Image Of U.S. Given Boost By Obama

[zrinkill]

The image of the U.S. overseas has been given a positive bounce from President Obama.

A 22-country Ipsos-Reuters poll shows 42 percent of the respondents have a favorable impression of America.


The figure is six percentage points larger since Obama's election in November.


The survey indicates favorable views increased to 49 percent in Turkey, the only majority Muslim nation that was polled.


The poll was conducted between April 14th and May 7th, after Obama was in Istanbul and talked with religious leaders.


Clifford Young of Ipsos Global Public Affairs says Obama is having a positive effect and is making a vital global contribution to boosting U.S. credibility.

Out of the 22 nations polled, three failed to record an increase in the positive image of the U.S.


Russia remained unchanged at 18 percent, Poland recorded a decline of four points to 48 percent and the Czech Republic went down a point to 35 percent.

http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=72202




.
.
.
.


I am actually surprised its not more than a .06 rise.

[bbgun]

Funny how no one ever seems to care what Americans think of the world, be it Europe or the Middle East. Instead, we're the ones to be judged and scrutinized. Yep, very funny indeed.

[firehawk350]

I'm curious what an Israeli poll would look like...

[Bob Sacamano]

on NOES!!

[bbgun]

I'm curious what an Israeli poll would look like...

You'll never see one. Jews and Yanks don't count.

[zrinkill]

I will say again ...... a 6% (.06) rise in popularity has to be a dissapointment to the left.

After the witch hunt they have done on Bush ..... seems like it would be up by at least 20%

[justbob]

And when it comes right down to it -I don't care one bit of the other countries like us . I want them to be our friends because we are the biggest boy on the block and they don't want to piss us off..

[masomenos]

And when it comes right down to it -I don't care one bit of the other countries like us . I want them to be our friends because we are the biggest boy on the block and they don't want to piss us off..

Actually, it's much safer to be respected than feared.

[Doomsday101]

Actually, it's much safer to be respected than feared.

That is what Jimmy Carter thought as well and the US image overseas was weak. Respect from allies is important to an extent but fear from our enemies is a good thing in my view

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm curious what an Israeli poll would look like...

I don't know for sure, but I suspect it may look something like this.

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2008/7/23jul3-pole-goes-deep.jpg


I kid..... I kid.......

:D

[masomenos]

That is what Jimmy Carter thought as well and the US image overseas was weak. Respect from allies is important to an extent but fear from our enemies is a good thing in my view

Well, ideally, you don't want enemies. That's why the founding fathers largely supported a non-interventionist foreign policy. The problem with fear is that it breads contempt; history is littered with examples of the masses turning against their controlling force. So, the problem with a foreign policy based on instilling fear is that it can lead people to feel as if they are being exploited by a greater power. That feeling of exploitation is exactly what a large portion of the world feels (whether true or not). From South America to the Middle East to the communist East, a lot of the political uprisings in the past 50 years have been in response to globalization and the sphere of influence that the U.S. has in that converting power.

That said, I know that you can never please everyone and that there will always be some enemies. I don't advocate sacrificing our principles in order to please those who oppose us and sometimes those enemies have to be taken head on, like Reagan did with the U.S.S.R. However, every effort should be made to promote mutual respect, when possible.

[Doomsday101]

Well, ideally, you don't want enemies. That's why the founding fathers largely supported a non-interventionist foreign policy. The problem with fear is that it breads contempt; history is littered with examples of the masses turning against their controlling force. So, the problem with a foreign policy based on instilling fear is that it can lead people to feel as if they are being exploited by a greater power. That feeling of exploitation is exactly what a large portion of the world feels (whether true or not). From South America to the Middle East to the communist East, a lot of the political uprisings in the past 50 years have been in response to globalization and the sphere of influence that the U.S. has in that converting power.

That said, I know that you can never please everyone and that there will always be some enemies. I don't advocate sacrificing our principles in order to please those who oppose us and sometimes those enemies have to be taken head on, like Reagan did with the U.S.S.R. However, every effort should be made to promote mutual respect, when possible.

When you reach your hand out and they fire missiles the next day I think you know what the answer is. I don't like the President running around saying how sorry we are, this country has done a lot more right in this world than negative, we have freed nations and we have feed nation we do a lot and get little credit for it we need not roll over for the world. When our allies need us they know they can count on us and our enemies they should understand and fear us that we will act with strength not weakness and what we say we mean not this saber rattling you see from these 3rd world leaders.

[ABQCOWBOY]

In 1903, Teddy Roosevelt made a speech in Chicago. Those words ring as clear today as they did over 100 years ago.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick."

I think that they are words for this Country to live by.

[jrumann59]

Actually, it's much safer to be respected than feared.


I would prefer both but in today's society and the morons we elect it will always be one or the other. At least with GWB the world was more nervous than a cat in room full of rocking chairs, he was a bit erratic. Everyone knows what Obama will do, same old apologize for being America, meetings without preconditions, we need a nicer more sensitive world.

[masomenos]

I would prefer both but in today's society and the morons we elect it will always be one or the other. At least with GWB the world was more nervous than a cat in room full of rocking chairs, he was a bit erratic. Everyone knows what Obama will do, same old apologize for being America, meetings without preconditions, we need a nicer more sensitive world.

Well, I really don't think that's a fair assessment of what Obama would do. He hasn't been faced with a direct, overt threat like Bush was, so naturally he's going to be less of a "cowboy" at this time. I have no doubt that Obama would have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11 though, he even defended the action today.

If Bush had limited out military action to Afghanistan, then I don't think we would have seen the "nervous" world that you speak of. In fact, I would argue that a "nervous" world isn't really preferable to the opposite, a world that knows what to expect. Nervousness can lead to rash, miscalculated and desperate actions.

I haven't really viewed Obama's apologetic tone as one of weakness though. Instead of saying ,"Hey, we're sorry, what can we do to make it up to you" it's more like he's saying "Hey, we're sorry that you feel this way, let's just move on". Anyone who's ever been in an argument with a significant other knows that there is a marked difference in the respective tone of those responses. Given the current political situation in Iran, I think that Obama's Mid-East speech had everything to do with the upcoming election. He went over to a Muslim country and said that the Muslim world and the Western world don't have to be at odds with one another, that we don't embrace the current conflict. If voters in Iran see that and believe that America isn't just some imperial power looking to exploit resources, then maybe they'll end up voting in a more moderate president and not reelecting Ahmadinejad.

I see actions like that, the diplomatic projection of influence, as a sign of strength, not weakness.

[burmafrd]

You must be feared by your enemies or they will attack you. So its much better to be feared then respected, especially the way things are now.
Considering how villified Bush was by the whole worlds press, its telling that the change has been VERY SMALL.

[masomenos]

You must be feared by your enemies or they will attack you. So its much better to be feared then respected, especially the way things are now.
Considering how villified Bush was by the whole worlds press, its telling that the change has been VERY SMALL.

It's not really. No nation state is going to attack us, regardless of whether they fear or respect us. It's the individuals who spread extremism who are a threat and they don't have to worry about fearing us, because there is no direct impact, in relation to the extremist movement, as a result of their actions.

If you're feared, then you have enemies.

If you're respected, then you have fewer enemies.

Of course the world needs to understand that we won't hesitate to respond to an attack, but that's not the fear that I'm talking about.

[justbob]

It's not really. No nation state is going to attack us, regardless of whether they fear or respect us. It's the individuals who spread extremism who are a threat and they don't have to worry about fearing us, because there is no direct impact, in relation to the extremist movement, as a result of their actions.

If you're feared, then you have enemies.

If you're respected, then you have fewer enemies.

Of course the world needs to understand that we won't hesitate to respond to an attack, but that's not the fear that I'm talking about.

I 'll give a little --Respected by your friends and FEARED by everyone else.Feared not because you are a bully -but because you are capable and willing to use all means necessary to protect your own--without saying you are sorry

[lewpac]

I wonder what brought the attack at Pearl Harbor? Fear or Respect?

As far as I can figger, I don't know of any reason why the U.S. put fear in the hearts of the world in 1941. Seems like we we're a peaceable enough nation at the time. I don't know of any "imperialism" or "arrogance" or "saber rattling" or "war mongering" on Roosevelt's behalf. By all accounts, we were respected and looked up to and acknowledged as a great nation.

Yet, we were attacked!

There's the old story of the hippie, peace nick, lib who of course didn't believe in guns. Didn't believe in violence. A real "turn the other cheek" guy. Real big on "lets just talk this over" and "war never solved anything".

Yeah, he didn't believe in guns. But the three guys coming up his driveway at 2:20 am DID BELIEVE IN GUNS. And now, his wife is dead, his two kids are maimed for life, and his life has been turned inside-out.

Think this is some kind of metaphor or an allegory or "lesson story". It's not? I knew this guy back in Houston. He's the poster boy for "a conservative is a liberal who got mugged".

[Rackat]

I wonder what brought the attack at Pearl Harbor? Fear or Respect?

As far as I can figger, I don't know of any reason why the U.S. put fear in the hearts of the world in 1941. Seems like we we're a peaceable enough nation at the time. I don't know of any "imperialism" or "arrogance" or "saber rattling" or "war mongering" on Roosevelt's behalf. By all accounts, we were respected and looked up to and acknowledged as a great nation.

Yet, we were attacked!

There's the old story of the hippie, peace nick, lib who of course didn't believe in guns. Didn't believe in violence. A real "turn the other cheek" guy. Real big on "lets just talk this over" and "war never solved anything".

Yeah, he didn't believe in guns. But the three guys coming up his driveway at 2:20 am DID BELIEVE IN GUNS. And now, his wife is dead, his two kids are maimed for life, and his life has been turned inside-out.

Think this is some kind of metaphor or an allegory or "lesson story". It's not? I knew this guy back in Houston. He's the poster boy for "a conservative is a liberal who got mugged".
Look up the "Lend/Lease" act that FDR signed off on. You'll see why we had war declared on us by Germany.
Look up the Steel industry stats from 1936-1941 and you'll see why Japan attacked us.

[Sasquatch]

I wonder what brought the attack at Pearl Harbor? Fear or Respect?

As far as I can figger, I don't know of any reason why the U.S. put fear in the hearts of the world in 1941. Seems like we we're a peaceable enough nation at the time. I don't know of any "imperialism" or "arrogance" or "saber rattling" or "war mongering" on Roosevelt's behalf. By all accounts, we were respected and looked up to and acknowledged as a great nation.

Yet, we were attacked!


Japan attacked Pearl Habror because they feared that the Pacific Fleet would interfere with their imperialist designs in East Asia. It was a preemptive strike to neutralize the Pacific Fleet so they could proceed with their plan of conquest.

Not quite sure if that's the sort of "fear" that's being debated here, though.

[Hoofbite]

Funny how no one ever seems to care what Americans think of the world, be it Europe or the Middle East. Instead, we're the ones to be judged and scrutinized. Yep, very funny indeed.

Probably due to US involvement in nearly everything. No other countries put themselves out there as much as the US.

[lewpac]

Probably due to US involvement in nearly everything. No other countries put themselves out there as much as the US.

Yeah, but no one seems to complain about us "putting ourselves out there" when it comes to billions and billions going to African countries to save themselves from AIDS.

Kuwait didn't seem to mind that we "put ourselves out there" to save there skins from Suddam.

England and France didn't seem to mind that we "butted in" either.

Pretty selective outrage about how and where we "interfere" with other countries.

It seems that the standard is "yeah, give us all your money and bail our ***'s out of trouble, but mind your won business when we choose to slaughter people". The U.N. should take up this mantra.................

[burmafrd]

Rackat we put the embargo on Japan due to their continuing RAPE of China. Learn a little history before you post.

[sbark]

You must be feared by your enemies or they will attack you. So its much better to be feared then respected, especially the way things are now.
Considering how villified Bush was by the whole worlds press, its telling that the change has been VERY SMALL.

........could it be that the 3 simultaneous shots that took out the Somali Pirates are giving Obama-rama the smidgeon of respect from rogue nations that he is living on at present....

...................and he really didnt even give the order: the Navy captain took the advantage of the "immenent danger" and went ahead on his own.....

the USA, is not the problem---as always it is the solution ........and the real problem is the Lib think that is diametricly opposed to this premise.

[zrinkill]

I think the point is that it would not matter who is President extremist are going to want to destroy us. period.

Both methods have been tried.

We appeased and avoided for 8 years ..... they attacked us

We went on the offensive and took the fight to them for 8 years ..... they continue to attack us.

The same thing happened when Jimmy carter was in office .....
The same thing happened when George Sr was in office ....
The same thing happened when Clinton was in office ....
The same thing happened when Bush was in office .....
The same thing is happening now that Obama is in office .....

As long as we are a super power in the world ...... the rest of them will consider us arrogant and too powerful.

Maybe ..... just maybe ..... we are not the problem.

[Maikeru-sama]

I think the point is that it would not matter who is President extremist are going to want to destroy us. period.

Both methods have been tried.

We appeased and avoided for 8 years ..... they attacked us

We went on the offensive and took the fight to them for 8 years ..... they continue to attack us.

The same thing happened when Jimmy carter was in office .....
The same thing happened when George Sr was in office ....
The same thing happened when Clinton was in office ....
The same thing happened when Bush was in office .....
The same thing is happening now that Obama is in office .....

As long as we are a super power in the world ...... the rest of them will consider us arrogant and too powerful.

Maybe ..... just maybe ..... we are not the problem.

:hammer:

[SuspectCorner]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=229008&title=looking-for-comity-in-the

[zrinkill]

Israel papers: new era in US ties


Commentators in Israeli papers interpreted US President Barack Obama's address to the Muslim world as marking a clear shift in ties between the US and Israel, and possibly the end of a special relationship.

One writer called on the Israeli government to adapt to the new winds blowing from Washington or face a storm, while several said the US president had given the government notice that it would now have to honour commitments made towards reaching peace with the Palestinians.
At least one interpreted this as meaning that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would have to reshape his cabinet.



Several writers referred respectfully to the US leader and saw his words in a positive light, while others were disparaging. One saw him as a sycophant.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8085167.stm


.
.
.
.

[bbgun]

lol

I hope he wins the hearts of these poor, misunderstood gentlemen.

http://www.123imagehost.com/uploads/235-37-Pictures_of_the_day-_5_June_2009_-_Telegraph_1244216838413.png

[Doomsday101]

lol

http://www.123imagehost.com/uploads/235-37-Pictures_of_the_day-_5_June_2009_-_Telegraph_1244216838413.png

Even though you can't see it they are smiling and have a shiver going up their leg. :lmao:

[SultanOfSix]

Maybe you all should learn who Obama's Chief of Staff is.

[Doomsday101]

Maybe you all should learn who Obama's Chief of Staff is.

It is Rahm Emanuel, what about him?

[SultanOfSix]

It is Rahm Emanuel, what about him?

US/Israeli relations aren't going to change if the son of a former Israeli general is appointed Chief of Staff and AIPAC continues to be one of the most powerful lobbies in the US government.

[Doomsday101]

US/Israeli relations aren't going to change if the son of a former Israeli general is appointed Chief of Staff and AIPAC continues to be one of the most powerful lobbies in the US government.

Rahm Emanuel is not the President of the United States and his jewish background means about as much as John Kerry Catholic back ground

[Aikbach]

US/Israeli relations aren't going to change if the son of a former Israeli general is appointed Chief of Staff and AIPAC continues to be one of the most powerful lobbies in the US government.Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth with almost every venture, its his schtick and in about a year no one will listen and he'll learn charm can't govern...hopefully he'll learn.

He tries to have his cake and eat it too, attends a racist church and then denies knowing it was racist but then throws Wright under the bus when his own neck gets exposed, denies a Muslim heritage and downplays his relatives, background and use of his full name, then suddenly days after election he's talking about Muslims in the family, being of a Muslim father, playing up his middle name, saying Islam is a part of America after going out of his way to discredit the same respect to Christianity because that might offend, brings Rick Warren to his inauguration, brings gay bishop as well, declares that America will not impose its values on the world, then declares Tune LGBT History month and vows to fight for homosexual rights at the UN (sounds like a values crusade to me), criticizes the war on terror, changes the name but not the strategy, claims to want to shut Guantanamo but in reality he will let the issue bleed out and remain open, claims tax cuts for 95% then saddles their grand children with the greatest national debt via an ineffectual "stimulus" in history.

He tries to be all things to all people...that will get him elected or help him maintain power and he ultimately satisfies no one.

European leaders won't heed his calls for cooperation anymore than any other president, Chazez thinks he's a joke, North Korea thinks he is spineless, Russia sees a window, China has no reason to fear economic sanction or rivalry from this administration, AL quida is giggling at his asinine speeches across the Muslim World.

He's an absolute fraud, marketing creation and not a leader and he's drowning at the moment, but with such charisma some people seem to think his thrashing about in the water as he dunks America in a desperate attempt to keep his head above water is "action".

[SultanOfSix]

Rahm Emanuel is not the President of the United States and his jewish background means about as much as John Kerry Catholic back ground

LOL. So can we conclude that Obama's Muslim background means little too? It sure doesn't seem like it on this forum.

Regardless, let's see what Obama says in his speech referred to here: http://www.aipac.org/

President Barack Obama spoke to the Muslim world from Cairo.

"In a speech to the Muslim world Thursday, President Obama called the U.S.-Israel bond "unbreakable"..."

[SultanOfSix]

Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth with almost every venture...

How does that make him any different than any other politician, eh?

[Doomsday101]

LOL. So can we conclude that Obama's Muslim background means little too? It sure doesn't seem like it on this forum.

Regardless, let's see what Obama says in his speech referred to here: http://www.aipac.org/

Obama tries to be everything to everyone, would he sell out Israel? hell I think he would sell out his own country let alone Israel.

As for speeches he is still campaigning even with the election over he plays to the crowd and the idiots sit there starry eyed but his words do not mean jack

[CowboyMcCoy]

I will say again ...... a 6% (.06) rise in popularity has to be a dissapointment to the left.

After the witch hunt they have done on Bush ..... seems like it would be up by at least 20%

Hey, it's getting better and not worse. But it's still a long road to repair anything Bush did and Obama is not helping much. So this lefty is a little disgruntled about Obama's political maneuvers.

[Aikbach]

How does that make him any different than any other politician, eh?Nothing, but the hubris that his supporters and self claim he's different is what is amusing but altogether cringe worthy simultaneously.

[Doomsday101]

How does that make him any different than any other politician, eh?

He said he was about hope and change and all that BS. You are right he is no different only thing he has is a media who has shivers up their leg when he talks and does not put him under the same microscope they have done to other Presidents, hell Chris Matthews said it was their job to make sure Obama Presidency does not fail and NBC is doing their part no doubts about it.

[bbgun]

Rahm Emanuel is not the President of the United States and his jewish background means about as much as John Kerry Catholic back ground

I hope no one here is under the impression that the O Administration has been friendly or cordial towards Israel and or Netanyahu, because that would be a whopper.

[Doomsday101]

I hope no one here is under the impression that the O Administration has been friendly or cordial towards Israel and or Netanyahu, because that would be a whopper.

I'm not under any impression with Obama, he will tell each crowd and each group what they want to hear. He won the election yet he is still campaigning and stands for nothing

[burmafrd]

Yeah he is not different. Despite his WHOLE campaign being about change and all the stupid people that believed him.

[masomenos]

I hope no one here is under the impression that the O Administration has been friendly or cordial towards Israel and or Netanyahu, because that would be a whopper.

Well, recent polling has shown that more Israeli Jews believe that Obama is a "friend of Israel" than not. However, there's a significant number in that polling sample who are undecided about the matter and Obama's "friendliness" rating is much lower than Bush's (80 to 40, I think).

Still, Obama wants peace in the region and he supports the same two-state plan that Bush, Livni and many Jews advocate. It's not like he's dropped Israel as an ally.

[masomenos]

I'm not under any impression with Obama, he will tell each crowd and each group what they want to hear. He won the election yet he is still campaigning and stands for nothing

I thought he stood for socialism, big government, higher taxes, the right to kill babies, etc.? If he stands for nothing, how can people be so vehemently against his plans and the directions that he's leading the country?

[Doomsday101]

I thought he stood for socialism, big government, higher taxes, the right to kill babies, etc.? If he stands for nothing, how can people be so vehemently against his plans and the directions that he's leading the country?

He stands for what ever the crowd he is talking to is for. His action are as you said, a socialistic agenda which leads to bigger government and higher taxes. Saying to a crowd what they want to hear and his actions are 2 different things.

[masomenos]

He stands for what ever the crowd he is talking to is for. His action are as you said, a socialistic agenda which leads to bigger government and higher taxes. Saying to a crowd what they want to hear and his actions are 2 different things.

Of course Obama tries to appeal to the crowds he's speaking to, that's lesson 1 in public speaking, know your audience. However, take his speech from yesterday and I challenge you to find examples of Obama changing his political positions in order to please the crowd. I'd be interested to see what you find.

[Doomsday101]

Of course Obama tries to appeal to the crowds he's speaking to, that's lesson 1 in public speaking, know your audience. However, take his speech from yesterday and I challenge you to find examples of Obama changing his political positions in order to please the crowd. I'd be interested to see what you find.

Con men live by the same standards tell people what they want to hear. As leader I expect more. As for things he has said he has reversed course on issues since the campaign.

Promise #5: Sunlight Before Signing

What he said:

“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” (BarackObama.com campaign Web site)

What he did:

Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter bill, the SCHIP/cigarette tax hike, and the stimulus bill all with far less than a five-day waiting period that he promised–and continues to promise–on his campaign Web site.

Promise #4: Lobbyist Revolving Door

What he said:

“No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.” (BarackObama.com campaign Web site)

What he did:

Obama appointed Goldman Sachs lobbyists Mark Patterson chief of staff at the Treasury Department, where he directly oversees his former employer, a recipient of $10 billion of taxpayer funds from the TARP. Obama also appointed Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn to be an undersecretary of Defense.

Promise #3: No Tax Hikes on the Poor

What he said first:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” (September 12, 2008, Dover, N.H.)

What he did first:

By signing H.R. 2 into law, Obama happily signed onto the idea that smokers should pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP). Cigarette taxes are going up 61 cents a pack starting April 1. Obama signed this bill knowing that the majority of smokers in the United States are working poor, and one in four lives below the federal poverty line.

What he said next:

“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” (February 24th, 2009, Address to a Joint Session of Congress)

What he did next:

Ignored the already-hiked cigarette tax at the time of the statement and then this restated promise was broken just two days later, when the Obama’s budget proposal was released. His new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured.

Promise #2: Pork Barrel Earmark Reform

What he said:

“The system is broken. We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.”

(Statement on Earmarks, March 10, 2008)

What he is expected to do:

The White House has signaled that it intends to sign the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill, which according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, contains 8,570 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion, including dozens of wasteful pork-barrel projects. These earmarks were awarded based on seniority, not on merit, and were mostly the result of high-priced lobbying, precisely the process that Obama promised to end. When the omnibus reaches his desk later this week or next week, we’ll find out if this is one more broken promise.

Promise #1: Big Government

OK, so this one is more of a statement than a promise, but it’s the biggest whopper of all.

What he said:

“Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.” (February 24, 2009, Joint Address to Congress)

What he did:

Obama proposed a budget that is breathtaking in scope, a blueprint for the biggest permanent expansion of government in history right on the heels of a sweeping trillion dollar stimulus plan. The budget lays the foundation for a government takeover of the health care and energy sectors and dramatically increasing spending across the board, other than defense weapons programs. Spending as a percentage of the economy under this budget will reach the historic level of 27.7 percent this year. The deficit as a percent of the economy, at 12.3 percent, is set to be the biggest in the entire history of the country outside of the four peak years of World War II. Anyone who offers such a budget can only fairly be described as a believer in bigger government.

[bbgun]

Well, recent polling has shown that more Israeli Jews believe that Obama is a "friend of Israel" than not. However, there's a significant number in that polling sample who are undecided about the matter and Obama's "friendliness" rating is much lower than Bush's (80 to 40, I think).

Still, Obama wants peace in the region and he supports the same two-state plan that Bush, Livni and many Jews advocate. It's not like he's dropped Israel as an ally.

Were they polled before or after Obama blamed Israel for Palestinian suffering yesterday? Funny how we're supposed to stop "dictating" to scummy countries like Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela, yet Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. And if anyone thinks Israel has been the main impediment to a two-state solution lo these many years, they need to either pick up a book or get their head examined.

Elsewhere, not everyone is enchanted with The Messiah:

Obama's words worry Israel's backers (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/05/obama-admits-us-role-in-1953-iran-coup/?feat=home_headlines)

[masomenos]

You didn't take my challenge, but that's ok, it would have been time consuming.

As far as campaign promises, I hate to say the standard line, but no politician lives up to all of their campaign promises. Change! Hope! I know, I know. Take a look at some of the points in your post though. For instance, there's the broken Obama promise of having no lobbyists in his administration. So, how many lobbyists are noted? Two.

Is that a broken promise? Sure it is, Obama said none and there are some. However, I would say that the spirit of the promise is still sound because it appears that the vast majority of the people in appointed positions do not have ties to lobbying.

Take another point, like the cigarette taxes. While there's no doubt that increasing federal taxation of cigs by 61 cents is a tax increase, that doesn't amount to a broken promise. All that matters is the total yearly taxes paid. If an equal or greater tax cut is given in some other form, so that net taxes remain stable or decrease, then there hasn't really been a tax increase.

[masomenos]

Were they polled before or after Obama blamed Israel for Palestinian suffering yesterday? Funny how we're supposed to stop "dictating" to scummy countries like Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela, yet Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. And if anyone thinks Israel has been the main impediment to a two-state solution lo these many years, they need to either pick up a book or get their head examined.

Elsewhere, not everyone is enchanted with The Messiah:

Obama's words worry Israel's backers (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/05/obama-admits-us-role-in-1953-iran-coup/?feat=home_headlines)

I only read over the speech once, but I don't recall Obama blaming Israel for Palestinian suffering. Israel does have to share some of the blame for the lack in progress towards a two-state solution though. Are they solely to blame, or even principally to blame? No, but neither are they devoid of culpability.

The poll I mentioned was taken 2 weeks ago, I think. I doubt that the speech yesterday would have drastically changed the polling results though.

[burmafrd]

So maso how many promises does he have to break before you blame him?

[bbgun]

I only read over the speech once, but I don't recall Obama blaming Israel for Palestinian suffering. Israel does have to share some of the blame for the lack in progress towards a two-state solution though. Are they solely to blame, or even principally to blame? No, but neither are they devoid of culpability.

The poll I mentioned was taken 2 weeks ago, I think. I doubt that the speech yesterday would have drastically changed the polling results though.

Toby Harnden, Daily Telegraph:

Yes, Obama spoke strongly and unequivocally about the six million Jews who were exterminated in the Holocaust. But he immediately appeared to equate this with the suffering of Palestinians who have "endured the pain of dislocation...endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation...the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable". This comes dangerously close to moral equivalence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

As I noted once before, if the Palestinians disarmed, there would be peace. If Israel disarmed, they would be annihilated.

[masomenos]

So maso how many promises does he have to break before you blame him?

Oh, I know that he's broken some campaign promises. However, I'm willing to ignore some of the broken promises because Obama's actions have, largely, been in line with what he said. For instance, I don't think that it's some great travesty that Obama has two former lobbyists even though he said there would be none. The majority of the staff is free of serious lobbying connections and that's a plus, in my book.

To make a silly example, it's like if a father promised to throw the baseball with his son at 5pm. However, the dad doesn't get home until 5:30 and instead of throwing the baseball, he and his son throw a football. Is the promise broken? From a literal sense, yes, but the spirit of the promise is still in tact.

[SultanOfSix]

Toby Harnden, Daily Telegraph:

Yes, Obama spoke strongly and unequivocally about the six million Jews who were exterminated in the Holocaust. But he immediately appeared to equate this with the suffering of Palestinians who have "endured the pain of dislocation...endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation...the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable". This comes dangerously close to moral equivalence.


How is that "equating" it to the Holocaust? What a terrible and ridiculously biased reach by the author.

[masomenos]

Toby Harnden, Daily Telegraph:

Yes, Obama spoke strongly and unequivocally about the six million Jews who were exterminated in the Holocaust. But he immediately appeared to equate this with the suffering of Palestinians who have "endured the pain of dislocation...endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation...the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable". This comes dangerously close to moral equivalence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

As I noted once before, if the Palestinians disarmed, there would be peace. If Israel disarmed, they would be annihilated.


Well, let's look at the full quote, with some extended context.
"Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security."


Obama wasn't blaming Israel for the suffering of Palestinians, he was simply acknowledging that there was suffering. He was, as he says we all must do, viewing the conflict from both sides. In other parts of the speech he calls for an end to the violent attacks by the Palestinians and tries to show that violence is a poor vehicle for progress. Obama even says that there is no benefit in placing blame, or finger pointing.

[DIAF]

How is that "equating" it to the Holocaust? What a terrible and ridiculously biased reach by the author.

Yeah, I don't see the equating there either. One is great suffering, the other is extermination. Did he assume equation just because the example followed?

[bbgun]

Obama wasn't blaming Israel for the suffering of Palestinians, he was simply acknowledging that there was suffering.

Hi-larious. He specifically referenced humiliating "occupation." Who's doing the "occupying" if not Israel? And since he predictably and disgracefully failed to explain why Israel was occupying those territories, it leaves the impression that Israel is the sole heavy.

He was, as he says we all must do, viewing the conflict from both sides. In other parts of the speech he calls for an end to the violent attacks by the Palestinians and tries to show that violence is a poor vehicle for progress.

Oh, we understand Hamas all too well, mainly because they've told the world what their goals are. But let's stop pretending that there are two victims here, any more than the United States and Al Qaeda are on the same moral footing.

Obama even says that there is no benefit in placing blame, or finger pointing.

I blame the people who voted for a terrorist outfit which proudly states as its aim the destruction of Israel. There's was a vote for unending war and bloodshed. Well, they got it.

[bbgun]

Yeah, I don't see the equating there either. One is great suffering, the other is extermination. Did he assume equation just because the example followed?

Yes, that's how we know when a speaker is "drawing a comparison."

[masomenos]

Yes, that's how we know when a speaker is "drawing a comparison."

Nevermind the fact that today Obama said there was no equivalency.

BROKAW: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald and what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?

OBAMA: Well, look there's no equivalency here, but I do think that, given the extraordinary moral traditions of Judaism, the potential power of empathy that arises out of having gone through such historic hardships, that that will ultimately give the people of Israel the strength and purpose to seek a just and lasting peace. And that, I believe, will involve creating two states side by side with peace and security.

[bbgun]

Nevermind the fact that today Obama said there was no equivalency.

BROKAW: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald and what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?

OBAMA: Well, look there's no equivalency here, but I do think that, given the extraordinary moral traditions of Judaism, the potential power of empathy that arises out of having gone through such historic hardships, that that will ultimately give the people of Israel the strength and purpose to seek a just and lasting peace. And that, I believe, will involve creating two states side by side with peace and security.


Different audience, different day, different answer. He may be a phony, but he's not stupid. And shame on Brokaw for the amoral analogy.

[masomenos]

Hi-larious. He specifically referenced humiliating "occupation." Who's doing the "occupying" if not Israel? And since he predictably and disgracefully failed to explain why Israel was occupying those territories, it leaves the impression that Israel is the sole heavy.

Oh, we understand Hamas all too well, mainly because they've told the world what their goals are. But let's stop pretending that there are two victims here, any more than the United States and Al Qaeda are on the same moral footing.

I blame the people who voted for a terrorist outfit which proudly states as its aim the destruction of Israel. There's was a vote for unending war and bloodshed. Well, they got it.

Denying that there are victims on both sides of the conflict is simply ignorant. You're right that we understand Hamas "all too well", which is why Obama said,"Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."


A direct call to the cessation of violence by Hamas against Israel. I'm sorry, but you're relying on impressions (to use your word) rather than focusing on what Obama actually said. He mentions the violence against Israel and the subsequent surrendering of moral authority by Palestinians. Violence against a state provides justification of occupation because nations have the right to defend themselves. However, even a justified occupation can still be humiliating to the people who are affected.

[masomenos]

Different audience, different day, different answer. He may be a phony, but he's not stupid. And shame on Brokaw for the amoral analogy.

He never claimed an equivalency in the Cairo speech. Read the transcript, look at the comparison that Obama is making. He doesn't compare the suffering of Palestinians to the suffering of the Jews during the Holocaust. Instead, he compares the denial of suffering by the opposing sides. That's a completely different comparison.

[SultanOfSix]

Hi-larious. He specifically referenced humiliating "occupation." Who's doing the "occupying" if not Israel? And since he predictably and disgracefully failed to explain why Israel was occupying those territories, it leaves the impression that Israel is the sole heavy.


Perhaps you should read up on the multitude of UN resolutions that the state of Israel is in violation of concerning the "occupied territories".

[bbgun]

He never claimed an equivalency in the Cairo speech.

That's your opinion. Others, like Mr. Harnden, have come to a different conclusion. For my part, I highlighted the parts of the speech that had nothing to do with the alleged analogy.

Read the transcript, look at the comparison that Obama is making. He doesn't compare the suffering of Palestinians to the suffering of the Jews during the Holocaust.

Reasonable people can disagree. Free advice: If you don't want to leave that impression, then make sure you leave plenty of distance between the two camps in your speech. Mr. Brokaw certainly wasn't shy about drawing a comparison. I wonder where he got that idea.

Instead, he compares the denial of suffering by the opposing sides. That's a completely different comparison.

Silly. No one's denying suffering, only rationalizing it.

[bbgun]

Perhaps you should read up on the multitude of UN resolutions that the state of Israel is in violation of concerning the "occupied territories".

I see you're infatuated with that Jew-hating snakepit. Quelle surprise. Why not have Dan Snyder pick our roster while you're at it?

[SultanOfSix]

I see you're infatuated with that Jew-hating snakepit. Quelle surprise. Why not have Dan Snyder pick our roster while you're at it?

I see you're an extremist who has no friends.

If I was a Jew-hater, why would I want Dan Snyder to pick our roster? I'm not even sure what you're even trying to imply. You're seriously clueless.

[bbgun]

I see you're an extremist who has no friends.

Um, okay. Sure. :confused:

If I was a Jew-hater, why would I want Dan Snyder to pick our roster? I'm not even sure what you're even trying to imply. You're seriously clueless.


Simple analogies are over your head? Then I guess you have trouble completing the maze on the child's menu at Denny's.

One more time for those slow on the uptake: Asking or expecting the UN to treat Israel impartially is like asking someone at Redskins Park to formulate our roster or officiate our games. Got it? I hope so, 'cause I can't dumb it down any further than this.

[SultanOfSix]

Um, okay. Sure. :confused:

Confused that you don't have friends? It's easy. Just look at your behavior on this forum. I can't imagine what it's like in real life.

Simple analogies are over your head? Then I guess you have trouble completing the maze on the child's menu at Denny's.

Not really when the analogies don't make sense. If I was a Jew-hater, why would I ask Dan Synder - a Jew - to fill the roster of my team?

Not only that, what relevance does filling a football roster have to do with anything that was being talked about?

One more time for those slow on the uptake: Asking or expecting the UN to treat Israel impartially is like asking someone at Redskins Park to formulate our roster or officiate our games.

Why? The UN was formed to basically form one nation: Israel.

Got it? I hope so, 'cause I can't dumb it down any further than this.

Well, you can't really go dumber and dumberer than you already seem to be.

[masomenos]

Um, okay. Sure. :confused:



:laugh2:

That was just out of nowhere wasn't it?

[DIAF]

I see you're infatuated with that Jew-hating snakepit. Quelle surprise. Why not have Dan Snyder pick our roster while you're at it?

Oh Almighty. Come ON.

[SultanOfSix]

:laugh2:

That was just out of nowhere wasn't it?

As if Jew-hating snake-pit wasn't in reference to the UN. Not an "extreme" reaction there?

[zrinkill]

Jew-hating snakepit.

I do not think I have ever heard a better description of the U.N.

[zrinkill]

As if Jew-hating snake-pit wasn't in reference to Obama. Not an "extreme" reaction there?

I think he was talking about the U.N.

[SultanOfSix]

I think he was talking about the U.N.

You do realize the UN basically formed Israel?

[DIAF]

No, the purpose of that post was to express his lack of shock that he finds SultanofSix agreeing with "Jew haters". 5 dollars if you can guess why. He basically called SultanofSix a "Jew hater".

[zrinkill]

You do realize the UN basically formed Israel?

You do realize why right?

[SultanOfSix]

You do realize why right?

What relevance does that have?

How can the UN be a "Jew-hating snake pit" if it formed Israel and fails to ever take any action or enforce any resolution against it?

[zrinkill]

No, the purpose of that post was to express his lack of shock that he finds SultanofSix agreeing with "Jew haters". 5 dollars if you can guess why. He basically called SultanofSix a "Jew hater".

Sultan has been very critical of Israel in the past but I do not think its about race with him. I know its about race with most of the U.N.

[SultanOfSix]

No, the purpose of that post was to express his lack of shock that he finds SultanofSix agreeing with "Jew haters". 5 dollars if you can guess why. He basically called SultanofSix a "Jew hater".

Well, at least he didn't implement Godwin's law and call me a Nazi (yet).

[masomenos]

As if Jew-hating snake-pit wasn't in reference to the UN. Not an "extreme" reaction there?

I just thought the "you have no friends" comment was a funny way to start your retort.

[zrinkill]

What relevance does that have?

All the relevance in the world. You think its a coincidence how they are surrounded by countries that want to wipe them out?

How can the UN be a "Jew-hating snake pit" if it formed Israel and fails to ever take any action or enforce any resolution against it?

Do you really think that would be true if they were not such close allies with the U.S. and be equipped with the very best weapons we could supply them with?

[SultanOfSix]

Sultan has been very critical of Israel in the past but I do not think its about race with him. I know its about race with most of the U.N.

I've been critical of Israeli policy. That doesn't make me a "Jew-hater". I oppose Zionism, as it is simply a false ideology that tries to link itself with Judaism as the same thing. I am nowhere even close to Orthodox Hasidic Jews who are on orders of magnitude more extreme against Israel than me, even on par with extreme Arabs who want the destruction of Israel. They are often termed as "self-hating" because they (correctly) follow their own religion which calls for "no return until the Messiah" and see Israel as a false Jewish state.

[bbgun]

Confused that you don't have friends? It's easy. Just look at your behavior on this forum. I can't imagine what it's like in real life.

Whereas you ooooze charm and likability. :rolleyes:

Not really when the analogies don't make sense. If I was a Jew-hater, why would I ask Dan Synder - a Jew - to fill the roster of my team?


Had no idea Snyder was Jewish. Not surprised that you would have that filed away in your mental rolodex, however.

Not only that, what relevance does filling a football roster have to do with anything that was being talked about?


Um, you do know how analogies work, right? Comparing drastically different things and then finding something in common to illustrate a point? Then again, maybe you don't.

Why? The UN was formed to basically form one nation: Israel.

That historical tidbit somehow makes today's members pro-Israel?? God you're ridiculous.

Well, you can't really go dumber and dumberer than you already seem to be.

I'll leave that to the master.

[SultanOfSix]

All the relevance in the world. You think its a coincidence how they are surrounded by countries that want to wipe them out?

Well? What do you expect when you start immigrating foreigners into the land of others, effectively holding them responsible for a tragedy they had no part of (the Holocaust)?

Do you really think that would be true if they were not such close allies with the U.S. and be equipped with the very best weapons we could supply them with?

So, if the UN is such an anti-US and anti-Israeli entity, why don't they just leave it?

[bbgun]

I think he was talking about the U.N.

Clearly. But others would rather go the smear route.

[zrinkill]

I've been critical of Israeli policy. That doesn't make me a "Jew-hater".

Thats what I said.

Me and you have never agreed about Israel ..... I have admitted my bias in the past ..... I have trained and fought alongside some of those men ..... I understand and acknowledge the mistakes that have been made by Israel .... but very few people realize the kinda war those people have been fighting against shadowed enemies who hide behind the Palestinians.

The worst thing that could possibly happen to the Palestinian people would be for Israel to think that the U.S. has abandoned them. The entire region would regret that.

[bbgun]

No, the purpose of that post was to express his lack of shock that he finds SultanofSix agreeing with "Jew haters". 5 dollars if you can guess why. He basically called SultanofSix a "Jew hater".

Awww. The board's resident Vichy Republican has opinions. How cute. Curious: When did you become a mind reader?

[SultanOfSix]

Whereas you ooooze charm and likability. :rolleyes:

Well, I guess I do since I have friends.

Had no idea Snyder was Jewish. Not surprised that you would have that filed away in your mental rolodex, however.

Well, I am smarter than you.

Um, you do know how analogies work, right?

Yes, that's why I pointed out why yours had no relevance.

Comparing drastically different things and then finding something in common to illustrate a point? Then again, maybe you don't.

Being drastically different isn't a necessary condition for an analogy. Something in common certainly is. It's too bad you failed to show that.

That historical tidbit somehow makes today's members pro-Israel?? God you're ridiculous.

Well, perhaps Israeli action is what makes the UN anti-Israel.

I'll leave that to the master.

Well, at least you can point out the obvious.

[zrinkill]

So, if the UN is such an anti-US and anti-Israeli entity, why don't they just leave it?

I wish they would ...... The U.S. should form a new entity with its Allies and should invite Russia and China into it with an equal vote.

U.S., Japan, United Kingdom, China, Russia all equal ...... then allow others in with a lesser vote.

Its actually how the world really works anyway ...... why pretend.

[DIAF]

Awww. The board's resident Vichy Republican has opinions. How cute. Curious: When did you become a mind reader?

Yeah, I'm COMPLETELY sure sultan's faith and your little comment about being unsurprised he would agree with jew-haters had NOTHING to do with each other.

[bbgun]

Yeah, I'm COMPLETELY sure sultan's faith and your little comment about being unsurprised he would agree with jew-haters had NOTHING to do with each other.

Um, what is Sultan's faith? Am I supposed to assume "Muslim" because he has some Persian tart as his sig? Again, I'm not a mindreader. And you've yet to explain how "jew-hating snakepit" is in any way defamatory. That's like calling water "wet."

[DIAF]

Um, what is Sultan's faith? Again, I'm not a mindreader. And you've yet to explain how "jew-hating snakepit" is in any way defamatory. That's like calling water "wet."

Oh wow. Yeah, calling someone a "jew-hater" isn't defamatory at all. This whole thread has basically turned into a bbgun and sultanofsix flamewar...can't you two just do that in PM?

[bbgun]

Oh wow. Yeah, calling someone a "jew-hater" isn't defamatory at all.

That's because "truth" is a defense.

[SultanOfSix]

Oh wow. Yeah, calling someone a "jew-hater" isn't defamatory at all. This whole thread has basically turned into a bbgun and sultanofsix flamewar...can't you two just do that in PM?

I would guess that the majority of the threads that bbgun participates in, result in a flame war of one form or another. I would be surprised if he had any non-artificial long-lasting human relationships whatsoever.

[DIAF]

well, its been my experience that people in real life are nowhere near as ******* as they are on the internet. Anonymity tends to do that to people.