He can talk the talk...

[Guest woxof]

Woxof

Against my better judgement I will respond.

My comment to you is because of your habit of posting a bunch of information that is a lot of times irrelelevent to the conversation.  When these irrelevencies are pointed out you post more and then sit back and claim to have won an arguement when others are just tired of trying to prove something to a wall...the affirmative action thread was an example of this.

In this thread you throw in a comment about Clinton to bolster an arguement that nobody is really talking about.

As far as the Vietnam argurement.  I said that the loony left does not start wars where the loony right does - Iraq and Cheney/Rumsfeld were my example (all within the context of the conversation - American politics). 

You then bring up wars started by communists and vietnam.  There is lots of blame to go around for Vietnam but the fact is that US involvement started with the 50000 troops sent by Eisenhower.  I would also not call Kennedy part of the loony left.

My comment about you seeing things an inch deep was because of your propensity to see the surface of one issue and then try and fit facts to see your point of view.  As I have said before, there is nuance and shades of grey in a lot of issues and not everything falls into a silo of left/right.

As you can see in my last post, I made clear that Don changed the whole topic of conversation(as has happened in countless other threads by countless other people) and even though I, in my subsequent thread steered it back, you came after me for changing topics and not him(just thought I would point that out).

Why?...(in my opinion)not that you were upset at thread topic change which I can find examples of on this site from you, but because I said(somewhat sarcastically) that Clinton should be in jail(and Don was talking about some of the people responsible for the housing crisis). It is quite plain that this is what got you going(don't worry, I liked Bill as president).

As for Vietnam, Eisenhower had 685 military advisors in the country just like the U.S. has in many countries. Not the 50,000 combat troops you stated(I believe it was you that said my knowledge outside of aviation is 1 inch deep. Another mistaken statement).

http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/...rainrvn/ch1.htm

Admittedly, JFK(who I clearly stated was not looney left) tried to keep it from involving U.S. combat troops but there is no doubt about Johnson's role. He was Mr. Vietnam war.

So you are correct. No one on the far "looney" left has started a war in the U.S. as they have never been in power. But the moderate left Democrat administration got the U.S. into the Vietnam war big time transitiong it from an advisory role to a full fledged conscription war that eventually killed 58,000 Americans and way more people in southeast Asia. Iraq is around 4,000 Americans. It took Nixon to get them out of the country(after doing his fair share of war). Shades of Obama in Afghanistan? Different I know.

This from Wikipedia about the Gulf of Tonkin incident excuse for the Vietnam War sounds exactly like good old Bush and Cheney....

"An undated NSA publication declassified in 2005, however, revealed that there was no attack on August 4. It had already been called into question long before this. "The Gulf of Tonkin incident", writes Louise Gerdes, "is an oft-cited example of the way in which Johnson misled the American people to gain support for his foreign policy in Vietnam." George C. Herring argues, however, that McNamara and the Pentagon "did not knowingly lie about the alleged attacks, but they were obviously in a mood to retaliate and they seem to have selected from the evidence available to them those parts that confirmed what they wanted to believe."

....all in the context of American politics, as you requested. So much for your belief that only the right wingers being war-mongers.

Update: it is 2 weeks after this post...still no response. Hmmm.

[Guest rattler]

So much for the British Stiff Upper Lip.

Araminta Wordsworth: Wounded British press complain of Obama 'rudeness,' cheap gifts

Posted: March 06, 2009, 3:39 PM by NP Editor

The Anglo-U.S. special relationship -- already shaky as Fleet Street spent weeks imagining "snubs" -- appears on the rocks after the visit of Gordon Brown, the British PM, to Washington this week.

British media took time off from their usual sport of bashing the Labour party leader — whose poll ratings are in the doldrums — to carp at what they saw as the Obama administration’s shabby treatment of the PM. The first European leader to be received in the White House was not deemed worthy of a state dinner, or even a casserole, and received only cheesy gifts.

The Prime Minister’s first official meeting with the new President fell short of the lavish welcomes laid on in recent years, Benedict Brogan reported in the Daily Mail.

“After intense negotiations with the new administration, Mr Brown got some warm words on the historic links between the U.S. and U.K. But there was no family get-together, nor did the President offer Mr. Brown and his wife Sarah a star-studded White House dinner.”

A White House spokesman even downgraded the relationship to a "partnership", rather than the "Special Relationship" Britain likes to boast of.

Iain Martin, a Daily Telegraph reporter, had harsher words.

“Barack Obama has been rudeness personified towards Britain this week,” he wrote in his blog. “First Brown wasn’t granted a press conference with flags, then one was hastily arranged in the Oval Office after the Brits had to beg. Obama looked like he would rather have been anywhere else than welcoming the British leader to his office and topped it all with his choice of present for the PM. A box of 25 DVDS including ET, the Wizard of Oz and Star Wars.”

Fox News contrasted this blah offering with the “uniquely historical gifts” selected by Mr. Brown, which included a pen holder fashioned from the oak timber of HMS Gannet, a Navy vessel that served on anti-slavery missions off Africa.

British commentators suggest Mr. Obama’s Kenyan and Irish heritage may be helping reshape the supposed special relationship.

There is also what conservative commentator Greg Garrison called the “Lady Macbeth” factor. Appearing on The Garrison Show, a radio program, Mr. Martin’s colleague James Delingpole was asked about Michelle Obama’s influence in the matter.

“At the moment in Britain, we’re still in the ‘Doesn’t she look fabulous in a designer frock’ stage of understanding of Michelle Obama,” he replied.

“Gradually, though, we’ll begin to realize that she is every bit the terrifying executive’s wife that Hillary Clinton was. Or, shudder, Cherie Blair.

“[Ms. Obama’s] broad-brush view of history associates Brits with the wicked white global hegemony responsible for the slave trade. Never mind that a white, Tory Englishman — William Wilberforce — brought the slave trade to an end. Judging by her record, Michelle does not make room for such subtle nuance.”

But Mr. Obama’s attitude appears to have undergone a sea-change after Mr. Brown’s speech to both houses of Congress was a smashing success, with the British leader being accorded 19 standing ovations — as many as his predecessor Tony Blair in a similar oration.

The U.S. President called Mr. Brown as his plane was sitting on the tarmac about to leave to thank him.

The White House later issued a press briefing to put on record how much Mr. Obama appreciated the gifts.

The cynical British press is not impressed by this volte-face. They point out Mr. Brown holds the key to something Mr. Obama would like on his visit to Britain next month: a meeting with the Queen.

“Something, suddenly, seems to have made the Obama White House perk up and start to take an interest in the Brits,” Mr. Martin writes.

“The Queen has invited the President to tea when he’s here for the G20 in April. And he’s in through the front door of Buckingham Palace faster than a Harley Davidson roaring along Route 66.

“Note how the coolness of Team Obama disappears when a bit of regal glamour is introduced into the equation. He might not like the Brits, but he can recognize a global superstar when he encounters one. He wants to be associated with her. He’s shameless.”

National Post

awordsworth@nationalpost.com

[Guest woxof]

As much as I like Obama, he stuck his foot in his mouth by jumping to conclusions.

"Beer diplomacy: Obama aims for calm"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32193064/ns/po...cs-white_house/

Face it....The only racial profiling done that night was by the good professor against someone trying to protect him and his house. Then the rest of the racism industry tried to capitalize.

[Mitch Cronin]

Face it....The only racial profiling done that night was by the good professor against someone trying to protect him and his house.

...and how do you suggest "the good professor" was engaged in racial profiling?

Then the rest of the racism industry tried to capitalize.

Huh? "Racism industry"? What exactly is that?

[Guest woxof]

...and how do you suggest "the good professor" was engaged in racial profiling?

An officer responds to a break and enter. He is told about it by someone claiming to be an eyewitness when he arrives. The officer obviously is going to go inside to find out about it. He meets someone inside and is told that he is talking to the owner of the house. Obviously proof is required so he asks for ID.

At this point a whole slew of accusations are made that he is a racist and other abuse including stuff about his mother and apparently threats about his career.

How does the good professor know that this officer is a racist? Our wonderful Harvard professor who is so upset about racial profiling in America is yelling to the officer about being a racist for one reason only....because he is white. he must have been shocked when he found out what this officer teaches to other cops(how not to racially profile).

Who out there actually believes that this stuff would have been said if our officer had been black.

Please show me one bit of evidence that the cop did anything that resembled racial profiling. Of the three main players, there was only one person acting in a racist manner that night. He wasn't arrested for that reason. He was arrested for being the jerk that he obviously is(even if that may not be a good enough reason to arrest someone).

[chockalicious]

I think there is enough blame to go around on this incident.

The prof acted like a jerk towards the cop. The cop over reacted an arrested him instead of walking away, there is no law against being a jerk.

Obama should not have said the cop acted stupidly.

All of that being said it is being seized upon by the typical howler monkeys on right wing radio and TV to make a mountain out of a molehill.

To deny that the US still has race problems is foolish. If this incident can be used as any kind of learning experience then maybe some good can come out of it.

[13820]

there is no law against being a jerk

I think there is when you are dealing with a uniformed police officer.

The Professor deserves all that is coming to him.

[13820]

The cop over reacted an arrested him instead of walking away,

I just have to add.

Why should the "cop" walk away?

He was there on a genuine request of another person.

If you called the Police asking for help, should they walk away if the person in question is indignant at being asked for identification?

[J.O.]

Something about the whole affair seems fishy to me. Who other than a neighbour would call the police if they thought someone was trying to break in? And why didn't the neighbour recognize that it was the owner who was struggling to get into their own house? It happen in broad daylight for Pete's sake.

[13820]

My favorite picture...

See who's mouth is still open?

Also I love the black officer in the foreground.

I could pull out the Chris Rock clip about how not to get your **s kicked by the police, but I must go to bed.

[chockalicious]

As I said there is no law against being a jerk.

I just have to add.

Why should the "cop" walk away?

He was there on a genuine request of another person.

If you called the Police asking for help, should they walk away if the person in question is indignant at being asked for identification?

The cop should walk away because after ascertaining that there was no suspect after being inside of the house the threat is over.

The cop should walk away because it would have ended the situation.

The cop should walk away because it is better to have some blow hard who is being a jerk off on his own property carry on because there is nothing to be gained by arresting him.

The cop should walk away because no laws were being broken.

[Guest woxof]

As I said there is no law against being a jerk.

The cop should walk away because after ascertaining that there was no suspect after being inside of the house the threat is over.

The cop should walk away because it would have ended the situation.

The cop should walk away because it is better to have some blow hard who is being a jerk off on his own property carry on because there is nothing to be gained by arresting him.

The cop should walk away because no laws were being broken.

All true.....

So where does any racial profiling come in?

From the good professor of course.

And then there is the neighbour. She called the cops as she was concerned about neighbourhood safety and apparently has been threatened by people apparently upset at her.

The racism industry as questioned in a previous post.....just a term for the widespread types who try to use any excuse as in this attempted case to further their reasoning for racist affirmative action laws.

[mo32a]

The cop should walk away because after ascertaining that there was no suspect after being inside of the house the threat is over.

Do we know that the good professor provided ID that showed his address?

If not the police officer would have every right to detain the gentleman until this was done.

[DEFCON]

Has anyone heard of "Larry Sinclair"...yet?

If not, Google provides some interesting YouTube links.

[chockalicious]

Do we know that the good professor provided ID that showed his address?

If not the police officer would have every right to detain the gentleman until this was done.

That is why the cop left from inside the house. The prof showed his work ID, don't know if it has his adress or not.

There is no law that says you have to provide ID in your own home.

There is blame on both sides of this.

[chockalicious]

Has anyone heard of "Larry Sinclair"...yet?

If not, Google provides some interesting YouTube links.

I honesltly thought you were more intelligent than that.

[DEFCON]

"There is blame on both sides of this?

Perhaps there is, but I'm betting the good professor is the one responsible for escalating the situation, which of course resulted in his arrest.

Why are white boys the only ones ever being accused of "racist" behaviour?

[DEFCON]

Choc

Can you prove this guy is lying?

I see smoke here, no pun intended.

[13820]

There is blame on both sides of this.

Nope, disagree.

Hope their beer summit goes well.

[Guest]

An officer responds to a break and enter. He is told about it by someone claiming to be an eyewitness when he arrives. The officer obviously is going to go inside to find out about it. He meets someone inside and is told that he is talking to the owner of the house. Obviously proof is required so he asks for ID.

At this point a whole slew of accusations are made that he is a racist  and other abuse including stuff about his mother and apparently threats about his career.

How does the good professor know that this officer is a racist? Our wonderful Harvard professor who is so upset about racial profiling in America is yelling to the officer about being a racist for one reason only....because he is white. he must have been shocked when he found out what this officer teaches to other cops(how not to racially profile).

Who out there actually believes that this stuff would have been said if our officer had been black.

Please show me one bit of evidence that the cop did anything that resembled racial profiling. Of the three main players, there was only one person acting in a racist manner that night. He wasn't arrested for that reason. He was arrested for being the jerk that he obviously is(even if that may not be a good enough reason to arrest someone).

so let me getthis straight...

If this was some second hand speculative info about how a pilot diverted a flight to MIA to ofload an FA, then everyone would be talking about how it would be inappropriate to make judgement without facts (ie. media is not a credible source) and that everyone should wait for the final investigation before forming an opinion and ruining the pilots career...

When it's a person getting arrested in his own house, we're free to go ahead with the assumption that the "good professor" was a complete ass. Based on what? Speculation that he must have been a jerk for the police to arrest him? That sounds like some rock solid proof.

You ask for evidence that shows that the cop did anything the resembled racial profiling... and then accuse the professor for acting in a racist manner (without providing any evidence).

[Steam Driven]

"Civil rights do not preclude civility. The long, arduous journey of African Americans from slavery to citizenship -- their peculiar plight in a country where they occupy the dual and often irreconcilable identities of black and American -- produces what American historian W. E. B. Du Bois called a "double consciousness." As a product of their diminished status, he explained, African Americans possess "second-sight." They see themselves both through their own eyes and through the eyes of the white majority.

When considering Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s claim that he was a victim of racial profiling, I can't help but wonder whether the elevation in status experienced by African Americans during the 20th century has so badly distorted second-sight that some black people have completely lost touch with the white experience.

The incident began when Gates -- who, as it happens, is the director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University -- returned from a week-long trip to China to find the door to his house jammed. He recruited the help of his cab driver to shoulder the door open, which was observed by a concerned neighbour who reported the incident to local authorities. (The community had already experienced 23 break-and-enters in 2009, many in broad daylight.)

And that's when things got ugly."

Who's the Racist?

[mo32a]

There is no law that says you have to provide ID in your own home.

I would like to think that if someone broke into my home and the police, alerted to the fact by a neighbour, would attend and check the ID of anyone found inside to see if they were lawfully there or not.

Anything less would be deriliction of duty.

And I certainly wouldn't feel upset at providing my ID to prove who I was.

[Steam Driven]

There is no law that says you have to provide ID in your own home.

There's the rub... How do you prove that it is your home without providing identification?

[deicer]

Just like when you lose your key to a hotel room. They ask you to provide ID, then a security guard escorts you to your room, and before he gives you the key, he asks you to describe what's inside. Once he goes in and checks, he comes out and gives you the key and wishes you a good day.

I know, it's happened to me.

Iceman

[Guest woxof]

so let me getthis straight...

If this was some second hand speculative info about how a pilot diverted a flight to MIA to ofload an FA, then everyone would be talking about how it would be inappropriate to make judgement without facts (ie. media is not a credible source) and that everyone should wait for the final investigation before forming an opinion and ruining the pilots career...

When it's a person getting arrested in his own house, we're free to go ahead with the assumption that the "good professor" was a complete ass. Based on what? Speculation that he must have been a jerk for the police to arrest him? That sounds like some rock solid proof.

You ask for evidence that shows that the cop did anything the resembled racial profiling... and then accuse the professor for acting in a racist manner (without providing any evidence).

Quote from my earlier post....

An officer responds to a break and enter. He is told about it by someone claiming to be an eyewitness when he arrives. The officer obviously is going to go inside to find out about it. He meets someone inside and is told that he is talking to the owner of the house. Obviously proof is required so he asks for ID.

At this point a whole slew of accusations are made that he is a racist and other abuse including stuff about his mother and apparently threats about his career.

How does the good professor know that this officer is a racist? Our wonderful Harvard professor who is so upset about racial profiling in America is yelling to the officer about being a racist for one reason only....because he is white. He must have been shocked when he found out what this officer teaches to other cops(how not to racially profile).

Who out there actually believes that this stuff would have been said if our officer had been black.