Facebook
RSS
![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
|
|
A Few Clouds ~ Feels like: 17°F Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012 |
|
Real (Attempted) Democracy in ActionPosted Wednesday, June 17, 2009, at 2:32 PM
The voters were originally given ten hours to vote, but because the turn-out was so high it was extended to 12 hours. Problems almost immediately started popping up. People in areas that seemed to be anti-Ahmadinejad reported that their polling stations had not only not stayed open the 12 hours but that some closed early with voters still standing in line. There were widespread reports of voter intimidation. At the end of the vote count, Ahmadinejad, had not only won, but he had won by a landslide. His main opponent, who had said he would be more welcoming to the United States wasn't even close. Ahmadinjad had garnered over 60% of the vote and something smelled rotten about those results. Because of the results and because Iranians are showing they are tired of the current president, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Iranians went to the streets to protest. They had been told they were living in a Democracy and they were left feeling like they had been robbed of their votes. The Supreme Leader has promised a re-count, but to be honest I don't expect the election results to change. Some high level leaders in the United States have been suggesting that we go over there and help determine who the real winner was. That is completely wrong-headed and such a bad idea. These men have apparently forgotten that we already tried once to interject ourselves into Iranian politics and the outcome of that little venture is the country and it's leadership we see today. President Obama has publicly stated that he thinks something is wrong with the election results but he is rightly saying little else and not trying to force himself into what is going on in Iran. Iran, after-all, is a sovereign nation, and as much as we hate or are displeased with the results of the election, it is an Iranian issue and they need to solve it on there own. This will be solved rightly or wrongly and whoever the leader is after the dust has settled is the person we are going to have to talk to in the future. Whether it's Ahmadinejad, Mousavi, or someone else, if a revolution were to break out. One thing is clear the majority of Iranians believe in democracy and will one day see it, whether the government gives in or they have to take it. It'll be an interesting situation to watch. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics A Case Against Merit Pay(12 ~ 6:08 PM, Mar 2)
Hot Springs, America's First National Park
President Obama's Speech
A Most Disgusting Lie
Republicans and the Far-Right Have Hit Rock Bottom
|
Email link
Read comments (38)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Anything we would do as Americans would be seen as being tainted by American interests. Obama may have given an overrated speech to Muslims but even he knows that it didn't accomplish anything of substance. America is still despised in the Middle East.
Gaining ground in Iran is really pretty easy. We just have to express general support for the people and their rights but stay away from comments favoring specific candidates or aspects of their government then if we can just keep our noses out of their business and wait, we will be seen as a non-intrusive country that has given them our support. Ignore the goverment and praise the people, it's a simple strategy and Obama's doing a pretty good job of it so far. He is executing this laissez-faire approach quite well actually. It will take awhile but eventually, it will work.
The less our government does the better things will be. That's a philosophy not limited to Iran either.
Mike, you say: "Iran, after-all, is a sovereign nation, and as much as we hate or are displeased with the results of the election, it is an Iranian issue and they need to solve it on there own."
What say then, we allow the same understanding to Israeli problems, that they may 'solve it on their own.'
We have interfered enough. We have treaty with Israel. Let us uphold our responsibilities.
In Messiah. Arley
Actually, I agree with you on that one Navy, but both sides have historically asked us to help. Not to intervene, but to help, which so far every president has kept to, only acting as a mediator.
The only problem I have with your statement is that Israel is interfering with Palestinian affiars by building settlements withing the Palestinian borders.
Lebanon did not begin the election on the day Obama gave his speech. To speculate that is the reason for the outcome of their election is ludicrous and robs the winning candidates of the credit they deserve while completely ignoring the issues of the election itself.
I'm pretty sure a few more relevant factors would be the fact that their opposition was Hezbollah, a terroist group, people were worried about being used as a pawn of Iran in a war with Israel not to mention the how they vote along sectarian lines including the large numbers of Christians in the country.
The truth about how close Mousavi actually was to being elected is all speculation since Iran is locking down anything and everything that has to do with the election.
I don't doubt that Ahmadinejad won just based on the support he had from the clerics. His 63% to Mousavi's 34% is hardly close and we can only speculate that those numbers are wrong. I definitely don't believe the letter that's going around saying Ahmadinejad came in 3rd. It's hard to tell what's really going on over there.
Netanyahu and his party are coming out of a very close election themselves so he is under a lot of pressure within his own country to open up to negotiatons with Palestine.
The people of the Middle East have bigger issues on their minds than a speech from a foreign leader. I know I wouldn't select the leaders of my country because of a generic speech a foreign leader gave about my country or religion.
Now I see why the left wants to accuse the right of blaming everything on Obama. It's because they want to give him credit for everything.
I remember in 2004, a week before the general election Kerry was leading Bush by five points in the polls. That week Osama bin Laden made one of his speeches. The next day Bush was up by five and went on to win. Don't be so sure that people don't base their vote on what's going on in the world.
How do you explain then, that in the weeks leading up to the election the Hezbollah Party had a huge lead and then just suddenly lost. It could be coincidence but you have to allow the possibility that people were affected by the speech. Up until Obama gave his speech, many Muslims in the Middle East saw the United States as their enemy based on Bush's policies. Then Obama gives his speech trying to patch that bridge. It's possible.
By the way, nice generic statement there. I have plenty that I am not happy with Obama about. I'm not going to state what those are, because right now I am mostly happy with what Obama is doing. I am saddened that Obama allowed a report out comparing gay marriage to incestuous marriage.
"How do you explain then, that in the weeks leading up to the election the Hezbollah Party had a huge lead and then just suddenly lost."
I'm just going to go out on a limb here (you can apply this to Bush and Kerry too) and say that maybe, just maybe... the polls were wrong.
"I have plenty that I am not happy with Obama about. I'm not going to state what those are, because right now I am mostly happy with what Obama is doing."
You don't want to state what you think he has done wrong because you like most of what he is doing? I'm trying to understand your logic. If people don't state what they object to then how does anyone in leadership know what needs to be addressed?
Maybe you just want to give him a free ride and make things easy on him, I don't know for sure but don't keep quiet because you're happy with his other decisions. That's ridiculous and ask yourself if you've ever criticized someone for not objecting to something a leader has done because they were happy with that person's other decisions. I'm not asking you to state your objections here. That's not the point I'm making. I'm just saying you have a flawed philosophy. Silence is consent.
"I am saddened that Obama allowed a report out comparing gay marriage to incestuous marriage."
I think you're just trying to get me to play devil's advocate here but I'll bite. I haven't heard much of this story but I understand the DOJ put out this report. Did Obama even know about it before it went out? I mean, we are talking about the guy who didn't even know what was in his own executive orders on closing Gitmo. I doubt he ever read the report to begin with.
No that's pretty much a Bush thing.
It's odd, but in the eight years under Bush all we ever heard was dissension was bad for the country and now all we here is dissent as much you can. That's very strange.
It's not a free ride. It's giving him time to get the things done he is attempting to get done. I believe in dissension, but I don't believe in saying no, just to say no. I don't believe in decrying what the president is doing before he has even done it.
I never did that with Bush. I waited until he had acted and then dissented if I didn't agree.
But I think you want me to dissent so that you can prove somehow that no one likes Obama.
Mike,
"I never did that with Bush. I waited until he had acted and then dissented if I didn't agree."
The question is what if he doesn't act? For example, the gay community has been slowly objecting to his complete disregard for their concerns. He wants them to wait and I don't really know why unless it's a political thing which is not a good reason.
He could pass legislation related to DOMA now IF he wanted to. Instead, he gives some benefits to federal employees who have same-sex partners and says he will extend hate crimes to include crimes against gays. Neither of these are that controversial and the federal benefits are irrelevant if he'd overturn or revise DOMA.
He probably has some pro-choice people upset with him for breaking his campaign promise about signing the Freedom of Choice Act. As I recall, that was going to be the first thing he did as President. He's had 5 months and I haven't heard him even discuss the Freedom of Choice Act. Not that I'm complaining though. I'm just wondering if they should refrain from criticizing him because he hasn't acted on it or whether they should say something to make him act on it. That's what the gay community is doing and he's trying to appease them with the scraps he throws their way but who knows if they'll put any serious pressure on him.
"It's odd, but in the eight years under Bush all we ever heard was dissension was bad for the country and now all we here is dissent as much you can. That's very strange."
I'm only saying dissent when you don't agree and support when you do agree. It's very simple.
"But I think you want me to dissent so that you can prove somehow that no one likes Obama."
Haha. That's the funniest thing I've heard out of you in awhile. Trying to prove you don't like Obama is like trying to prove a fish doesn't need water. I just wouldn't waste my time on it. That's why I said I wasn't asking you to list your objections here, only that you change the philosophy of non-dissent when your issues aren't addressed or resolved to your satisfaction.
If you want to wait then by all means keep waiting. It's like catching a cab in DC, if you just stand on the side of the street quietly then the taxi will pass you by. You have to scream and wave just to get their attention and that's no guarantee they'll pick you up. On second thought, that's probably a bad analogy for why you shouldn't keep quiet... it's impossible for a white man to get a cab in that town anyway.
You say that if people don't object to anything how do people in leadership know what to address. But my question is if one side is saying no to absolutely everything the president does or says then how can that person realistically address any of their issues.
All that I ask Obama to do is keep his campaign promises. If he doesn't I'll start making a bigger fuss about things. But I'm not going to sit here and expect him to address all of his pledges in the first 6 months of a 4 year term. That's asking just a little too much.
Look right now Obama is in an odd position. The far left is mad at him because he is too centrist and moderate and the extreme right is mad at him because he is too centrist and moderate. It's quite the conundrum, but in the end the people that get elected are the people that hold on to their base (in Obama's case it is those people that are a little to the left of center) and capture the centrists and moderates. Right now, Obama is walking a fine tight rope and still keeping both of those in his corner.
"You say that if people don't object to anything how do people in leadership know what to address. But my question is if one side is saying no to absolutely everything the president does or says then how can that person realistically address any of their issues."
Answering a question with a question is no answer at all. Anyhoo, the side saying no all the time (assuming you're referring to Republicans) is a minority and he has the majority on his side. If he can't address their issues with the majority on his side then he's going to be really ineffective if his majority shrinks or disappears.
I'm not saying he has to do everything right away but he's approaching the priority of his policies backwards of all logic. He wants to pass the most expensive and complex legislation immediately with little time for review. When it comes to less expensive and complex issues such as DOMA, he's not only waiting but refusing to even say what he's going to do about it. All he's said is be patient but patience is not infinite. Especially, when it should be a simple issue to get passed with this Congress. After the 2010 elections it may not be as easy to pass that type of legislation. Last night at midnight (my time), the House was still in session, talking about how the other side's baseball team did. Certainly, he can make them find some extra time to squeeze in equal rights.
If he truly wanted to get it done, it would already be done. Early in 2011 looks like their best bet (if he keeps his majority) unless they increase their pressure on him and get the media on their side. Then he might cave and actually address the issue.
"You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time." You'd think he would've figured that out by now being a Lincoln buff and all.
Equal Rights and the Defense of Marriage Act are not even in the same ballfield. DOMA is taking equal rights away.
Mike,
Ummm... are you sure we're on the same page? Equal rights and DOMA are absolutely in the same ballfield. What else is the President going to do, federalize marriage too? That would be quite the overreach and I don't think either side wants that. The repeal of DOMA is not taking rights away. Unless you're arguing that it takes away state's rights.
The Defense of Marriage Act would put an amendment into the constitution federally denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, therefore being the opposite of equal rights.
The Defense of Marriage Act has not been passed. The Republicans tried to pass it a few years ago and it failed miserably.
Mike,
I think you're confused. (or maybe I am)
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) DID pass back in 1996. Specifically, it:
-Defines marriage (at the federal level) as a union between 1 man and 1 woman.
-Allows states to choose not to recognize marriages between two people of the same sex, even if those marriages are valid in other states.
At the time of it's passing, it looked like a few states were going to legalize gay marriage, and the Republican-controlled congress was worried other states would be forced to recognize these marriages because of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.
Rightly so. Rhe full faith and credit clause stipulates that states must respect and honor the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings". (Which is why you can drive anywhere in the country with your state-issued driver's license, and don't need a new marriage license if you move to a new state.)
I don't understand how it's constitutional to pass a law that is specifically intended to skirt the constitution (unless it's an amendment, of course). But I'm not a lawyer or constitutional law scholar, so what do I know?
Mike,
jhat is right, DOMA was passed back in the 90s under Clinton and no act by a simple vote (even 2/3 majority) can put an amendment in the Constitution. It would have to be passed as a regular amendment and ratified by the states like all amendments. That's why they tried the amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman a few years back under Bush.
When is President Obama going to give his North Korean speech?
We need it pretty soon.
I apologize ... apparently I was not clear on my postings. I know what it takes to get an amendment into the constitution.
In 2004, the Republicans mad an attempt to make DOMA into an amendment where, at that point the federal government (of course if approved by the states first)would set marriage as between man and woman and all states would have to recognize it regardless of their own laws.
It appears that the Party of No is becoming the Party of War, as top leaders of the Republican Party are urging the President to go into Iran with force and completely upset the apple cart (as unstable as it already is there).
When are they going to figure out that we are not the world's big brother and we don't need to push ourselves into every conflict around the world.
Mike,
"In 2004, the Republicans mad an attempt to make DOMA into an amendment"
I don't think I'd say they tried to make DOMA into an amendment. DOMA was actually under the threat of becoming a moot law if the states continued to pass laws recognizing same-sex partners. The amendment to the Constitution was meant to go above and beyond DOMA. It actually made DOMA look pretty pud. It's really just semantics anyway. Whether DOMA was "made" into an amendment or it was just an amendment that would succeed where DOMA was doomed to fail... it still sought to do the same thing, whatever way you want to look at it.
Hey, congrats on getting married, Mike. I hope the wedding goes off without a hitch and the two of you have a long and happy marriage.
I know I dont read my news carefully enough; could you please cite a source for the assertion that Reps are urging the President to go into Iran with force?
Nice way of conveniently forgetting our role in some of the worst dictatorships taking root in the world Sceptre.
Actually throughout history, people living in tyranny HAVE solved the issues on their own. To say they haven't is to ignore our past. But when you are a warmonger I guess it's easy to forget the past to push your own ideology.
McCook1, thank you for the well wishes and congratulations.
You have lost your ever loving mind if you are seriously going to sit there and promote the idea that our president can be compared to anything in Iran.
Exactly what are they protesting that Obama promotes. I wanna hear this.
You talk alot about past presidents but I notice that you keep giving Bush a pass. Why is that? Did Bush not send thousands of our countrymen to die in an unnecessary war in Iraq? Your hypocrisy is showing again. You go after all the Democrats who were in office during war but give a pass to all Republicans, including Lincoln, who suspended habeous corpus, Nixon who only pulled troops out of Vietnam after the protests came to his doorstep, or Reagan who tried to impose his will on several Central American countries during his tenure. It goes both ways.
His records aren't sealed that's a lie that the extreme right and birthers made up. Everyone has seen his real birth certificate, just because you don't except it doesn't make it real, just makes you delusional.
How do you consider four years much of his tenure? That's half. Learn to count. All four years was a simple majority, barely. That's hardly suffering the Democrats. I love it. You say it only goes both ways if you fabricate the facts and then you spend most of your post fabricating the facts, which invalidates your post.
I have not seen his birth certificate.
Because you choose not to look.
Look where? I will then.
Why do you say I choose not to look? As many people that question it, why doesn't he show it?
I talk to a lot of Canadians drivers and none of them like their government run health care.Their glad to get down here and go to doctors in the states.
I think it is funny as hell that you say that the attacks on the 2nd Amendment have already started. I guess you overlooked it when Obama signed into law the right to carry a concealed weapon into our national parks. Of course you did, because it disproves your point.
You are so concerned about our rights being taking away so why don't you talk about all the rights that the Bush Administration? Oh that's right because you excused him for it.
Why should we care how the Canadian health care system is working since we aren't in that system and nothing that has been proposed even resembles that system.
But then again you just make up stuff to make what you envision happening in this country seem just a little more scary. You are just fear mongering hoping that it will stick.
Because he already showed it in early 2008, but birthers like you don't accept anything he does. Here read this article at snopes.
Naturally it is wasted breath and typing since you are a birther and anything short of Obama personally coming to you and showing you his birth certificate won't convince you otherwise.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bir...
More lunacy from the right. Even when provided with facts you still stick your fingers in your ear and shout na na na I can't hear you.
Snopes is often wrong? Yeah as a stated before just because you choose not to accept facts as facts does not make them lies.
Yes you are right with a nearly filibuster proof senate and a huge majority in the house they are just waiting for the right moment to go after the 2nd Amendment. Do you even read what you write half the time? That is right out of the paranoid playbook.
They are probably a little too busy trying to get the economy back on solid ground, or giving us a health care system that works (you know one where the drug companies aren't charging families that can barely pay bills hundreds of dollars for prescriptions that they need), or reversing the rights taken away during the Bush Administration right now.
Do you even know how many bills have been offered so far to restrict gun rights? One. It got no sponsors and never made it to committee. Oh yeah they are surely going after gun rights.
But let me get this straight, you don't believe anything you see on scopes.com but you believe a guy dressed up as a founding father on youtube?
I'm speechless, I really have nothing to say to that. Wow.
Wait, wait, wait steffanie, for all the times you get on to everyone for their spelling and you are going to let orville slide for typing plane instead of plain? You are slipping.
Orville, did I not answer your question? Did I not supply you with a link? Sorry if I have upset you, but seriously this whole birther movement which has captured maybe 1% of Americans, if that many is ludicrous. You say with all the people questioning his birth, who? Who has questioned his birth outside of the people who are looking to overturn a democratically elected president?
A narcissistic photo? What are you talking about?
"This makes more sense than not"
You said this, Sceptre. Am I correct?
"Snopes is wrong again, and is often wrong."
You ALSO said this, Sceptre. Right?
But I get it, you don't believe anything Snopes has to say about Obama. I get you now.
"Instead of producing a valid argument, you spend your time attacking forum members who support a difference of opinion." I think you confused me with yourself on this one.
Just because you choose to ignore what I actually type doesn't prove your point. I only attack when I have been attacked and I try, mostly to provide links proving the fact. That you choose to ignore or trash the link really means nothing.