http://www.american-buddha.com/unauthor.bio.bush.25.1.htm
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/jcurry/saps/documents/fall10/yuravlivker.pdf (Page 13)
Clueless is one thing.
Trying to tell others how to interpret pretty clear picture painted in the above cites… now that’s some major BS.
But, hey, keep going as it seems 350M people don’t give a damn and you are winning.
Jeez… more than 20 years since that speech and the dynamics are exactly the same with Obama. It’s amazing if it wasn’t so eff’d up.
American Buddha .com and Mid East Reality Check .com?
Well why didn’t you just say so!
Of course it’s emotionally manipulative - the term is used to indicate a generally negative feeling about somebody’s involvement in your affairs. Stop trying to add something to it that isn’t there to just make your point.
You mean the leader of another country who is inserting himself into our election, advocating policy only in key counties of key states, and speaking in line with the Republican challenger’s policy statements. You know, meddling.
I wonder why the leaders of the other 194 countries, all affected by our policy decisions, know how to keep their nose out of our election.
You’re the one adding something to it. To review, your usage is not in line with the denotation but with a selective connotation designed to elicit an emotional response. If you’re okay with using language designed to inflame the discussion, that’s fine, but don’t act as if I’m doing some wrong by pointing it out, Inbred.
Of course, it’s no more “meddling” for a foreign individual to offer his/her opinion on a policy than it is for an American individual. If Netanyahu was accused of vote rigging, you’d have a point. Instead this is just bombast because you don’t like the guy’s policies. If the Dhali Lama said “America should elect a compassionate, loving president.” do you really think we’d be hearing people bemoaning how he was “meddling” in our election? For serious?
As for other nations, a cite was just provided to the Chinese reaction. Do you contend that no other politician from another country has ever made political comments about American political candidates before?
As for why Netanyahu did now and other leaders did not, the relative importance of the issue to him and his country might suggest the reasoning to you.
For all his meddling, Netanyahu’s not going to be able to swing the election to Romney. Though its understandable that as the PM of Israel, he’d have to overreact to Iran, but they, with or without nukes, are of little threat to Israel. I hope he has a good apology penned that he can give Obama once he wins the election
After the disaster of the W. Bush years and the wars, Obama’s not going to get himself drawn into another one. There’s no way. Iran, barring some insane action like attacking Israel, will and should go unattacked to at least 2016. By that time, sanctions should be deeply affecting the capability of the regime to wage effective war. Not every international problem’s solution is bombs
To shorten, I know how to use the word meddling.
Of course people can legitimately perceive his behavior as meddling. Others welcome his involvement, and they probably do not perceive any meddling.
Of course there are no other leaders of any country in the world currently involving themselves in US politics like Netanyahu. It is unique. Perhaps you can educate me on leaders of other countries that have acted like Netanyahu in past American elections.
Sure, the English mayor and prime minister did just recently. It’s not meddling though.
Yes, so important to him and those of his party and ideology, that they felt it was time to come to the US and improperly interfere.
You’re asking me to discuss this rationally with you, but at the same time you’re admitting that you won’t use the denotation and you’ll just go based on whatever you think is ‘improper’. And then you expect me to come up with examples to fit a model which is based only on what you subjectively feel, and not the denotation. This is a bit like playing Monopoly with a kid who insists that they can make up the rules and change them between turns.
No thanks.
I was asking whether or not you considered what Bush did “meddling” as well. You seem to be saying “Yes, but I agree with what Bush did.”
There’s always the Pope.
How come what they did doesn’t count as “meddling”?
I think Netanyahu is meddling by going around and stumping for a war as if America is his personal military reserve state.
I think whether or not it amounts to everyone’s technical framing of the term ‘meddling’ is irrelevant though. The United States does not owe Israel (or any other country) a war with Iran. I think we ought to apply deterrence to Israel (and any other country that makes the same threats) in order to prevent their provoking such a war, and I think the Israeli people should consider impeaching Netanyahu and replacing him with someone who won’t put their country at risk with his mad demands.
I would certainly be quite pleased if that happened, particularly if Netanyahu was put under house arrest and forced to live 24/7 with his rather odd wife(I genuinely think part of the reason he became a politician was to have an excuse to get out of the house).
However, how do we get the Israelis to do this without “meddling” in their affairs?
Well I think your suggestion goes to far, I just want to put him in a position where he can’t foment WWIII.
As for ‘not meddling’, I don’t know, where is the line between meddling and politics? On the other end of the spectrum we can point out that one party in this situation is a superpower, and it ain’t Israel. Remembering that ‘war is just politics by other means’, we threaten them with destruction if Israel takes it into their own hands to trash our interests, the world’s interests, cause the deaths of who knows how many hundreds of thousands or millions through war, and probably millions more through starvation in the ensuing economic crisis. We should be perfectly clear that we won’t tolerate such an outcome and will do what it takes to prevent it, or else mete out punishment after the fact as an example to the remaining countries.
At some point the exercise of power is going to overlap ‘meddling’ I suppose. When everyone can’t get their way, one side causes another to not get what they want, which seems open to accusations of meddling at the least. I would prefer a solution that leaves the smallest impact possible- no one bombed, everyone keeps their job, people’s lives continue undisturbed. If Netanyahu won’t STFU about war with Iran he risks turning America against Israel, which might be enough by itself to bring about his ouster.
I gave no indication. I recognized that an Israeli might regard Bush’s involvement in their election as meddling (assuming your account is true. I have no time to look up the event you are referring to).
If the Pope is pushing for one candidate versus another then he is meddlesome.
Romney was in their country and being insulting; they responded.
I can’t believe how complicated this all must be for you.
Also, to stay on target: We should not lose or threaten a single American life for Netanyahu’s doomsday imagination. I am also unsure that we should concern ourselves militarily with what is, in all honesty, primarily a Middle Eastern problem. They need to work things out for themselves.
Meanwhile, in the UN, things are simplified so even average American citizen can figure it out
Man is inexorable.
Netanyahu is meddling. So was Bush. This isn’t complicated.
Not that they don’t work in synch.
Lobbyist Says Israel Should Create A ‘False Flag’ To Start A War With Iran
This time make sure you don’t dance on a van and give each other high-fives 
That bombing in Bulgaria did not work as planned. Keep trying…
Would you finally like to discuss your status as a 9/11 Truther and your belief that the Mossad was somehow behind it and that it was an Israeli “false flag” operation? Or… still no?
While you’re at it, would you like to provide support for your claim that the Israelis murdered their own citizens in Bulgaria? Or should we not expect that, either?
I mean, I understand why you might not, but why not give it a whirl?
And, did you read your cite? It’s not even about false flag ops, but attacking Iran.
Do you understand what a “false flag” operation is?
Fuck’s he talking about?
Who does your pronoun refer to?
Patrick Clawson, Director of Research at Washington Institute Of Near East Policy - that little bastard child of AIPAC with a glamorous title - is not advocating “false flag” operation.
He is merely “suggesting”.
I must admit I thought I was watching some MadTV sketch or something.
The speech is real, however.
They don’t even bother to hide it.
