The Truman Doctrine basically said that the US would go to war anywhere in the world where communism "raised its ugly head." Along with that theory came the Domino Theory that said that once a country became communist(Viet Nam), its neighbors would soon follow suit. Under GW Bush(read my past posts, I'm not one of his fans) went into Iraq to look for WMD's(which were not uncovered), to revenge his dad's attempted assassination(?), and according to some to plant the seed of democracy into the Muslim Middle East. Egypt has overthrown its government, Libya is about to overthrow Gaddafi, and it appears that Syria is crawling in that direction. I'm not saying these countries will not become democratic, but they appear to be heading in that direction. Ronnie Reagan was right about spending the USSR and Eastern Block into dissolution. Will GW also get credit for a Southwest Asia democratic Domino Effect? What are your thoughts?
IP: Logged
08:26 PM
PFF
System Bot
Wichita Member
Posts: 20658 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
Originally posted by blackrams: Well, he'll want and try to take credit but, we'll have to wait and see where that credit actually ends up landing.
For Barack Obama, “leading from behind” has never looked so … decisive.
With Libyan rebels celebrating in downtown Tripoli, and Muammar el-Qaddafi apparently in hiding, the president’s supporters are claiming vindication for a much-criticized approach to regime change in the Arab world.
Obama’s strategy amounted to staying resolutely behind the scenes throughout the five-month NATO air operation. To wit: Don’t say the United States is openly engaged in ousting Qaddafi. Don’t even concede the United States is going to war. Take cover behind a political imprimatur for action from the Arab League and United Nations, and let Europe lead the strike forces. Then modestly take credit — albeit only with a restrained statement on Monday from Martha’s Vineyard, where Obama is vacationing.
“I think this is a tremendous achievement,” said James Steinberg, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s recently departed deputy secretary of State, who is now dean of the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. “The biggest factor to date is the fact that we [Americans] have not been the problem. People aren’t saying the Americans are trying to do regime change. Whether in Tunisia or Libya or Egypt, we are seen as supportive of others. It’s an obvious contrast with the previous administration…. And the fact that tyrants are not able to rally their people against us shows the nuance and skill of this. It’s working.”
Obama, with his administration in crisis over a staggering economy and mounting U.S. debt as he winds down two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has maintained that the U.S. was not at war in Libya because the American role was confined to a defensive posture of “suppressing” enemy air defenses, to intelligence-gathering, and to surveillance and reconnaissance capability (along with air-to-air refueling for NATO strike forces).
In fact, however, in recent weeks U.S. involvement has verged over into clearly offensive attacks using armed Predator drones on selected targets, especially as a desperate Qaddafi sought to quietly shift his troops to civilian hideouts in the final stages, according to NATO. “Yeah, [the Predator] had that added ability. It can take action on its own and did in a number of cases,” NATO spokesman Tony White told National Journal on Monday. “I heard the NATO commander [Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard of the Canadian Air Force] say that the addition of the Predators was a huge boost to his capability.”
The downside of such a low-profile, stealthy U.S. role — which an anonymous U.S official described to the New Yorker magazine as “leading from behind” — is that it becomes that much harder to win kudos for leadership, a critical issue for Obama as he heads into the 2012 election year with his approval ratings at worrisome levels. “This wasn’t the best way to get credit, but it was a pretty good way of getting results,” said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch, a sometime administration adviser and former National Security Council official in the Clinton administration. “It was smart in the sense that it generated a lot more action from the Europeans than would otherwise have happened. They really got the Europeans to share the burden in a way that the United States has never managed before. It minimized the administration’s exposure to criticism at home in a time of austerity.”
Obama’s approach also appears to have sown discord in Republican ranks. Leading GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney has criticized Obama for being “weak” and “following the French into Libya,” as well as relying too much on international organizations. On Monday, the rigorously anti-Obama editorial page of The Wall Street Journal joined Romney, arguing that Qaddafi might have been toppled faster and fewer people would have been killed “if America had led more forcefully from the beginning.”
But at an earlier point, Romney worried about U.S. “mission creep” and questioned the rhetoric against Qaddafi personally, asking who was “going to take his place.” Meanwhile, other GOP candidates, such as Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., embraced a new isolationist strain emanating from the tea party movement and criticized the Libya intervention altogether, saying that events in that country didn't threaten U.S. interests.
Nicholas Burns, who served as undersecretary of State under George W. Bush, admits to having been “very skeptical” about the U.S. role at the beginning. “As a former ambassador to NATO, I would rather have seen us lead the effort militarily,” Burns said. "But I understand why the administration wanted to push the British and French out front. They were the ones who came to us and asked for intervention. I think it’s been vindicated.… I thought the president also made the right decision when the Arab League requested the intervention and the U.N. blessed it. Right now I think he’s got a lot of credibility with the Arab world and with the Europeans.”
Still, Obama’s edge over his critics may not last. It’s not just that Qaddafi’s fate remains unknown, or that the political transition conducted by a fractious rebel leadership under the Libyan Transitional National Council is almost certain to be difficult. Despite the president’s statement on Monday that the Libyans had expressed a “basic and joyful longing for human freedom [which] echoed the voices that we had heard all across the region, from Tunis to Cairo,” he’s not likely to repeat NATO’s feat in Libya anywhere else.
That’s especially true in Syria, where the regime of Bashar al-Assad has killed thousands of protesters. In recent days, Obama has called for Assad to step down amid criticism from some Republicans, but the president is less likely to find support for intervention from Europeans, Arabs, and especially from China and Russia, two permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.
Nonetheless, Obama can lay claim to his biggest foreign-policy victory since the takedown of Osama bin Laden in May — for the moment.
Originally posted by Boondawg: As with ALL my posts I write with my OWN hand (not cut-and-past from the internet from other sites) ...
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: For Barack Obama, “leading from behind” has never looked so … decisive. With Libyan rebels celebrating in downtown Tripoli, and Muammar el-Qaddafi apparently in hiding, the president’s supporters are claiming vindication for a much-criticized approach to regime change in the Arab world. Obama’s strategy amounted to staying resolutely behind the scenes throughout the five-month NATO air operation. To wit: Don’t say the United States is openly engaged in ousting Qaddafi. Don’t even concede the United States is going to war. Take cover behind a political imprimatur for action from the Arab League and United Nations, and let Europe lead the strike forces. Then modestly take credit — albeit only with a restrained statement on Monday from Martha’s Vineyard, where Obama is vacationing. “I think this is a tremendous achievement,” said James Steinberg, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s recently departed deputy secretary of State, who is now dean of the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. “The biggest factor to date is the fact that we [Americans] have not been the problem. People aren’t saying the Americans are trying to do regime change. Whether in Tunisia or Libya or Egypt, we are seen as supportive of others. It’s an obvious contrast with the previous administration…. And the fact that tyrants are not able to rally their people against us shows the nuance and skill of this. It’s working.” Obama, with his administration in crisis over a staggering economy and mounting U.S. debt as he winds down two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has maintained that the U.S. was not at war in Libya because the American role was confined to a defensive posture of “suppressing” enemy air defenses, to intelligence-gathering, and to surveillance and reconnaissance capability (along with air-to-air refueling for NATO strike forces). In fact, however, in recent weeks U.S. involvement has verged over into clearly offensive attacks using armed Predator drones on selected targets, especially as a desperate Qaddafi sought to quietly shift his troops to civilian hideouts in the final stages, according to NATO. “Yeah, [the Predator] had that added ability. It can take action on its own and did in a number of cases,” NATO spokesman Tony White told National Journal on Monday. “I heard the NATO commander [Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard of the Canadian Air Force] say that the addition of the Predators was a huge boost to his capability.” The downside of such a low-profile, stealthy U.S. role — which an anonymous U.S official described to the New Yorker magazine as “leading from behind” — is that it becomes that much harder to win kudos for leadership, a critical issue for Obama as he heads into the 2012 election year with his approval ratings at worrisome levels. “This wasn’t the best way to get credit, but it was a pretty good way of getting results,” said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch, a sometime administration adviser and former National Security Council official in the Clinton administration. “It was smart in the sense that it generated a lot more action from the Europeans than would otherwise have happened. They really got the Europeans to share the burden in a way that the United States has never managed before. It minimized the administration’s exposure to criticism at home in a time of austerity.” Obama’s approach also appears to have sown discord in Republican ranks. Leading GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney has criticized Obama for being “weak” and “following the French into Libya,” as well as relying too much on international organizations. On Monday, the rigorously anti-Obama editorial page of The Wall Street Journal joined Romney, arguing that Qaddafi might have been toppled faster and fewer people would have been killed “if America had led more forcefully from the beginning.” But at an earlier point, Romney worried about U.S. “mission creep” and questioned the rhetoric against Qaddafi personally, asking who was “going to take his place.” Meanwhile, other GOP candidates, such as Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., embraced a new isolationist strain emanating from the tea party movement and criticized the Libya intervention altogether, saying that events in that country didn't threaten U.S. interests. Nicholas Burns, who served as undersecretary of State under George W. Bush, admits to having been “very skeptical” about the U.S. role at the beginning. “As a former ambassador to NATO, I would rather have seen us lead the effort militarily,” Burns said. "But I understand why the administration wanted to push the British and French out front. They were the ones who came to us and asked for intervention. I think it’s been vindicated.… I thought the president also made the right decision when the Arab League requested the intervention and the U.N. blessed it. Right now I think he’s got a lot of credibility with the Arab world and with the Europeans.” Still, Obama’s edge over his critics may not last. It’s not just that Qaddafi’s fate remains unknown, or that the political transition conducted by a fractious rebel leadership under the Libyan Transitional National Council is almost certain to be difficult. Despite the president’s statement on Monday that the Libyans had expressed a “basic and joyful longing for human freedom [which] echoed the voices that we had heard all across the region, from Tunis to Cairo,” he’s not likely to repeat NATO’s feat in Libya anywhere else. That’s especially true in Syria, where the regime of Bashar al-Assad has killed thousands of protesters. In recent days, Obama has called for Assad to step down amid criticism from some Republicans, but the president is less likely to find support for intervention from Europeans, Arabs, and especially from China and Russia, two permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Nonetheless, Obama can lay claim to his biggest foreign-policy victory since the takedown of Osama bin Laden in May — for the moment. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...olitics-white_house/
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-23-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:19 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
It remains to be seen if the changes will be democratic or not. There's a strong possibility that Sharia government will rise in those areas. If not that, will they be able to become democratic? Iraq has already demonstrated how centuries of tribal conflict can make any representative government difficult at best.
Is it a spread of Democracy? Despotism? Islam?
Reagan spent the USSR and Eastern Block into dissolution. Obama is now doing the same to the U.S.
So what's the end game?
IP: Logged
09:23 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Nonetheless, Obama can lay claim to his biggest foreign-policy victory since the takedown of Osama bin Laden in May — for the moment.[/COLOR]
And yet, he still refuses to ask Congress for permission for the military action saying, “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”
But you can bet he'll take credit for it anyway.
IP: Logged
09:27 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
“U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”
.
"In fact, however, in recent weeks U.S. involvement has verged over into clearly offensive attacks using armed Predator drones on selected targets, especially as a desperate Qaddafi sought to quietly shift his troops to civilian hideouts in the final stages, according to NATO."
IP: Logged
09:31 PM
PFF
System Bot
cliffw Member
Posts: 35922 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by carnut122: The Truman Doctrine basically said that the US would go to war anywhere in the world where communism "raised its ugly head." Along with that theory came the Domino Theory that said that once a country became communist(Viet Nam), its neighbors would soon follow suit. ... I'm not saying these countries will not become democratic, but they appear to be heading in that direction. What are your thoughts?
I think this is different. Where as, when communist influences took over countries, it gave those entities power to absorb another. Those entities had a machine behind them. Here, we have people who have no experience at administering freedom and who are usually at odds with one another.
IP: Logged
09:56 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35922 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Boondawg: It's Cut & Paste from the link provided, not written in my own hand. I would think the link provided would have made that obvious.
It was obvious but it also reflected opinion. You could have cut and pasted many differing opinions.
IP: Logged
09:58 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
It was obvious but it also reflected opinion. You could have cut and pasted many differing opinions.
But he didn't. He prefers to use a self proclaimed Liberal source------MSNBC
There are left leaning op eds and their sources, right leaning op eds and their sources and then there are virtually unbiased news gathering sources with their assesments of what the news means in a broader spectrum. It doesn't take a lot of effort (virtually none) to find those sources that strive to present an unbiased news story and related editorial assesment..
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-23-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:09 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35922 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Boondawg: It was a "choice", not a "reflected opinion". I don't have to do drugs to sell them.
You could sell pot, acid, heroin, cocaine, whatever. It would reflect an opinion. Maybe one is more lucrative, you find fault with another, there is a reason you made a choice. Mag wheels reflect an opinion.
IP: Logged
10:14 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
But he didn't. He prefers to use a self proclaimed Liberal source------MSNBC
The only reason that is my home page is becouse years ago it was the first one I ever chose. Why? I was and am a Microsoft fan and thought it's layout looked the best.
That's it. I like it's layout. I don't know and I don't CARE what it's politics are. Or if you approve of it as a "source". I like it's look. Simple.
I trust them exactly as much as I trust any other news site. Which is to say I trust ALL of them very little.
Once again, much ado about nothing.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-23-2011).]
So, a pretty picture and pleasant layout is all it takes? I use sources that simply gather news from many sources and I try my best to ignore those that are merely mouthpieces for the far left and/or far right. All those ever have is either unfettered praise for their side or unrelenting cricism of the opposite side. I did read, today--an inversely opinioned article today on one of the financial websites that was highly critical of the "leading-from-behind" theory, but immediately recognized it for what it was, a hatchet job on the current administration. Like Ron, I care little for that rear based leadership ideal, as it is almost always undertaken when the "leader" wants to leave themselves an "out" or 2 if something goes awry. It's a coward's positon IMO, no matter who it is that takes that path.
IP: Logged
10:58 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
"In fact, however, in recent weeks U.S. involvement has verged over into clearly offensive attacks using armed Predator drones on selected targets, especially as a desperate Qaddafi sought to quietly shift his troops to civilian hideouts in the final stages, according to NATO."
So according to NATO, Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act.
I would think different circumstances call for different actions. Seems to me that the U.S. may have hit the correct note on the action in Libya in the fact that the Air Superiority probably wouldn't be so "easy" without their leadership and participation while not looking as though they are pushing a larger agenda. Having so much support in the action taken is also a major plus IMO. It can change in a split second but in Libya it looks like the people feel the faught for their own freedom with the help of NATO/UN/Arab League and will be left to organize themselves instead of a system being pushed upon them.
Watching the news tonight some of the rebels in the background were shouting "thank you America" to the camera, what a pleasant difference to some of tthe other things that are often said about the U.S. in the middle east.
IP: Logged
11:41 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
It remains to be seen if the changes will be democratic or not. There's a strong possibility that Sharia government will rise in those areas. If not that, will they be able to become democratic? Iraq has already demonstrated how centuries of tribal conflict can make any representative government difficult at best.
Is it a spread of Democracy? Despotism? Islam?
Reagan spent the USSR and Eastern Block into dissolution. Obama is now doing the same to the U.S.
Another one? The guy says everything is a conspiracy/impending disaster, he's bound to get something right but how about we wait and see before you call him right on this one.
Another one? The guy says everything is a conspiracy/impending disaster, he's bound to get something right but how about we wait and see before you call him right on this one.
My favorite response, I figure this time I will spew it:
"But you gotta admit, some of the stuff he says comes true."
Yeah, me too. Much to the chagrin of some , even things I predict come true sometimes. That does not mean Glennster is even right about half the nonsense he spews, particularly about Nazis. That man just loves his nazis.
My favorite response, I figure this time I will spew it:
"But you gotta admit, some of the stuff he says comes true."
Yeah, me too. Much to the chagrin of some , even things I predict come true sometimes. That does not mean Glennster is even right about half the nonsense he spews, particularly about Nazis. That man just loves his nazis.
Even dresses up like em to sell books!
IP: Logged
12:24 AM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Originally posted by newf: Another one? The guy says everything is a conspiracy/impending disaster, he's bound to get something right but how about we wait and see before you call him right on this one.
Glenn Beck? World wide caliphate? No reason to "wait and see". Beck's ideas on this couldn't be farther from the truth.
Just my opinion, really.
But I'm laying down my "marker" here.
You won't see any of Beck's predictions about a world wide caliphate confirmed in reality. Not a one.
Glenn Beck? World wide caliphate? No reason to "wait and see". Beck's ideas on this couldn't be farther from the truth.
Just my opinion, really.
But I'm laying down my "marker" here.
You won't see any of Beck's predictions about a world wide caliphate confirmed in reality. Not a one.
Come back and "kick me" about this if I'm wrong!
I'm holding you to that man, as long as the Nazis dont come get us all first. "And then they came after me, and there was noone left to speak up.." Also a classic "Wild Glenn Beck" utterance..
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-24-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:53 AM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20770 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
The only reason that is my home page is becouse years ago it was the first one I ever chose. Why? I was and am a Microsoft fan and thought it's layout looked the best.
Style over substance, eh?
*jab*
But seriously, it seems like you're always copy-pasting articles from MSNBC. Do you go to other news sources, or just stick with MSNBC? I ask, because if MSNBC is your main source of news, then like it or not, you're being propagandized. MSNBC is unabashedly leftist, and has in many cases told outright lies to further the leftist agenda.
Just to clarify, I'm not knocking you personally. I just don't trust MSNBC.
2 major factors have prevented and will continue to prevent any sort of "peace"in the middle east for anyone to take credit for: 1> oil producing regions produce idiotic leaders 2> religion
WIKI - leaks 3 vs BuSh2 with two with far more to come and far less costs too J Assange and the kid who leaked the USA secrets should be international heros
and BTW raygun had far less to do with the commies fall then the neo-conn's MYTH NOBODY in the huge crowds marching against the reds cared about raygun's overspending people power and labor unions were two things raygun hated, feared and tryed to destroy got the reds out NOT raygun the brain dead who never did anything to help peoplepower or labor unions anywhere ever but broke unions and set the pigs on people marching in our streets raygun hurt people power movements far tooo much to falsely claim any benefits of their actions but the rightwing always has loved the BIG LIE and are very effective and useing the BIG LIE
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
11:07 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by ray b: WIKI - leaks 3 vs BuSh2 with two with far more to come and far less costs too J Assange and the kid who leaked the USA secrets should be international heros
and BTW raygun had far less to do with the commies fall then the neo-conn's MYTH NOBODY in the huge crowds marching against the reds cared about raygun's overspending people power and labor unions were two things raygun hated, feared and tryed to destroy got the reds out NOT raygun the brain dead who never did anything to help peoplepower or labor unions anywhere ever but broke unions and set the pigs on people marching in our streets raygun hurt people power movements far tooo much to falsely claim any benefits of their actions but the rightwing always has loved the BIG LIE and are very effective and useing the BIG LIE
yeah...if any single prez is to take credit for Russia, it would be Kennedy. Reagan is actually the architect of our current debt crisis.
------------------ 1985 Fiero SE - Plain Red 3.1 V6 Coupe Engle18Cam DIS 4.10-4spd 7730 WCF Long Tubes Borla D.A.M.M. - Drunks Against Mad Mothers
IP: Logged
11:10 AM
PFF
System Bot
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by newf: Watching the news tonight some of the rebels in the background were shouting "thank you America" to the camera, what a pleasant difference to some of tthe other things that are often said about the U.S. in the middle east.
After coalition forces liberated Kuwait, they praised HW Bush and the US. They're still grateful today. After coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein, many Iraqis also praised W Bush and the US and are still grateful today.
In both cases, those who lost power were unhappy and condemned us, and you'll probably find Qaddafi loyalists will also condemn us. It all depends on who you talk to and what you or the media decide to pay attention to. I can still recall the look of elation in the faces of people with purple stained fingers after their first free election in a post-Saddam Iraq.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-24-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:38 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9472 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
While I am glad that these dictators were overthrown, I am fearful of what is going to replace them. Iran is worse today than it was under the Shah. The people who protested and brought down the Egyptian regime are not going to be in any shape to win any offices in their election. So the options on the ballot is going to be the Islamists or member of the previous ruling party. The third option is a military coup.
When a stable democratic government stands in these countries, then I will consider the overthrow of the respective regimes a success. Given the history of the region, I don't have much hopes of that happening.
Originally posted by Boondawg: The only reason that is my home page is becouse years ago it was the first one I ever chose. Why? I was and am a Microsoft fan and thought it's layout looked the best. I trust them exactly as much as I trust any other news site.
Pennocks PFF main menu is my homepage. I would have to say that of any news source I could get, nothing gets by Pennocks.
IP: Logged
05:42 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
So, a pretty picture and pleasant layout is all it takes?
quote
Originally posted by Blacktree:
Style over substance, eh?
*jab*
But seriously, it seems like you're always copy-pasting articles from MSNBC. Do you go to other news sources, or just stick with MSNBC? .
See, and it is just that simple. Becouse I am just that simple.
I get the news from my homepage, MSNBC, exclusively. Why?
1. It is my home page becouse I like it's looks. 2. I really don't read the news with any more belief then I give anything else I read anywhere.
I never go looking for news. I never check other sources. I don't watch or listen to the news on TV.
It seems some of you take me for something FAR deeper then what I am when it comes to world events. The reality is I really don't care about the news at all. Not at all. I post it here becouse I think YOU care about it. I think YOU will find it interesting. That's it. That's just as simple as I really am. I really don't care about "The News" at all. At least not to near the same degree most of you seem too.
And when I cut & paste news, I never expect to get a response. I don't even want one. If you want to respond, fine. But remember, you are responding to the ARTICLE, not me.
Just leave me out of it!
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-24-2011).]
I can't believe you're a Microsoft fan. And here I looked up to you Boonie. NO MORE!
(that's about the most interesting fact I read in this thread) I guess I'm a bit like you, not too damn interested in the news.
Everything in my computer is Microsoft, or Microsoft approved, right down to the browser and Windows Media Player to handle ALL my music & video. I learned long ago it makes for a VERY stable system when everything comes from the same place.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-24-2011).]
See, and it is just that simple. Becouse I am just that simple.
I get the news from my homepage, MSNBC, exclusively. Why?
1. It is my home page becouse I like it's looks. 2. I really don't read the news with any more belief then I give anything else I read anywhere.
I never go looking for news. I never check other sources. I don't watch or listen to the news on TV.
It seems some of you take me for something FAR deeper then what I am when it comes to world events. The reality is I really don't care about the news at all. Not at all. I post it here becouse I think YOU care about it. I think YOU will find it interesting. That's it. That's just as simple as I really am. I really don't care about "The News" at all. At least not to near the same degree most of you seem too.
And when I cut & paste news, I never expect to get a response. I don't even want one. If you want to respond, fine. But remember, you are responding to the ARTICLE, not me.
