Hi -- New here.

[evince]

Then that money was used to help the poor world wide

[Gotcha68]

based on Bush and Cheneys lies

https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...tack-iran.html

Her whole quote wasn't given. As usual.

"ABC’s Jake Tapper reported, on 22 April 2008, that Hillary had said that day on ABC’s Good Morning America, «I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran… In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them».

CNN headlined «Obama: Clinton’s ‘obliterate’ Iran statement too much like Bush», and quoted that very excerpt from her statement, providing some of the important surrounding context behind it.

More recently, the ‘alternative news’ ‘journalist’ Stephen Lendman headlined «Hillary Clinton: ‘If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran… We would be Able to Totally Obliterate Them’», and he implied that this statement by Clinton was made while «she addressed AIPAC’s annual convention». Nothing like that was in her speech there (nor at any other AIPAC convention). So, Lendman’s report was made-up, even if its source, Tapper’s account, might also have been made-up (which, as I’ll explain, I doubt to have been the case).

Furthermore, Tapper’s news-report provided essential context for that statement of hers (context which was also reflected in CNN’s report that was based on his), and this essential context changes in a very important way the meaning of the excerpt just cited: «Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on ‘Good Morning America’ Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. ‘I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran,’ Clinton said. ‘In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.’» That news-report by Tapper included a streamer saying, «Watch the full interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton on ‘GMA’ Tuesday», but it’s actually dead (there’s no link there), and ABC provides no transcript at all, nor even a video with that segment; so, Tapper’s account is the only remaining source regarding the interview. However, from the veracity-checks I routinely do, I have found that Tapper, unlike Lendman (and unlike Establishment ‘reporters’ in general), can be trusted, because I’ve found the assertions that he makes to be true, at least so far as they go, even if at a deeper level some of his statements are misleading (in favor of the standard misconceptions, of course – but that’s not involved here)...."

[evince]

lies are all they have left in their quiver

[Oneuli]

That is the biggest pant load I have heard for awhile. You sound like you are teaching a psych class. But using your theory you never living through the Vietnam era understands what the Vietnam War veterans went through better than those of us who fought there.

I think you misunderstand what I said. I'm not claiming that someone who didn't experience a particular thing understands better what that thing was like. I'm saying that someone who didn't live through a part of a very broad and dispersed phenomenon can't make the error of mistaking her personal corner of that phenomenon as necessarily representative of the whole.

It's a bit of a stretch, but I suppose I can illustrate the same idea with Vietnam, since you brought that up. Let's say you served in Vietnam, but your role was six months in Saigon in the summer and fall of 1964, acting as an MP at a command facility, and you never even got within hearing range of gunshots. How good of a feel for what the Vietnam War was really like would you have, really? Yet even though your role was utterly unlike that of, say, someone who served as a front-line rifleman during the Tet Offensive, or, say, a tunnel rat whose job was to crawl through tunnels dismantling booby traps, it would be very hard not to think of the war in terms of what your little corner of it looked like. That's the problem with judging a large phenomenon by one's personal key-hole view of it. That's a problem I'd have to struggle with if we were discussing, say, Brooklyn in 2017, but not a problem I have to struggle with when it comes to discussing the 1980s or before.

[Oneuli]

Oneuli: "Yes, the same applies equally to all skilled American workers whose investments in their productivity are being negated by way of importing low-cost foreign competitors with the same skills. As for those who are finding themselves displaced by unskilled foreign labor, though, I have some advice: step up your game."
Jack; I have another theory. Each person is a result of 'the genetic roll of the dice'. Meaning none of us are responsible for what are genetic make-up is. Some are blessed, others, not so much.

Genetics matter, but much, much less so than surrounding circumstances. Genetically, for example, Chinese Americans are fundamentally the same as Chinese Chinese. Yet look at their relative median incomes. The difference between those two gene pools is probably statistically meaningless, yet the median income in China is less than $3,000 dollars.

Jack: I'm guessing the 'average' American is a High School graduate. Maybe he works as a Roofer. The "out-competing" is the Wage issue. The 'Third World Immigrant' will 'out-compete' the American on 'Wage'.

That's my point, though. A typical American will have an educational foundation and native skill set (fluency in English and in American culture) that should make it possible to develop much higher-order skills than just being a hammers-and-nails guy on a roof. If an American is being out-competed on wage by someone who lacks those things, it's a lot of squandered potential. We should be focused not on protecting the American from having his under-utilizing job taken from him by an immigrant competitor, but rather by helping him acquire the additional skills to fill a job that would more fully tap what he can bring to the show.

[Oneuli]

Mmmmm, that's very humanitarian of you. Amazing how you empathize with people on the other side of the Planet, ... rather than your fellow American down the street.

I try to empathize with all human beings. Your notion that I empathize more with people on the other side of the planet than fellow Americans is backwards. Although I struggle not to be so prejudiced, my natural tendency is to empathize with those more like me, such as fellow Americans.

[Oneuli]

WARMONGER

DEMOCRATS who voted to support the war and rationalized that vote by making false claims about Iraq’s WMD programs were responsible for lying about Iraq’s alleged threat.

Those who voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq did so despite the fact that it violated international legal conventions which the US government is legally bound to uphold. The resolution constituted a clear violation of the United Nations Charter that, like other ratified international treaties, should be treated as supreme law, according to Article VI of the US Constitution. According to articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force.

Members of Congress were also alerted by large numbers of scholars of the Middle East, Middle Eastern political leaders, former State Department and intelligence officials and others who recognized that a US invasion would likely result in a bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict, and related problems.

DEMOCRAT presidential nominee John Kerry chose to make such demonstrably false statements and voted in favor of the resolution. Kerry was not alone.

Hillary Clinton, in justification of her vote to authorize the invasion, falsely insisted that Iraq’s possession of such weapons was “not in doubt” and was “undisputed.” Despite her lies, Obama named her his first secretary of State.


https://truthout.org/articles/democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war/

Do you know the context of that quotation about attacking Iran? She was speaking of what the US response would be if Iran launched an attack on Israel. I think leaving that context out is deliberately deceptive.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Do you know the context of that quotation about attacking Iran? She was speaking of what the US response would be if Iran launched an attack on Israel. I think leaving that context out is deliberately deceptive.

Being deliberately deceptive is, to echo Evince, all that they have.

Besides, the continual attacks on Clinton are their way of distracting us from discussing the *real* problem -- the boorish, mentally-deficient, dangerous bully in the WH.

[Eagle_Eye]

I think you misunderstand what I said. I'm not claiming that someone who didn't experience a particular thing understands better what that thing was like. I'm saying that someone who didn't live through a part of a very broad and dispersed phenomenon can't make the error of mistaking her personal corner of that phenomenon as necessarily representative of the whole.

It's a bit of a stretch, but I suppose I can illustrate the same idea with Vietnam, since you brought that up. Let's say you served in Vietnam, but your role was six months in Saigon in the summer and fall of 1964, acting as an MP at a command facility, and you never even got within hearing range of gunshots. How good of a feel for what the Vietnam War was really like would you have, really? Yet even though your role was utterly unlike that of, say, someone who served as a front-line rifleman during the Tet Offensive, or, say, a tunnel rat whose job was to crawl through tunnels dismantling booby traps, it would be very hard not to think of the war in terms of what your little corner of it looked like. That's the problem with judging a large phenomenon by one's personal key-hole view of it. That's a problem I'd have to struggle with if we were discussing, say, Brooklyn in 2017, but not a problem I have to struggle with when it comes to discussing the 1980s or before.

Oh I understood perfectly. You believe that you can have a better understanding of something you never experienced by reading reports and articles better than people who experienced it. As in your other arguments it's all assumptions on your part.
As far as your argument about Vietnam goes your 1st mistake how long a tour was. For 99% a tour was anywhere from 12 to 14 months. Your second mistake was the VC used gorilla tactics so even those in noncombat positions were still targets as Charlie would snipe or throw a grenade while riding down the streets on motorcycles. Yes even in Saigon. So you just proved my point that you cannot completely understand a subject by just reading about it. FYI I did serve in Nam during the 60's.

[Oneuli]

One interesting question is to what extent Stein understood herself to be doing the Kremlin's work.

[Controlled Opposition]

One interesting question is to what extent Stein understood herself to be doing the Kremlin's work.

Russophobia.

[Oneuli]

Oh I understood perfectly. You believe that you can have a better understanding of something you never experienced by reading reports and articles better than people who experienced it

If you understood it perfectly, then why did you follow up with sentence that so clearly misstates my position? You either didn't understand, or you're deliberately misstating it. Only you know which of those is the case.

On the off chance you're genuinely still failing to understand it, perhaps you could think of it in terms of the Buddhist parable of the blind men and the elephant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

In the parable, the blind men actually have a worse understanding through their own first-hand experience, because it's limited to just one part, than someone would have just having the whole described to her.

As far as your argument about Vietnam goes your 1st mistake how long a tour was.

When I wrote that, I said to myself "you know what response you'll get -- he won't be able to tackle the idea, so instead will try to assert superiority through a 'well, actually' comment." Conservative men tend to lapse into this all the time. My favorite example is when talking about something like gun control, when conservative men who find themselves at a loss to respond to the sense of an argument will instead fixate on some irrelevant technical detail ("ooh, she called a 'magazine' a 'clip'") and imagine somehow that disputes the argument.

I'm reluctant to get into this, because it's completely irrelevant to my argument whether a tour in Vietnam was six months, a year, or a decade. The point is the same regardless. But, since you brought it up, the point of the timeline I specified was that it straddled the period of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, so that the hypothetical person in question could have been at the tail end of a longer military commitment when he was sent to Vietnam, and thus may have had fairly little time in country (keeping in mind the policy of six-month rotations for officers in command positions). The fact that his experience of Vietnam was ATYPICAL was the whole point of the hypothetical -- it's meant to illustrate the point that what a given person experienced could be far different from what most experienced. So you've inadvertently underscored my point by arguing that nearly everyone was in country for longer than that.

Your second mistake was the VC used gorilla tactics so even those in noncombat positions were still targets as Charlie would snipe or throw a grenade while riding down the streets on motorcycles

If you reread, you'll see that you're attacking a straw man. I never said a thing about VC tactics. I simply posited a hypothetical MP who didn't get within sound of gunshots. I understand you're drawn strongly to the "well, actually" comment, but resist it and address the real argument, rather than the straw man. Regardless of VC tactics (guerrilla, not gorilla), the point is that a person's experience of the war would have been very different depending on whether he was a REMF or an enlisted man on the front lines.

FYI I did serve in Nam during the 60's.

I assumed as much. So, answer honestly: do you think everybody who served in Vietnam in any capacity at any point in the 1960s, from the mechanic in the engine room of a hospital ship to an armor crewman on the front lines, experienced pretty much the same thing you did? Presumably not. Each had a very different experience. That's the point. And it will be hard for any to think of the war as a whole without disproportionately weighting his own experience into it.

[Oneuli]

Russophobia.

Crampons.

We're just naming random nouns, right?

[ThatOwlWoman]

Another evening well-spent, watching the conturd boys neatly schooled. Oneuli, I hope that you'll start a climate change thread soon.

[Jack]

Genetics matter, but much, much less so than surrounding circumstances. Genetically, for example, Chinese Americans are fundamentally the same as Chinese Chinese. Yet look at their relative median incomes. The difference between those two gene pools is probably statistically meaningless, yet the median income in China is less than $3,000 dollars.



That's my point, though. A typical American will have an educational foundation and native skill set (fluency in English and in American culture) that should make it possible to develop much higher-order skills than just being a hammers-and-nails guy on a roof. If an American is being out-competed on wage by someone who lacks those things, it's a lot of squandered potential. We should be focused not on protecting the American from having his under-utilizing job taken from him by an immigrant competitor, but rather by helping him acquire the additional skills to fill a job that would more fully tap what he can bring to the show.

Hi Oneuli, hate to barge in, it looks like you have your hands full here. It's difficult to jump from one topic to another, you can put my question on the back burner if you like.

The first point above "Genetics matter ... " misses what I was saying, so I'll skip that.
The second point above ... I will re-write, and you can give me your view. (Just one small change)

"That's my point, though. A typical American will have an educational foundation and native skill set (fluency in English and in American culture) that should make it possible to develop much higher-order skills than just being a 'financial analyst girl in an office'.. If an American is being out-competed on wage by someone who lacks those things, it's a lot of squandered potential. We should be focused not on protecting the American from having his under-utilizing job taken from him by an immigrant competitor, but rather by helping him acquire the additional skills to fill a job that would more fully tap what he can bring to the show"

You support importing low wage unskilled/semi-skilled Labor.
I support importing low wage professional/highly educated Labor. (especially those over-paid 'financial analyst' types)

You see how the two arguments are similar? We are both advocating 'importing Labor', but just not the Labor that affects our economic position.

Now, that's NOT my position, but just using that as an example to make my point. If there were 10 'Financial Analysts' for every job, YOU would be OUT COMPETED by the immigrant that would GLADLY work for LESS. Instead of working 9 months out of the year, you might be working 3 months out of the year. Then (let's say I'm on the roof banging nails) you walk by with briefcase and Resume in hand ... and I yell down "You need to step up your game, Sister!".