I don't know much about the guy, but I was just watching a roast of him on C-SPAN from 2005 and holy fuck does he have an annoying laugh! I just hope he isn't cracking jokes once he's the chief of staff.

Wrong forum?

Wrong forum?

Whoops! yes, plz move to politics mod.

No! He's a Jew, we can turn this around...

Lol

:d

^ Less working, more posting.

Awww, Rust. I miss you too :)

I've got so much catching-up to do that I don't quite know where to begin. Here is as good a place as any, I suppose.

Re: Rahm Emanuel.

It's about time we got some more animated people in the White House. The last near-decade of pasty white old people with sticks up their asses makes for some pretty disinterested and unimpressed citizens.

The fact that he's unwilling to roast himself over the fiery flames of The Colbert Report may very well point out a serious deficit in the sense-of-humor-department, but I guess that never was his strong suit anyway.

Despite Emanuel’s energetic style of browbeating and worrying, freshman lawmakers esteem him.

“He’s the Al Davis of Congress,” said Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), referring to the legendary owner of the Oakland Raiders who coined the phrase, “Just win, baby.” (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/emanuel-tells-freshmen-to-avoid-stephen-colbert-2007-03-14.html)

I am very proud to have Rahm Emanuel as my Chief of Staff. In the spirit of diversity, Mr. Emanuel's dual citizenship with Israel will help me push my global agenda on America.

At least it isn't Slimeball Lieberman.

“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”

— Rahm Emanuel

all I have to say is, we're in for a dramatic shift left.

I would like to dispel the rumor that Mr. Emanuel will only be sweeping the floor at the White House.

I had such high (now seemingly delusional) hopes that this election would make a difference for the foundering US reputation, that Obama would represent a strategic change in direction for the United States, but with moves like this it appears that the CHANGE might meerly be cosmetic.

Appointing a Zionist as "gatekeeper" or "co-president" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Chief_of_Staff) to manage the flow of information and visitors to the oval office is not going to go over well at the negotiating tables of the middle east. To put it differently, it's like appointing an "ex"-memer of the KKK as Director of Cultural Diversity and expecting members of the African-American community to be happy.

This is clearly a step in the wrong direction to addressing the US' status as world-wide pariah and I am curious to hear why any number of other competent individuals were not chosen for such a sensitive position, individuals with a past that won't taint the peace process or sour possible partners in repairing strained relations.

I had such high (now seemingly delusional) hopes that this election would make a difference for the foundering US reputation, that Obama would represent a strategic change in direction for the United States


I'm glad that you agree that Obama choosing a "Zionist" with the hopes that he would be impartial (not that the Chief of Staff gets to decide which world leaders the President meets, but that's another story) in his job is a immense change from the old direction of the United States, and thus, that you're happy with his selection.

I'm glad that you agree that Obama choosing a "Zionist" with the hopes that he would be impartial (not that the Chief of Staff gets to decide which world leaders the President meets, but that's another story) in his job is a immense change from the old direction of the United States, and thus, that you're happy with his selection.

Aside from the fact that your sarcastic, quasi-understandable syntax is devoid of any meaningful sentiment, do you really think that this was the wisest choice?

Edit: Do you also think that calling Mr. Emanuel a Zionist is misleading? I would call someone who flies halfway around the world to engage in a war on the side of a nation that they weren't born in indicates a decidedly Zionist streak. The struggle of his "fatherland" was calling him or some such nationalist nonsense. Not to mention that his father was a member of Irgun and devout Zionist. Yada Yada Yada...

I am very proud to have Rahm Emanuel as my Chief of Staff. In the spirit of diversity, Mr. Emanuel's dual citizenship with Israel will help me push my global agenda on America.

This is actually why I dislike him very much. I don't like it when my foreign interests and my executive branches touch. It's like peas and anything else.

Fucking peas... (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910047157&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)

In an interview with Ma'ariv, Emanuel's father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son's appointment would be good for Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

Does that sound a bit racist to anyone?

I really don't like America showing favouritism to Israel, but understanding that they do so because Israel gives America leverage in the middle east, I didn't expect that to change anytime soon. However, I really worry that Rahm Emanuel, as chief of staff, will encourage and increase this favouritism. On the other hand, I see that Emanuel has tried many times before to get universal healthcare implemented in America. Hopefully, he will try again, and what with the government now being largely ran by the Liberal Democrats and his close position to the new president, he will succeed.

Aside from the fact that your sarcastic, quasi-understandable syntax is devoid of any meaningful sentiment, do you really think that this was the wisest choice?

1. Devoid of any meaningful sentiment? My sentiment was pretty clear I thought:

To buy into Obama's hope of changing Washintgon's ways only to then expect him to engage in the very logical fallacies he was arguing against when he makes appointments is fucking ridiculous.


2. Whether it's the wisest choice or not, I can't really know because I don't know all the details (neither do you); like for example, who was avaialable, who would accept the position, etc. Of the little we do know, it seems to me to be a reasonable appointment given that he was one of the architects of this impressive win; it seems pretty reasonable to have him in charge of staff when clearly he's made very successful strategic decisions.

The Chief of Staff doesn't dictate foreign policy; so you're giving him and/or his position too much credit if you think this is the case. Not to mention that having him in the cabinet could make any criticism the adminsitration recieves of being "anti-Israel" (for example if they take a tougher stance on Israel than you are giving them credit for), lose it's weight.


So could this be a bad appointment? Sure. I'm just as quick to complain about it when he hasn't done anything wrong yet; and thus the origin of the initial point:

Giving someone the beneffit of the doubt is in line with Obama's message through out the campaign; pre-judging someone is not.



Edit: Do you also think that calling Mr. Emanuel a Zionist is misleading?

Not misleading in the sense that it's incorrect information - it seems that he is a zionist. I would say misleading in the sense that the intent seems to be for us to poison the well immediately.


P.S. Yes, he flew halfway around the world to engage in a war... in the sense that he was a civilian mechanic. Ahh, context!

“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”

— Rahm Emanuel

all I have to say is, we're in for a dramatic shift left.

Umm... radical libertarians say the exact same thing. Milton Friedman's ideology completely depends on crisis to implement unregulated free market.

To buy into Obama's hope of changing Washintgon's ways only to then expect him to engage in the very logical fallacies he was arguing against when he makes appointments is fucking ridiculous.

This has less to do with what you perceive to be logical or not and more to do with political reality. The reality of the situation is that this appointment is not going to be recieved well by Arab nations, or rather it will be recieved well by those extremist ayatollahs and clerics who like to point out high profile Zionists in American administrations while they talk of opression and Crusaders, etc... To some pro-partisan observers, this may look like a good appointment for reasons such as increased stability in congress and/or rewarding a job well done, but to some of the more objective observers it is has the hallmarks of a foreign relations blunder.

Whether it's the wisest choice or not, I can't really know because I don't know all the details (neither do you); like for example, who was avaialable, who would accept the position, etc. Of the little we do know, it seems to me to be a reasonable appointment given that he was one of the architects of this impressive win; it seems pretty reasonable to have him in charge of staff when clearly he's made very successful strategic decisions.

Equivocation. Just because one doesn't know who was available, etc, does not negate the fact that almost anyone else would not have had the same negative inluence on American peace interests.

Are you of a mind that appointing a Zionist to the "2nd most powerful" postition in the White House will go over well with hostile or restive Arab nations like Iran? That this is the best choice in terms of American peace interests? It's taking sides like this (or at least appearing to) that is arguably one of the primary causes of 9/11 and its wonderful side effects like the Patriot Act.

P.S. Yes, he flew halfway around the world to engage in a war... in the sense that he was a civilian mechanic. Ahh, context!

When you wear a white hood to bake cupcakes or burn a cross, you're still going to the same Klan Meeting.

This has less to do with what you perceive to be logical or not and more to do with political reality.

Actually, no. I was the one that responded to your post, and thus I who decide what I want to discuss. Whether you want to indulge me in my point is another story

Whether it was to be well-received in the Arab nations is a pretty useless thing to discuss in my eyes. In this fight nobody wants an impartial observer; they wont be happy unless they are sure, or suspect, the guy is working for their side.


Equivocation. Just because one doesn't know who was available, etc, does not negate the fact that almost anyone else would not have had the same negative inluence on American peace interests.

How is your strawman my equivocation? Did I ever once say that just because you don't know who was available that it "negated the fact [sic] that almost anyone else would not had the same negative influence"? No.

The only equivocation - if it wasn't deliberate - is your misrepresentation of what I actually said. What I actually said was that I - and I assume you as well since you've provided nothing tangible to the contrary - lack the information necessary to conclude if this is the wisest choice.

You claiming that "almost everyone else" would have a more positive effect in "America's peace interests" is, in my opinion, not only overstating the importance of the Chief of Staff's role in diplomatic ventures - much like those
"extremist ayatollahs and clerics" you mention are doing - but also not considering any positive beneffit Rahm Emanuel might have elsewhere.


It's taking sides like this (or at least appearing to) that is arguably one of the primary causes of 9/11 and its wonderful side effects like the Patriot Act.

I would say that not giving other people the benefit of the doubt is much more of a "cause". You should ask Obama, his campaign for the last year or so has been about a similar message...


When you wear a white hood to bake cupcakes or burn a cross, you're still going to the same Klan Meeting.

Nobody debated where he went; what was in question is what he did when he got there. He brought cupcakes, not gasoline and 2x4s like you were implying.

give him a chance. he may be jewish but they aren't ALL bad.

give him a chance. he may be jewish but they aren't ALL bad.

You a Jew, boy?!!

You a Jew, boy?!!

no. BOY!!

Umm... radical libertarians say the exact same thing. Milton Friedman's ideology completely depends on crisis to implement unregulated free market.

but when was the last time that ever happened as the response to a crisis. Maybe we can use the stagflation of the carter administration being fought by reaganomics, but the Depression -> New Deal, WW1 -> War Socialism. It's rare people ever ask for less government intervention in the time of a crisis, even if they do, they often aren't given attention.