Originally posted by no1marauderOff the same website you provided:
You are wrong. Please read this carefully:
US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright calls for a new start in US-Iranian relations and announces lifting of sanctions on [b]Iranian exports ranging from carpets to food products.
Please cite to a source which has Ahmadinejad stating that the people of Israel should or could be exterminated.[/b]
(Washington Post) Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?
(Ahmadinejad) Our suggestion is very clear:... Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted.... The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.
BTW...your statement about Madeleine Albright does not state that the entire embargo was lifted.
1 edit
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeYou are joking, right? How do you go from a statement that:
Off the same website you provided:
(Washington Post) Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?
(Ahmadinejad) Our suggestion is very clear:... Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted.... The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.
...[text shortened]... BTW...your statement about Madeleine Albright does not state that the entire embargo was lifted.
Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted....
to your statement that he would support the extermination of the Israeli people? You're being absurd. The context of the statement is quite clear; if the Palestinian people want the state of Israel (i.e. the Zionist entity in Palestine) to cease to exist, it should. I'm sure most Americans don't agree with that, but it's hardly calling for a "second Holocaust".
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeMcCain is calling for "painful" sanctions which he thinks he can get various European nations to agree with. If anything, his policy proposals are even more extreme than the present policy of this administration. How that equates to Clinton's policy of reducing sanctions and engaging the Iranian government in direct talks is hard to fathom.
Off the same website you provided:
(Washington Post) Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?
(Ahmadinejad) Our suggestion is very clear:... Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted.... The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.
...[text shortened]... BTW...your statement about Madeleine Albright does not state that the entire embargo was lifted.
Ezra Klein had an interesting comment:
"Give McCain this: He did an extremely good stylistic job in an extremely hard situation. I doubt he could have offered a better performance. But the polls suggest that undecideds broke hard for Obama anyway. Which suggests that McCain's problem is what he's saying, not how he's saying it."
Originally posted by no1marauderBecause he states that the result should be accepted. Based on his previous statement in 2005 and his most recent statement about a "referendum," it follows logically that Ahmadinejad wouldn't have a problem with a non-peaceful resolution in Israel.
You are joking, right? How do you go from a statement that:
Let the Palestinian people decide [b]their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted....
to your statement that he would support the extermination of the Israeli people? You're being absurd. The context of the statement is q ...[text shortened]... re most Americans don't agree with that, but it's hardly calling for a "second Holocaust".[/b]
1 edit
Well, since this thread is about who "won" the debate, let's go to the polls:
CBS - http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/politics/horserace/entry4482028.shtml
Thirty-nine percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-four percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-seven percent saw it as a draw.
Forty-six percent of uncommitted voters said their opinion of Obama got better tonight. Thirty-two percent said their opinion of McCain got better.
Sixty-six percent of uncommitted voters think Obama would make the right decisions about the economy. Forty-two percent think McCain would.
CNN - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/?iref=hpmostpop
Men were nearly evenly split between the two candidates, with 46 percent giving the win to McCain and 43 percent to Obama. But women voters tended to give Obama higher marks, with 59 percent calling him the night's winner, while just 31 percent said McCain won.
Fox has a poll on the site with the disclaimer "This is not a scientific poll."
McCain 52%
Obama 48%
All of the other articles that I found cited the CBS and the CNN polls.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeSo, you are assuming that Palestine would wipe Israel off the face of the earth? They can't even wipe each other off of the the face of the earth.
Because he states that the result should be accepted. Based on his previous statement in 2005 and his most recent statement about a "referendum," it follows logically that Ahmadinejad wouldn't have a problem with a non-peaceful resolution in Israel.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeYour logic is bizarre. A referendum sounds like a peaceful resolution to me. Even a "non-peaceful resolution" doesn't equate to "extermination"; the American Revolution was a "non-peaceful resolution" but the Tories weren't exterminated.
Because he states that the result should be accepted. Based on his previous statement in 2005 and his most recent statement about a "referendum," it follows logically that Ahmadinejad wouldn't have a problem with a non-peaceful resolution in Israel.
1 edit
Originally posted by CliffLandinNo, but they do a pretty good job wiping their children off the face of the earth as they strap explosives to them and send them out to blow themselves up in public settings. You see, they are good at certain things. 😉
So, you are assuming that Palestine would wipe Israel off the face of the earth? They can't even wipe each other off of the the face of the earth.
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe thats true. Or maybe Obama is doing an effective job of making the McCain ticket look like an extension of the Bush administration (which it isn't) while making himself look like the antithesis of the last eight years.
Ezra Klein had an interesting comment:
"Give McCain this: He did an extremely good stylistic job in an extremely hard situation. I doubt he could have offered a better performance. But the polls suggest that undecideds broke hard for Obama anyway. [b]Which suggests that McCain's problem is what he's saying, not how he's saying it."[/b]
Originally posted by CliffLandinNo I am just saying that Ahmadinejad has ill intentions towards Israel, and his current resolution suggestion is absurd.
So, you are assuming that Palestine would wipe Israel off the face of the earth? They can't even wipe each other off of the the face of the earth.
Originally posted by whodey😴
No, but they do a pretty good job wiping their children off the face of the earth as they strap explosives to them and send them out to blow themselves up in public settings. You see, they are good at certain things. 😉
They should just accept their occupation and repression without protest according to right wingers like you.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeOkay, fair enough, so you are conceding that Obama won the debate and conceding that his team has done a better job of getting their message across.
Maybe thats true. Or maybe Obama is doing an effective job of making the McCain ticket look like an extension of the Bush administration (which it isn't) while making himself look like the antithesis of the last eight years.
Now that we have established that, can you explain how McCain is different than Bush.
1 edit
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeMcCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time and has reversed himself on several of the issues he used to oppose him on (the Bush tax cuts for one). On foreign policy, I can't think of a single important issue where they differ. Can you?
Maybe thats true. Or maybe Obama is doing an effective job of making the McCain ticket look like an extension of the Bush administration (which it isn't) while making himself look like the antithesis of the last eight years.