-15, Lows Keep Getting LOWER!
Here's what was actually said at that June summit in Vienna between Kennedy and Khrushchev:
"The discussions touched on a range of topics, including the position of Laos and the broader conflict in Indochina, nuclear disarmament and ideological musings. The Summit, however, was dominated by the discussions over Berlin.
Khrushchev threatened to sign a peace agreement with East Germany that would impinge on Western access to Berlin by turning over control of the access roads and air routes. Kennedy was shocked at the tone and threats made, but refused to capitulate the American policy of containment of communism in Europe in the face of Soviet pressure.
Khrushchev told Kennedy, "Force will be met by force. If the US wants war, that's its problem." "It's up to the US to decide whether there will be war or peace." "The decision to sign a peace treaty is firm and irrevocable, and the Soviet Union will sign it in December if the US refuses an interim agreement."
To this, Kennedy replied, "Then, Mr. Chairman, there will be a war. It will be a cold, long winter."
Uh, yes, Mike's A. Obama WAS correct, and you are mistaken.
When Kennedy said "Then, Mr. Chairman, there will be a war." That is brinkmanship. WE WERE ON THE BRINK OF WAR when those words were spoken. Or do you think each man was kidding?
Well Shaw if that was "actually said" at the summit, it seems they could have phoned it in.
You confirmed for readers here that the ill-prepared Kennedy had a miserable performance that almost led to war.
Are you suggesting that Obama should also threaten war if he doesn't get his way with the Iranians?
I'm even more confused after reading how confused Obama is.
Are we sure it's tobacco in those cigarettes he's smoking?
How can this man's brain be so completely scrambled?
Mike,
If this is true then McCain is done for and Obama is our next president.
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-
ti...s,msft,yhoo,nyt
I assume that Murdoch thinks that four years of Obama madness followed logically by a "better" conservative nominee than McCain is a preferable option to four years of McCain with a likely democratic sweep four years from now...
Kevin: A small number of people think that it would be preferable to have Obama for four miserable years so we could recapture the GOP with a conservative in 2012.
I don't take people who suggest that seriously.
Do they really want 2 to 3 Obama justices sitting on the Supreme Court for life?
Do they remember what a mess Carter made of things in four years? We're still cleaning that mess up with Iran and worldwide jihad.
I don't know what Rupert Murdoch thinks. Maybe he's just worried Obama IS going to win and he's afraid the Dems will use their majority in Congress and the White House to pass new laws regulating press ownership by conservatives. He's trying to get on the right side of Obama.
I don't know.
http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-...n/dp/
030740515X
Great news for Miller. Pat Buchanan's out with a new book rightly putting Miller's unjustified hero Churchill in a new and correct light. With all the "Obama appeaser" line going around, it's refreshing to see a true Conservative outline what unnecessarily happens when not enough bargaining is effected.
You confirmed for readers here that the ill-prepared Kennedy had a miserable performance that almost led to war.
Are you suggesting that Obama should also threaten war if he doesn't get his way with the Iranians?
Mike's America
No, Mike. Those are your thoughts, not mine.
You do that all the time. It's called logical fallacy, q.v.
Shaw, logical fallacy? Those who live in glass houses.
This is how the kennedy-khrushchev talks panned out. I looked this up and am inserting the link
http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/
Mike: Shaw won't like it if you get i the way of his active revisionism.
As we have pointed out time and again Obama's understanding of how President's have conducted diplomacy in the past is seriuosly flawed.
Even Shaw isn't able to overcome that mountain of willful ignorance.
P.S. Hoopie "not enough bargaining is effected." So the Brits should have given the Nazis Poland too?
Shaw makes absolutely no sense. The bottom line is that Kennedy came across as a weakling, which prompted Khrushchev to put missiles in Cuba. Obama risks doing the same with whichever Iranian he wants to meet with.
But here's what I can never get any lib to tell me: What exactly will Obama say as these meetings that will persuade them to change their ways?
Tom: It is the arrogance and stupidity of the Obamatons who think that somehow, this time, with their guy things will be different if Obama talks to these rogue leaders.
It's not like Administrations composed of both Republicans and Democrats, many very smart and hardworking people, haven't worked on a problem like this for years.
You wonder if some of these libs only started paying attention when Bush became President. They seem totally devoid of any historical understanding.
But then, so does their candidate.
first of all Kennedy was a fool his presidency was a disaster, but the press loved him and covered up his affairs and drug use. They also made a fantasy dream figure out of a man that stole the election by mafia backed vote juggling in Chicago. This inept President is a hollywood creation of fantasy and nothing more. He almost got us nuked and placed us in vietnam. Other than screwing Marilyn Monroe this git achieved nothing of substance.
The Obamanation would be worse.
Obama and his advisors are amateurs.
Mike, yes, they lack historical understanding, and being leftards, they also lack understanding of human nature.
I don't want to pay for his mistakes for even four years. It would be disastrous at this juncture in history.
Obama can't negotiate an equitable solution to the Michigan and Florida delegate seating arraingement, but he will negotiate peace in our time.
Obama won't meet with Petraeous without preconditions, but he'll meet with Mahmoud over tea without even a preamble as to the shape of the table.
Obama doesn't know the difference between his grandfather and his uncle, Auschwitz and Buchenwald.
Obama is not ready for high school, never mind the presidency.
Mike,
Of course none of this surprises me. It is just hard for me to believe there are idiots out there who believe the stuff he spews, not to mention everyone in the Democratic leadership and think it is good for our country.
Liberals have no capacity to think of 'cause and effect'. They think about what can benefit them personally today and that is it. That is the definition of an idiot.
Obama can't negotiate an equitable solution to the Michigan and Florida delegate seating arraingement, but he will negotiate peace in our time.
Obama won't meet with Petraeous without preconditions, but he'll meet with Mahmoud over tea without even a preamble as to the shape of the table.
Obama doesn't know the difference between his grandfather and his uncle, Auschwitz and Buchenwald.
Obama is not ready for high school, never mind the presidency.
Indigo Red
The closer Senator Obama gets to the presidency, the more hysterical and silly your comments become.
"Obama is not ready for high school?"
That's nice dear. I would seriously suggest that you stay away from sharp objects during the coming months.
Now go along outside and play nice with your friends.
Mike,
I think the sad reality about his confused position is that for the left, it will sound very deep and profound, almost messianic like and they will love him all the more. Pointing out the logical inconsistencies to those who don't use logic at all will be a waste of time and breath.
Blessings
Indigo: I see Shaw liked your comment so much he, or is it she? decided to repeat it. Shaw beat me to it.
Clearly it hit the mark as Shaw's purpose in commenting here is usually to confirm the impact and veracity of what we think and say.
Timothy, Rivka and Atheling: You call came at the same point from somewhat different angles. The willful ignorance, blindness to history and acceptance of shifting rhetoric that has no substance or core philosophy behind it is just the symptom of a cult of personality that is a very dangerous thing.
Karl Rove had a piece in the Wall Street Journal. The last two paragraphs nailed it:
...Mr. Obama's problem is a campaign that's personality-driven rather than idea-driven. Thus incidents calling into question his persona and character can have especially devastating consequences.
Stripped of his mystique as a different kind of office seeker, he could become just another liberal politician – only one who parses, evades, dissembles and condescends. That narrative is beginning to take hold. If those impressions harden into firm judgments, Mr. Obama will have a very difficult time in November
Mike:
Rove has it spot on.
Obama's campaign IS personality driven, and that's what is so alarming because personality driven means DEMAGOGUERY.
People fell for Hitler for the same reasons...
This is Obama's time.
No one is going to beat him, not even if 1/2 of Hillary's supporters run to McCain.
I would say that McCain would have won had he not been so close to Grorge Bush.
But he is and the people are sick and tired of Bush, they don't want a Bush clone
Mike's America | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 8:37 pm
Your war criminals gave it to Stalin, along with half of Europe.
Sorry Liberals but with Obama's lack of knowledge about Foreign Policy, his crazy as hell Pastor's, his ties with the Terrorist Bill Ayers, and God know's what else is going to come out about the man,
Obama's Toast!!
Poor Ken Hoopster is losing it...
And Matt can't spell... BDS is a sad thing. What will you libtards do when he's gone?
The question is: Will Obama's true nature become evident to enough people who aren't brain dead Obamaton zombies BEFORE the election?
I guess we will find out. The press can only run so many fawning articles devoid of substance for so long before people start to catch on.
The question is: Will Obama's true nature become evident to enough people who aren't brain dead Obamaton zombies BEFORE the election?
That's a question that only 20 percenters care about.
The rest of the nation is moving away from LIVs.
That worked for you guys up until 2006.
Psssst. The country has changed.
No Shaw, The country has NOT changed.
The country is NOT indifferent to the truth.
The country does NOT accept whatever cooked up lies you lefties want to swallow.
The only 20 percenters around here are the masters of delusion like yourself and I would say your percentage is closer to 15%
Remember the words of Lincoln:
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time
The only people being fooled by Obama are Obamatons like you.
oh peshaw Shaw and who the hell is this Matt wacko?
Here is why McCain the traitorous scum will win and for this reason alone
http://thecitytroll.blogspot.com...hink-
about.html
Obama and his never ending gaffe machine will be the reason McCain wins. Obama will lose in a landslide because Amewricans, real Americans are sick of political correctness and Obama is the PC candidate.
Obama is a demagogue. He's playing to "the crowd," even if that crowd consists only of one interviewer.
I can't wait to see what Matt and Shaw are going to say when Obama loses the election.
Here's something for them, and I don't think it's going to improve for Obama as election day draws nearer:
Barack Obama’s favorability ratings among white women has declined significantly in recent months, particularly among Democrats and independents, presenting an immediate obstacle for the likely Democratic nominee as he moves to shore up his party’s base.
According to a new report by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, half of white women now have a negative perception of Obama.
Forty-nine percent of white women view Obama unfavorably, while only 43 percent hold a favorable opinion. In February, 36 percent of these women viewed Obama unfavorably, while 56 percent had a positive perception of the likely Democratic nominee.
Over the same period, Democratic white women’s negative view of Obama increased from 21 percent to 35 percent, while their positive view decreased from 72 percent to 60 percent — roughly the same rate as white women overall.
Read the rest here:
http://www.politico.com/news/sto...0508/
10691.html
Kevin, Mike's right...think SCOTUS.
People who think that four years of ruining our country with Obama AND a Dem congress (!) can be repaired (maybe ever) are NUTS; you'll probably agree. I know you aren't agreeing with Murdoch!
It's always hit me strangely that Murdoch had a campaign party and gave money to Hillary though, remember? He sure did. What I can't imagine is his talking Hannity and O'Reilly and the other good Conservatives at FOX to promote OBAMA! SOMEBODY in that business must have some integrity! Hannity and O'Reilly both have radio shows; they can't tout the boss's pick on TV and speak their consciences during the day, right?
Very curious, though...and the msm will run with 'a conservative wants Obama', we can all bet on that.
I posted about a friend in the film business here who called tonight and told me MANY Dems she knows, dedicated libs, are confiding in her that they're voting for Mc Cain...there's something afoot. Murdoch might find himself in the wrong shoes!? Z
Z and Mike,
I have been saying that this election year belongs to the Republican party for a couple of years now, but to be honest seeing Murdoch vocally support Obama has rocked me.
"They can't tout the boss' pick on TV and speak their consciences during the day, right?"
Here is a far from complete list of holdings for Murdoch: http://www.ketupa.net/murdoch1.htm
A lot of people like to talk about the media, but the truth is that just the ability to coordinate the front page of his 175 English language newspapers (across the US, UK and Australia) on any given day makes Murdoch "the media". The idea that he has to get "on the right side" of Obama seems laughable to me.
Mike, are we really talking two to three justices in the next four years? that can really really hurt.
kevin - i imagine a couple of those justices are just biding their time until after elections are over - if a dhimmiwittedcrat takes over, watch them all fold like a cheap card table.
i've noticed fox news becoming more "fair and balanced" toward the left in the last year or so - bor's been defending her heinous left and right lately!
somebody has to have a little chat with Ol' Rupert.
I see a horse head in his bed.
Except that he's the trainer, the track, the breeder, the slaughter house, the butler, the maid, the sheets company, the mattress company, the sleep aid company............. uhoh
Kevin: Liberal justice John Paul Stevens is 88. And former ACLU lawyer, Justice Ginsburg 75, has been in ill health.
It's been rumored that both of those would like to go and it was even thought they might retire during Bush's second Administration.
But as Nanc says, they may be holding out hoping for a "change."
And despite John McCain's personal assurance to me in a meeting here in November that we should be glad he preserved the filibuster on Judges with his infamous "gang of 14" it's unlikely that GOP Senators would have the guts to actually do what the Democrats did to a very lib judicial appointee.
As for Murdoch: I really don't know what he is doing. But I will say that global businessmen of his stature often compromise political beliefs for immediate business concerns.
Miller and his crew of neocon interventionists were all boasting that Iran (and Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas) was going to be shocked and awed by a quick victory in Iraq.
Now they worry that Obama will have to give away more ground to Iran (and the others) than Bush already has.
The answer: yes yes and yes. Ditto for McCain if he's the lucky commander-in-retreat. Russia, China and the Islamic/ Arab world are going to continue markedly reducing the American/Israeli combine's power in the Mideast, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Commenting by HaloScan
