smitty24124: "A democracy has no reason to acknowledge or discuss anything with a dictatorship."

Yeah, that's why Reagan refused to have anything to do with the damn Russkies. And Nixon, when asked about going to China, said, "Not until they renounce communism and have free and open elections!"

Sharon even took steps to start the peace process, by shutting down settlements.

Sharon did everything he could to strangle the peace process -- he was just a clever enough old bird so that strangulation appeared to most observers to be CPR.

Do the "objections" actually hold water, or is it warmed-over gruel?

Gruel.

He's not a perfect human, but can you think of anyone in the government who is?

-

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008414.php

Is that the propaganda site run by the nutsy, racist screwball David Horowitz? Or the nutsy racist screwball Pam Geller? Or is it another nutsy racist screwball?

Iokannen -- here's a link to an article about Freeman's China "problem"

http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=235

There are places in the world that are LOTS worse than here, so shut up! And besides, criticizing America means that you're a hater and love terrorists. (Criticizing a Democratic American is OK, however, cuz they're haters by definition.)

Apparently that's what passes for logic and intellectual discussion in some circles these days.

Another little point of hope for peace and justice gets extinguished.

God damn.

"Jews are far more attuned to the double-coding of language systems about "Jewish Power" and what is often meant underneath such "just the facts" nonsense."

OK, Win, please tell me how a poor stupid non-Jew like me is supposed to talk if I find something objectionable about Chuck Schumer's support for Israel? I would be happy to be lead by you since you know what is good and right, and what is bad and racist.

If you could give me the approved modes of speech soon, I'd appreciate it, because I have lots of things to say about Chuck Schumer, but I wouldn't want to hurt any feelings.

I agree that there is no point in putting low level and even higher level dealers in jail in non-violent drug dealing that doesn't involve other criminal acts. But I don't see how that would have much impact on users or addiction

Do you think more people would be addicts if there were decriminalization? Are the laws as they are enforced NOW keeping people off drugs, and helping them to lead good lives?

In addition to signing the FDL petition and calling my congresspersons, I plan to call Mr. Liddy's office at AIG and ask for my money back.

Care to join me?

AIG Corporate Office #(212) 770-7000

Apparently they are getting a LOT of calls. As soon as I asked for Mr. Liddy's office, I was told that he wasn't taking any "more" calls, but I would be routed to someone who could take a message. That person was completely unsurprised by what I had to say.

Here are the contact #s again:

(212) 770-7000‎

(212) 514-8760‎

Most of these guys awarded the big bonuses live and work in London, not NY, so all this nonsense about the sanctity of contracts under US law is a lot of hot air. London, not NY, was the center of the CDS action because the UK market has no regulation whatsoever. So from my perspective, these guys are owed zero by the US parent.

Israel won't be around much longer once Tehran starts joyously launching its ICBMs. Global jihadists will absolutely praise Obama and the Porkulus-praising parasites of the left who support Obama's every surrender first, surrender always move.

Is this satire?

No, believe it or not. Atawhatanut trolls around on various "liberal" websites, posting this same level of hogwash. I used to think it was spoof, but now believe he/she/it is serious.

Good on Obama. First baby step, but a really good one. (Although the fact that Pharisee likes it too makes me nervous.)

Are you really going to assert that none of the activities now taking place in Iran might, in fact, be designed to lead to such a weapon?

What needs to occur is for Iran to be open enough to ongoing outside inspection so that it can be verified that, indeed, no such activities are underway, or commence.

Iran has been fully compliant with the UN's IAEA and NPT, with inspectors having no problems.

Here's an article about that:

Now, according to the IAEA Statute, the Director-General and his designated inspectors "shall have access at all times to all places" in an IAEA member state as necessary "to account for [Safeguarded] source and special fissionable materials" and "to determine whether there is compliance with the undertaking against use in furtherance of any military purpose."

When IAEA inspectors do determine that safeguarded materials have been used "in furtherance of any military purpose," they "shall" report such "non-compliance" to the Director-General who "shall" thereupon transmit the report to the Board of Governors.

As the Iranian Note Verbale argues, IAEA inspectors have never made such report to ElBaradei about Iran.

In fact, ElBaradei has repeatedly reported to the Board that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."

Furthermore, on August 21, 2007, ElBaradei had come to an "understanding" with Iran on a "Work Plan" for resolving outstanding "issues" – some of them actually none of IAEA's beeswax, and many of them originally raised in the summer of 2005, by King George's munchkins, based upon "studies" allegedly contained on an stolen laptop computer, said to belong to an Iranian engineer (by then supposedly deceased) tangentially related to the implementation of Iran's Safeguards Agreement.

According to the Iranians, ElBaradei has just reported to the IAEA Board that the Work Plan has been "fully implemented and nothing more remains to be done in this regard."

For full article see:

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=12681