Comments Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar
Displaying 71 To 80 Of 136 Comments
Chuck,
"Meh. The bullshit benefits the Jew Haters and the Non Jew Haters alike. Israel uses the bullshit to get their massive handout from the US, and Arab countries use it to distract their people from their horrible oppressive governments. It will never end."
I am sure if your house comes under rocket attack, you'd call it bullshit too. or react with a "meh."
Your joke about Israel getting a massive handout was a nice touch. As though without this "handout", a people who have given 159 Nobel prize winners, introduced the innovation of drip irrigation to the world ( remember they live in a fricking desert ?) and has a per capita GDP of about 31,767$.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1188197182339
What is a 5billion dollar "handout" to an economy that produces 161 billion$ GDP ? and without the oil supplies of course ?
Chuck, get your facts square before talking about "handouts". I actually wish that this was completely stopped - of course this would nt change a damned thing in that wretched part of the world - but at the very least it would nt give people a convenient stick to beat Israel with.
Stopping the money wouldnt stop the hatred in the heart of the average Palestinian for Israel.
Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 10.01.2009 @ 18:42
IT'S JUST A LITTLE STAB IN THE BACK
"A true conservative would never be comfortable with the level of debt Bush has created. He should raise taxes as much as possible to balance the budget. Make the people pay for everything their leaders are doing. THEN the people would feel the full burden what this man and his party have caused. Then the people will start to figure out what it means to be fiscally conservative. Balance the budget, then cut the junk out, then cut taxes. That’s fiscal conservatism. Something we haven’t seen since there was a budget surplus."
Unfortunately Chuck, true conservatives no longer exist in the GOP as a major force. There is one major politician here like Tom Coburn, one person there... and thats about it.
You only proved my point - there is no way you can call Bush an "extreme idealogue" or extreme right winger.
I would LOVE to hear what you think of the 700 billion dollar bailout ? Or the automakers bailout ? or the trillion dollar "stimulus" that is going to be passed at the earliest by a Democrat party majority ?
Who do you think is "paying" for this ? let's see what your response is.
Fiscal conservatism does not happen in isolation or because one political party alone insists on it. "Balancing" the budget is not exactly a priority now - the printing press is busy devaluing the dollar.
Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 5.01.2009 @ 23:05
Tim,
It would be better if you didnt indulge in such banalities. In fact this is exactly what stops a debate from taking shape.Let me give you a small example,
"It’s not like we fell asleep at the switch and almost enabled Hamas to come to power the way your Republican president did."
Spoken like a true liberal.
Let me ask you this Tim. Who the HELL are you as an American to decide who should and should not be the democratically elected leaders of Palestine? I ask this question as a pro Israel supporter.
What exactly should Bush have done ? Not agree to elections in Palestine until he was sure that Fatah would win ? Since when did the American President have a veto on the election schedule of the Palestinian people ?
In fact is'nt this exactly what the Islamic world complains about America ? That they are not allowed to choose their real leaders because America supports authoritarian rules like Mubarrak in Egypt and the House of Saud?
Bush's decision to allow elections in Palestine was the best thing he did in the region - counter intuitive as it may sound to you. The Palestinians could no longer wallow in their self pity about how America kept forcing Fatah down their collective throats.
And just because Bush was ok with the elections in Palestine does not automatically mean that Hamas was going to win. The Palestinian people had a choice between Fatah and Hamas. And guess whom they chose ?
The real problem with liberals like you is that you dont want to face the facts - the fact is this - Palestinians overwhelmingly chose a terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel in its charter. no peaceful co-existence. no two state solution. but the destruction of the Jewish state.
Another fact that liberals are not able to face is that this terrorist organization was actually better at providing some services to the Palestinian people - something that Fatah failed miserably at.
The election also broke the myth about how Palestinians would not back an extremist religious organization like Hamas and rather choose a secular organization like Fatah.
So according to you it is a mistake that Bush allowed Palestinians to decide their own fate and their own leaders.
When Bush convinced Israelis to evacuate all the settlers from Gaza, he was enabling Hamas right ? Or was he helping Fatah?
Damned if you do. Damned if you dont.
"George W. Bush represented the extreme right, ideologically, socially and economically. – (What an utter failure he was, following the right’s puppet-masters to a “t” – total epic fail)"
A. I am no admirer of Bush but if he indeed represented the extreme right socially, there would have been a Federal Marriage Amendment banning gay marriage, the rest of forever.
If he indeed represented the extreme right socially, he would not have been the President who has done the most good to the continent of Africa - better than any liberal has ever come close to or will have the decency to acknowledge Bush's record.
You dont agree with me, listen to Bob Geldof.
www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934-1,00.htmlB. If Bush was anywhere close to being a conservative economically or idealogically, let alone "extreme" right wing, he would not have presidede over Hank Paulson's 700 billion dollar bailout - or for that matter the bailout of any other financial company. Or for that matter the bailout of Detroit automakers.
The first and foremost rule of conservative idealogy is to stand up for yourself and take personal responsibility for your actions, omissions and commisions - it is NOT to go crying to "Mother Government" asking to suck at her tits.
Here we have conservatives, who have basically called him out for a being a conservative by name only and you come along and say that he is an "extreme idealogue" ?
C. If Bush was anywhere close to being an idealogue on the Iraq war, he was closer to a liberal hawk, or as it is famously derided now as neo-conservatism. No conservative or right wing idealogue thinks that you go around "promoting democracy"
In fact the only way that Bush could be considered "extreme" was his unaplogetic stance on tax cuts - he thought that people should keep more of their money instead of sending it to the IRS. We could have a long discussion on why there is nothing "extreme" about this, but i suspect that it would descend into another ugly fight on class warfare. (Those rich fat bastards !!! sucking all our poor saps blood dry !)
"Right now, the left has a far superior resume than the right does… The right’s reputation is basically shit now. They could really use your help…"
What exactly is this faaaar "superior" resume'? And if the right's reputation is shit now, why are you worried.?
Especially for some one who is certain that the left has "far superior ideas." Again, please dont bother to go into specific issues - just keep up with the banalities.
Bush is an extreme right wing idealogue, who enabled Hamas by allowing free elections in Palestine. That's the script that works, I guess.
Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 4.01.2009 @ 16:02
GLENN GREENWALD IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR
Rick,
Thanks for pouring your heart out on this Glenn gasbag Greenwald - he is the preachiest SOB that i have seen in the blogosphere - his moral blindspots are so embarrassing that it really takes a lot to respond to Mr.Preachy.He is a joker. And he thinks he is the moral authority of the left wing blogosphere.
Gasbag Greenwald needs to be avoided at all costs - he STINKS !
Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 2.01.2009 @ 21:26
NHL'S WINTER CLASSIC ONE FOR THE BOOKS
Rick,
Great post - glad that you mentioned the Buffalo community's support for the Sabres .Shaun, thanks for not being a hockey fan. it is amazing how little people know about hockey and yet gripe about it's
"faux grunting" - what ever that is supposed to mean.May be this is how it is supposed to be - followed religiously in Canada and in places like Buffalo,Detroit, Denver,Minnesota,Philly and to a good extent in Boston, Chicago etc.
Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews are the best youth stars in the game today and i am glad that they are playing for a long suffering franchise like the Hawks. (especially to its most loyal fans)
Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 2.01.2009 @ 22:55
"I understand that oil is a commodity, but having US companies in control in Iraq helps the US maintain dominance. The entire war, the fledgling democracy, the contracts, it’s all for the future benefit of the US, as our leaders seem to see it."
Having US companies in control in Iraq ? Could you please let us know of these oil companies that are "controlling" Iraq ? The last time I checked the Democrats were whining about how Iraq was profiting from its oil exports and how the US should stop paying for Iraq's re-construction.
The new Status Of Forces Agreement was signed with the agreement of a majority of Iraqi legislators and envisions a complete US pull out - no residual presence, no nothing.
I'd like to know how this helps the "controlling" oil companies.
Even though you say that you understand that oil is a commodity sold in the open market, you then go to illustrate that you dont really understand that/ or you dont agree with that statement - oil fell to under 40$ a barrel today - where are those oil companies who are supposed to be "controlling" things in Iraq ?
"I just HATE being lied to with bullshit about freeing the Iraqi people and Saddam killed his own people and blah blah blah. The US doesn’t care about this stuff, but it needs it to sell the measures necessary to remain #1."
Some people like to think that freeing Iraq's was more than bullshit - cynical Americans like you WHO HAVE NEVER known tyranny will NEVER understand that.
When neo-cons get blamed for pushing the US to a war with Iraq, why is it that no one gives them credit for what they believe in ? You may not agree with such "bullshit" things like freedom, but you now want to deny that this was not a goal ? the whole "domino" theory - that if you establish a democracy in the Arab heartland, it will influence other Arab countries ?
Many people think that democracy promotion in the Middle east is foolish - but almost no one denies that neo-cons believed in the freedom of the moderate Arab world and pushed this as an important reason.
Also what is this thing about Hussein violating innumerable UN resolutions - or the US Congress authorizing regime change in Iraq in 1998 through the Iraqi Liberation Act under the leadership of DAschle, Dodd and Kerry?
Oil seems to be how ever the only/primary reason according to many people.
Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 18.12.2008 @ 00:16
"Al Qaeda is a 98% myth"
Hmmmm... i think the US troops in Afghanistan need to know this. just like the troops who fought in Anbar province.Dont forget to tell that to the Sunnis in Anbar either - i think they were all fighting myths.
Imagine the amount of time and money the US has wasted investigating the 98% myth of Al Qaeda...
Chuck, i hope the Obama administration offered you a job at the NSA - they need you.
Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 16.12.2008 @ 21:14
BLAGOJEVICH: BEYOND 'BUSINESS AS USUAL' IN ILLINOIS
Chuck,
Please see
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=8054792&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1I'd like to know why exactly the Obama team has been dead silent on this issue.
Even more importantly i'd like to know why Obama still maintains that he has had no contact with the Governor about his Senate replacement. If you believe that to be a true statement, how does it make sense that an Obama staff member tipped off the Feds ? After all, they have had no contact about the Senate seat !
So either Obama lies about having no contact with the Governor's office - and when i say that i dont just mean only Obama's conversations/phone calls with the Governor, but i also mean his entire staff or any major player connected to his transition team.
How plausible is this scenario ? Highly unlikely.
If indeed Obama's staff member tipped off the Feds and still remains silent about it, there is only one reason - this staff member is still co-operating with the Feds.
And that staff member is most likely Emmanuel - even though he denies that he said anything to the Feds.
This investigation is far from over and the refusal of Obama to answer straightforward and fundamental questions about this issue should be troubling to any one who wants a transparent Government - unfortunately this is going to end up as being another partisan issue.
Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 12.12.2008 @ 21:45
Levi,
Blagojevich called Obama "a motherfucker"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1208/Blago_calls_Obama_motherfer.htmlhmmm.. the Governor is angry with the President elect over "candidate A". What could that be about ?
It is pretty obvious that Obama approached Blago about Valerie Jarret - and i have no problems with that per se.
But it is laughable to say that he had no "contact" with the Governor - no one is talking just about him - we are talking about Obama's staff and transition team as well - they were very much in "contact" with Blago - after hearing his request for a bribe/political favor/appointment as HHS for him and a plum post for his wife, they obviously balked.
However, they NEVER reported this to the Feds - and that is what is really appalling - they never alerted the Feds that Blagojevich was trying to sell the Senate seat. That is unethical to put it mildly.
The full facts of this sordid mess are yet to come out - but when they do, there is going to be more controversy for Obama. With his nonsensical denial of having had no contact with Blago about his replacement for the Senate Seat when every one knew that he favored Valerie Jarret, Obama himself has guaranteed that he either lies or... drum roll please... misspeaks
Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 12.12.2008 @ 00:07
Levi,
Create straw mans if you will... but let me dumb it down to your 5th grade level... Obama never had conversations (about his replacement for the Senate) with Rod ? Capice ??"Obama said he had ‘no contact’ with the governor. That statement was obviously limited to this singular issue of corruption"
Bwahahaha.... no contacts but he had conversations with Blagojevich huh ? the "contact" that he is talking about is after the elections were over. His meeting with Blagojevich has been reportedhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83240
David Axelrod also apoke about Obama discussing his Senate replacement with Rod on Nov 23 . he later backtracked saying he .. ahem.. misspoke
From your logic, Obama NEVER had any conversation with Blagojevich about appointing Valerie Jarret or about the fact that he would "appreciate" if Blago did so. Did you even how Blago reacted to this "appreciation" offer ? lets just say he used a few profane words.
You dont have knowledge of the fundamental facts of the case and you think you already know everything that there is to know about me !
Levi,your man Obama comes from the shithole that is Chicago politics.. you have NO CLUE about how things work in the Chicago way - otherwise you'd realize that Blago was acting very normally.
You also think that Obama never had "contacts" with Blago about his preferred replacement Valerie Jarret... this is naivete' that no one can pull you out of.
You also sidestepped by question about how Obama never reported Blago's call for a bribe/political favor to the Feds. How could you ? Your man had no "contact" !!!
how many more people have drunk the koolaid?
Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 11.12.2008 @ 23:33
