So, 2pid, your buddy Clyde bit the dust. Give it a go!

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because..."

*Ike wasn't a stupid power hungry "say anything to get elected" tax
and spend liberal like Obama whose words mean less than a comedy
central skit.

LoL.

So your position is that the people in Hungary thought that
Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because... they foresaw a liberal being elected President and realized
they were living in heady times indeed."

*No, that's definitely not it.

That's what you said. Try again then:

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because..."

Sorry, 2pid, but Clyde's proposition actually made more sense than
yours does.

*Actually, that would be your proposition, not mine

Did I misinterpret your statement? Show me whe

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because... Ike wasn't a stupid power hungry "say anything to get
elected" tax and spend liberal like Obama whose words mean less than a
comedy central skit."

Even assuming that your assessment of Obama is correct (a large
assumption), I wasn't aware that Hungarians could foresee the future.
LoL.

(though I'm sure
you'll quickly forget that as you often do) and I agree Clyde often
makes more
sense than you do.

Goody. Hundreds disagree with you.

Now try saying what you mean.

Imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 6:05*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:49*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 29, 10:43*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to wrote:
On Jun 29, 9:12*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 28, 9:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
Here, I'll help you: "Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a
big difference because..."

the rest of the world listened to them

LOL!!!!

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same.

where did I say that???????
The comparaison that George made, and that I was respoinding to,
was about Eisenhower.

Let me slow it down for you:

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because...the rest of the world listened to them."

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same. The
world listens to what they say too.

Yes, the world listens to them, like when Ahmad... talks about
destroying
Israel, sure, the worl listens to him, or like whenn Kim talks about
delarations of war. But that dopes not amke them the same as the US
President.

Duh.

It means that words without action are the same no matter who says
them.

It means that Kim Jong-il has more credibility then Eisenhower did.

Yes they do, but that does not make them the same as the President
of the US. Some people even listen to me, and I am not the President!

So you admit that you said something pretty stupid.

No, I made no comment on the quality of what I say. I only said that
'I am not the Pres, and some
people listen to me.

Some people listen to other some people.

My heart goes out to you.

the world just does not listen to one leader,
all of the leaders of key countries are listenned to.
But that does not make them the same as the President of the US.
You are laying out lots of false arguments and strawmen, I am afraid
to light a match!

No, I'm pointing out the stupidity of your argument. Here it is again:

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because...the rest of the world listened to them."

LOL!!!!!!

And you admit they had no effect.

It makes a difference in how he is perceived, and how
other leaders will react to situations 'in the future.
Your argument is that what a President says, or if
he says nothing at all, about events in another country, events
that he has no particular control over at the time,
do not matter. Put your feelings about Obama aside, I don't think
you want to go there, that is pretty ridiculous, that
a President shold say mothing about major events in the world,
happening outside of his own country. I don't think
you would be saying that if it were an event that you
felt something about, some type of oppression
that bothered your sensibilities

Iran does "bother my sensibilities". But I recognize the limitations
of words.

Our allies will still be our allies. Our enemies will still be our
enemies.

If you won't back up words with action they are empty and meaningless.
It is stupid to get upset over something as trivial as that.

As George pointed out bushie's "axis of evil" speech probably did more
to galvanize the three nations he referred to than anything else.

Eisenhower's words gave hope to the Hungarians that we might
intervene. Bush I's words made people believe we'd back the Shias in
Basra. We did nothing. We might as well have said, "Go home. It's
over. You lose."

Empty words are for empty-headed people.

And as I pointed out, with the right-wingnuts you're damned if you do
and damned if you don't. Look at how virtually every single move Obama
makes is a HUGE ISSUE to the right.

Guess what? Very few of them are. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 6:08*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

I'm referring to Eisenhower's words here.

The world listened and...

Nothing changed. They had no effect. Period.

weak words, or no words, might have had a negative effect, so maybe
he helped avoid something worse happening.

Pure speculation with absolutely no basis in known fact.

No, you'd rather try to prove that statements like the one you're
upset about have no effect and make no difference. And you've done so
admirably.-

I understand your opinion of the matter.
Fine, I'll hold you to it later on, on another issue,
when you have advocated or applauded
our President's words on an international event.

Also make sure that we've taken no other action. For example, I
applaud Obama's comments on Global Warming, but there's action behind
the words.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

ran does "bother my sensibilities". But I recognize the limitations
of words.

Our allies will still be our allies. Our enemies will still be our
enemies.

If you won't back up words with action they are empty and meaningless.
It is stupid to get upset over something as trivial as that.

As George pointed out bushie's "axis of evil" speech probably did more
to galvanize the three nations he referred to than anything else.

Eisenhower's words gave hope to the Hungarians that we might
intervene. Bush I's words made people believe we'd back the Shias in
Basra. We did nothing. We might as well have said, "Go home. It's
over. You lose."

Empty words are for empty-headed people.

And as I pointed out, with the right-wingnuts you're damned if you do
and damned if you don't. Look at how virtually every single move Obama
makes is a HUGE ISSUE to the right.

Guess what? Very few of them are. LoL.

Conservative Daniel Larison:

Americanists believe that any statement from the President that fails to
build up and anoint Mousavi as the preferred candidate is discouraging
to Mousavi and his supporters, because they apparently cannot grasp that
being our preferred candidate is to be tainted with suspicion of
disloyalty to the nation. It is strange how nationalists often have the
least awareness of the importance of the nationalism of another people.
Many of the same silly people who couldn¹t say enough about Hamas¹
so-called ³endorsement² of Obama as somehow indicative of his Israel
policy views, as well as those who could not shut up about his warm
reception in Europe, do not see how an American endorsement of a
candidate in another country¹s election might be viewed with similiar
and perhaps even greater distaste by the people in that country. As
Anatol Lieven explains here, Russian liberals destroyed their political
chances by being and being seen as stooges for Western interests and
allies of every anti-Russian policy that came down the pike.

--

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 9:51*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:21*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:30*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 29, 3:34*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:12*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 29, 2:46*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 29, 4:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because...the rest of the world listened to them."

So the US President and Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il are the same. The
world listens to what they say too.

The world listens to comedy central too. *Thanks for admitting Obama
is a joke.

The proper analogy would be that words spoken on Comedy Central have
about the same effect in Iran as Obama's did, or Eisenhower's did in
Hungary.

So, 2pid, your buddy Clyde bit the dust. Give it a go!

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because..."

*Ike wasn't a stupid power hungry "say anything to get elected" tax
and spend liberal like Obama whose words mean less than a comedy
central skit.

LoL.

So your position is that the people in Hungary thought that
Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because... they foresaw a liberal being elected President and realized
they were living in heady times indeed."

*No, that's definitely not it.

That's what you said. Try again then:

No, I didn't. *But the fact that you don't know
was or what wasn't said, says all that needs to be said
for your special skills.

You didn't say this? LOL!

"Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because..."

"Ike wasn't a stupid power hungry "say anything to get elected" tax
and spend liberal like Obama whose words mean less than a comedy
central skit."

LMAO!

When you deny what you've said try to wait until it isn't one post
away. LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Uh-oh. It's happening again.

*Ike wasn't a stupid power hungry "say anything to get elected" tax
and spend liberal like Obama whose words mean less than a comedy
central skit.

So your position is that the people in Hungary thought that
Eisenhower's words and political rhetoric made a big difference
because... they foresaw a liberal being elected President and realized
they were living in heady times indeed."

*No, that's definitely not it.

That's what you said. Try again then:

No, I didn't.

Does Scottiedog need to go for walkies? Bark louder so your people will know
you're stressed.

But the fact that you don't know
was or what wasn't said, says all that needs to be said
for your special skills.

Witless, this is well-trod ground: A Normal guy is trying to hold you to the
meaning of what you actually said, and you're trying to deny the meaning of
what you actually said. We all know how this will end: Either you'll stomp
off to nurse your wounds, or you'll launch into a full-volume woofdown.

Ho-hum.




--

"It is you who are completely unaware of what I perceive until
I choose to tell you. I rarely do."
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, Feb. 3 2009

" If you''re that interested in what I believe I'll tell you."
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, May 14 2009

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 9:58*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:38*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:





In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

ran does "bother my sensibilities". But I recognize the limitations
of words.

Our allies will still be our allies. Our enemies will still be our
enemies.

If you won't back up words with action they are empty and meaningless..
It is stupid to get upset over something as trivial as that.

As George pointed out bushie's "axis of evil" speech probably did more
to galvanize the three nations he referred to than anything else.

Eisenhower's words gave hope to the Hungarians that we might
intervene. Bush I's words made people believe we'd back the Shias in
Basra. We did nothing. We might as well have said, "Go home. It's
over. You lose."

Empty words are for empty-headed people.

And as I pointed out, with the right-wingnuts you're damned if you do
and damned if you don't. Look at how virtually every single move Obama
makes is a HUGE ISSUE to the right.

Guess what? Very few of them are. LoL.

Conservative Daniel Larison:

Americanists believe that any statement from the President that fails to
build up and anoint Mousavi as the preferred candidate is discouraging
to Mousavi and his supporters, because they apparently cannot grasp that
being our preferred candidate is to be tainted with suspicion of
disloyalty to the nation. It is strange how nationalists often have the
least awareness of the importance of the nationalism of another people.
Many of the same silly people who couldn¹t say enough about Hamas¹
so-called ³endorsement² of Obama as somehow indicative of his Israel
policy views, as well as those who could not shut up about his warm
reception in Europe, do not see how an American endorsement of a
candidate in another country¹s election might be viewed with similiar
and perhaps even greater distaste by the people in that country. As
Anatol Lieven explains here, Russian liberals destroyed their political
chances by being and being seen as stooges for Western interests and
allies of every anti-Russian policy that came down the pike.

*You better not breath, you may taint somebody.

Remember when bin Laden "endorsed" Kerry?

What was your response then, dum-dum?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 9:57*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Ho-hum.

Agreed.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 29, 8:36*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:08*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 29, 3:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
I'm referring to Eisenhower's words here.

The world listened and...

Nothing changed. They had no effect. Period.

weak words, or no words, might have had a negative effect, so maybe
he helped avoid something worse happening.

Pure speculation with absolutely no basis in known fact.

No, you'd rather try to prove that statements like the one you're
upset about have no effect and make no difference. And you've done so
admirably.-

I understand your opinion of the matter.
Fine, I'll hold you to it later on, on another issue,
when you have advocated or applauded
our President's words on an international event.

Also make sure that we've taken no other action. For example, I
applaud Obama's comments on Global Warming, but there's action behind
the words.

And it has no effect on China nad India, the
growing sources of green house gasses.
The effect of the actions, if anything, is negative.
gorwing regulation here help send businesses there,
where regulations are loose.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 29, 8:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:05*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:


Iran does "bother my sensibilities". But I recognize the limitations
of words.



But it is better to state one's position.
Even ifit has no immediate effect, not stating
it portrays one as being quite lame, too afraid to
say anything concrete. Others see that, and interpret
it as weakness.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 11:36*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 29, 8:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:05*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

Iran does "bother my sensibilities". But I recognize the limitations
of words.

But it is better to state one's position.
Even ifit has no immediate effect, not stating
it portrays one as being quite lame, too afraid to
say anything concrete. Others see that, and interpret
it as weakness.

Bull****.

Everybody knows (or knew, before bushie) that the US is ostensibly
against repression of freedom.

Nobody will 'think' we're suddenly in favor of it.

And guess what? The "weakness" is that everybody knows we won't do a
thing about it. As I said, words not backed by action are empty and
meaningless political rhetoric, just like Eisenhower's were.

Clyde? You're all upset about Obama's words in this case. I'm not. I
do not think it made a difference one way or another.

We'll leave it there.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

And guess what? The "weakness" is that everybody knows we won't do a
thing about it. As I said, words not backed by action are empty and
meaningless political rhetoric, just like Eisenhower's were.

Didn't you already mention that the U.S. encouraged non-Sunni Iraqis to rise
up against Saddam, and when they did, we abandoned them? I may have missed
Sacky's cogent rebuttal of that fact's seeming relevance. Please see if you
can get him to say it again.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 11:35*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 29, 8:36*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:08*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 29, 3:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
I'm referring to Eisenhower's words here.

The world listened and...

Nothing changed. They had no effect. Period.

weak words, or no words, might have had a negative effect, so maybe
he helped avoid something worse happening.

Pure speculation with absolutely no basis in known fact.

No, you'd rather try to prove that statements like the one you're
upset about have no effect and make no difference. And you've done so
admirably.-

I understand your opinion of the matter.
Fine, I'll hold you to it later on, on another issue,
when you have advocated or applauded
our President's words on an international event.

Also make sure that we've taken no other action. For example, I
applaud Obama's comments on Global Warming, but there's action behind
the words.

And it has no effect on China nad India, the
growing sources of green house gasses.
The effect of the actions, if anything, is negative.
gorwing regulation here help send businesses there,
where regulations are loose.

"Merchants have no country," -- Thomas Jefferson

"Everywhere and at all times men of commerce had neither heart nor
soul; their cash-box is their God... They traffic in all things, even
human flesh... Their country? Foutre! Businessmen have no country." --
Jacques Rene Hebert

When 3M moves their headquarters to India you'll have an argument. All
multinational corporations have overseas subsidiaries, hence the name
MNC.

Your argument: "China and India have lesser standards for the time
being than we do. Therefore, it is better for us to do nothing."
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 3:24*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

And guess what? The "weakness" is that everybody knows we won't do a
thing about it. As I said, words not backed by action are empty and
meaningless political rhetoric, just like Eisenhower's were.

Didn't you already mention that the U.S. encouraged non-Sunni Iraqis to rise
up against Saddam, and when they did, we abandoned them? I may have missed
Sacky's cogent rebuttal of that fact's seeming relevance. Please see if you
can get him to say it again.

Um, no, you didn't miss it. BTW, I think Stephen originally brought
that up. I threw Hungary in for good measure IIRC.

Anyway, his response was more of the same old tired empty crap.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 30, 4:03*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:36*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 29, 8:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:05*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

Iran does "bother my sensibilities". But I recognize the limitations
of words.

But it is better to state one's position.
Even ifit has no immediate effect, not stating
it portrays one as being quite lame, too afraid to
say anything concrete. Others see that, and interpret
it as weakness.

Bull****.

Everybody knows (or knew, before bushie) that the US is ostensibly
against repression of freedom.

Nobody will 'think' we're suddenly in favor of it.

And guess what? The "weakness" is that everybody knows we won't do a
thing about it. As I said, words not backed by action are empty and
meaningless political rhetoric, just like Eisenhower's were.

Clyde? You're all upset about Obama's words in this case. I'm not. I
do not think it made a difference one way or another.

We'll leave it there.

the weakness is that he was afraid to stand up and say anything about
it.
it shows fear that he would upset them to the point they
wouldn't hacve a nice cozy sit down with him

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 8:34*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 30, 4:03*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:36*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 29, 8:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:05*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

Iran does "bother my sensibilities". But I recognize the limitations
of words.

But it is better to state one's position.
Even ifit has no immediate effect, not stating
it portrays one as being quite lame, too afraid to
say anything concrete. Others see that, and interpret
it as weakness.

Bull****.

Everybody knows (or knew, before bushie) that the US is ostensibly
against repression of freedom.

Nobody will 'think' we're suddenly in favor of it.

And guess what? The "weakness" is that everybody knows we won't do a
thing about it. As I said, words not backed by action are empty and
meaningless political rhetoric, just like Eisenhower's were.

Clyde? You're all upset about Obama's words in this case. I'm not. I
do not think it made a difference one way or another.

We'll leave it there.

the weakness is that he was afraid to stand up and say anything about
it.
it shows fear that he would upset them to the point they
wouldn't hacve a nice cozy sit down with him

"Weakness". "Fear". "Afraid".

You buy a lot of the same **** that 2pid would.

Is it possible that there are words like "Different agenda",
"Different style", "Understanding that US influence would undercut the
rebellion", "Knew he wouldn't use military force", "Wait and see what
happened" or other possibilities?

Jump to better conclusions. Yours are dull and unimaginative.

BTW, how did you feel when Osama bin Laden "endorsed" John Kerry?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 30, 10:15*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 30, 8:34*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On Jun 30, 4:03*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:36*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 29, 8:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:05*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

Iran does "bother my sensibilities". But I recognize the limitations
of words.

But it is better to state one's position.
Even ifit has no immediate effect, not stating
it portrays one as being quite lame, too afraid to
say anything concrete. Others see that, and interpret
it as weakness.

Bull****.

Everybody knows (or knew, before bushie) that the US is ostensibly
against repression of freedom.

Nobody will 'think' we're suddenly in favor of it.

And guess what? The "weakness" is that everybody knows we won't do a
thing about it. As I said, words not backed by action are empty and
meaningless political rhetoric, just like Eisenhower's were.

Clyde? You're all upset about Obama's words in this case. I'm not. I
do not think it made a difference one way or another.

We'll leave it there.

the weakness is that he was afraid to stand up and say anything about
it.
it shows fear that he would upset them to the point they
wouldn't hacve a nice cozy sit down with him

"Weakness". "Fear". "Afraid".

You buy a lot of the same **** that 2pid would.

Is it possible that there are words like "Different agenda",
"Different style", "Understanding that US influence would undercut the
rebellion", "Knew he wouldn't use military force", "Wait and see what
happened" or other possibilities?


Like having his thumb up his ass?

Jump to better conclusions. Yours are dull and unimaginative.

BTW, how did you feel when Osama bin Laden "endorsed" John Kerry?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!- Hide quoted text -


I didn't feel anything at the time, because I didn't know
he did that.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 9:53*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 30, 10:15*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 30, 8:34*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 30, 4:03*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:36*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 29, 8:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:05*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

Iran does "bother my sensibilities". But I recognize the limitations
of words.

But it is better to state one's position.
Even ifit has no immediate effect, not stating
it portrays one as being quite lame, too afraid to
say anything concrete. Others see that, and interpret
it as weakness.

Bull****.

Everybody knows (or knew, before bushie) that the US is ostensibly
against repression of freedom.

Nobody will 'think' we're suddenly in favor of it.

And guess what? The "weakness" is that everybody knows we won't do a
thing about it. As I said, words not backed by action are empty and
meaningless political rhetoric, just like Eisenhower's were.

Clyde? You're all upset about Obama's words in this case. I'm not. I
do not think it made a difference one way or another.

We'll leave it there.

the weakness is that he was afraid to stand up and say anything about
it.
it shows fear that he would upset them to the point they
wouldn't hacve a nice cozy sit down with him

"Weakness". "Fear". "Afraid".

You buy a lot of the same **** that 2pid would.

Is it possible that there are words like "Different agenda",
"Different style", "Understanding that US influence would undercut the
rebellion", "Knew he wouldn't use military force", "Wait and see what
happened" or other possibilities?

Like having his thumb up his ass?

Sure! He could also be a secret Muslim waiting to overthrow the
"gov't"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jump to better conclusions. Yours are dull and unimaginative.

BTW, how did you feel when Osama bin Laden "endorsed" John Kerry?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!- Hide quoted text -

I didn't feel anything at the time, because I didn't know
he did that.

Fox said it was true so it must be.