<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reading My Mind</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:24:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: justaguy</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-128276</link>
		<dc:creator>justaguy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:19:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/#comment-128276</guid>
		<description>Yes Tim, not speaking English is evil in an of itself.

Christ on a bike.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes Tim, not speaking English is evil in an of itself.</p>
<p>Christ on a bike.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim R.</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-128210</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim R.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:26:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/#comment-128210</guid>
		<description>Obama is well spoken and he should really be commended for not playing the race card. 

However, read his book, he is an extreme liberal. He says the nation will be more &quot;polyglot&quot; and he is happy about that. And he says his daughters will have to speak Spanish and he is fine with that. Well, I&#039;m not fine with it. People like Obama and his multi culturalist fanatical friends are ruining America. The importance of a common language is mentioned in no less than the Federalist Papers. People like him want to change America and ignore our nation&#039;s history. They don&#039;t want us to be &quot;one nation under God.&quot; They want us to be a house divided, each to his own community. Well I&#039;m sick and tired of it. I just bought a new bumper sticker for my car today. It says &quot;Welcome to America. Now Speak English.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama is well spoken and he should really be commended for not playing the race card. </p>
<p>However, read his book, he is an extreme liberal. He says the nation will be more &#8220;polyglot&#8221; and he is happy about that. And he says his daughters will have to speak Spanish and he is fine with that. Well, I&#8217;m not fine with it. People like Obama and his multi culturalist fanatical friends are ruining America. The importance of a common language is mentioned in no less than the Federalist Papers. People like him want to change America and ignore our nation&#8217;s history. They don&#8217;t want us to be &#8220;one nation under God.&#8221; They want us to be a house divided, each to his own community. Well I&#8217;m sick and tired of it. I just bought a new bumper sticker for my car today. It says &#8220;Welcome to America. Now Speak English.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: barbarian</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-128130</link>
		<dc:creator>barbarian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:54:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/#comment-128130</guid>
		<description>...littered with Confederate monuments and memorabilia?

this part of your statement is insulting.  littered implies &quot;trash&quot;.  the men that fought for the confederacy had the nerve to fight and die against tyranny and for what was the republic.  an association of several independent states forming a federal government.  not a federal government dictating to those independent states.  a confederation of states.  

lincoln did not care one iota about the institution of slavery neither did the war criminal sherman.  their intent was to preserve the union.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;littered with Confederate monuments and memorabilia?</p>
<p>this part of your statement is insulting.  littered implies &#8220;trash&#8221;.  the men that fought for the confederacy had the nerve to fight and die against tyranny and for what was the republic.  an association of several independent states forming a federal government.  not a federal government dictating to those independent states.  a confederation of states.  </p>
<p>lincoln did not care one iota about the institution of slavery neither did the war criminal sherman.  their intent was to preserve the union.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Lowell</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-128114</link>
		<dc:creator>John Lowell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/#comment-128114</guid>
		<description>&quot;God Bless Ron Paul the closest thing we have to Thomas Jefferson in these dark times.&quot;

Oh, by all means, God&#039;s blessing to Paul, and to all creation and to everyone within it for that matter, but the business about Jefferson, the comparison, just has to be the most insufferable tripe imaginable. Egad, young man, a sense of proportion! Jefferson seems to have known that one had rather to run for president in order to be elected to the office, a fact which seems wholly to have eluded Paul. At this rate, the next thing we&#039;ll read is that Ron Paul appeared to three school children somewhere in Texas or that some photograph of Paul has begun to shed tears. Cloud arrangements or rock formations will be said to ressemble Paul and some here actually will believe it. Will someone call the attendant, kindly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;God Bless Ron Paul the closest thing we have to Thomas Jefferson in these dark times.&#8221;</p>
<p>Oh, by all means, God&#8217;s blessing to Paul, and to all creation and to everyone within it for that matter, but the business about Jefferson, the comparison, just has to be the most insufferable tripe imaginable. Egad, young man, a sense of proportion! Jefferson seems to have known that one had rather to run for president in order to be elected to the office, a fact which seems wholly to have eluded Paul. At this rate, the next thing we&#8217;ll read is that Ron Paul appeared to three school children somewhere in Texas or that some photograph of Paul has begun to shed tears. Cloud arrangements or rock formations will be said to ressemble Paul and some here actually will believe it. Will someone call the attendant, kindly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don Yarish</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-128085</link>
		<dc:creator>Don Yarish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:52:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/#comment-128085</guid>
		<description>I always read Mr. Raimondo first, always a great take on things whether I agree or not but mostly I agree.

God Bless Ron Paul the closest thing we have to Thomas Jefferson in these dark times. The task to defeat the Borg is momumental and long. I think much will be required from everyone if we are to succeed in restoring the Republic.

Anyone who thinks Dr. Ron is responsible in any way for the message not getting out is just very wrong. Blame the power of the Borg to smear and censor anyone or anything that threatens its rotten kingdom.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I always read Mr. Raimondo first, always a great take on things whether I agree or not but mostly I agree.</p>
<p>God Bless Ron Paul the closest thing we have to Thomas Jefferson in these dark times. The task to defeat the Borg is momumental and long. I think much will be required from everyone if we are to succeed in restoring the Republic.</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks Dr. Ron is responsible in any way for the message not getting out is just very wrong. Blame the power of the Borg to smear and censor anyone or anything that threatens its rotten kingdom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Lowell</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-128084</link>
		<dc:creator>John Lowell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:50:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/#comment-128084</guid>
		<description>And this - your commentary about Obama - is precisely why Paul&#039;s refusal to launch a third party or independent bid is so treacherous. It permits the antiwar question to be defined in the most misleading way possible. Frankly, I hope Paul never rears his head again politically. His judgment is atrocious and, God knows, he&#039;s obscure enough in the House already that not having him there at all will hardly be noticed. Would it really make a difference who replaces him? Republican or Democrat, will the lay of the land change? Of couse it won&#039;t. Right now, Paul&#039;s &quot;revolution&quot; is looking a bit like the Kapp Putsch, and Paul like a wuss. Never again, thank you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And this &#8211; your commentary about Obama &#8211; is precisely why Paul&#8217;s refusal to launch a third party or independent bid is so treacherous. It permits the antiwar question to be defined in the most misleading way possible. Frankly, I hope Paul never rears his head again politically. His judgment is atrocious and, God knows, he&#8217;s obscure enough in the House already that not having him there at all will hardly be noticed. Would it really make a difference who replaces him? Republican or Democrat, will the lay of the land change? Of couse it won&#8217;t. Right now, Paul&#8217;s &#8220;revolution&#8221; is looking a bit like the Kapp Putsch, and Paul like a wuss. Never again, thank you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-128068</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:57:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/#comment-128068</guid>
		<description>Huckabee is definitely the Establishment&#039;s diversion candidate.  They can route all the conservative angst about McCain behind Huckabee, who will, by all indications, simply endorse McCain once he gets the sufficient number of delegates.  While there are still 3 active Republican candidates, the media, and the Republican Party, and McCain and Huckabee, all portray it as a two man race between McCain and Huckabee.  Paul is the subject of media blackout.  If the Republican campaign was a simple two man race between McCain and Paul, then Paul would likely be the beneficiary of conservative distaste for McCain, which would give him more momentum and potential influence at the Republican convention.

Obama is definitely capitalizing on the &quot;anti-war&quot; sentiment  among the public, but from what I can tell, he is opposed to the way the Republicans conducted the Iraq war and wants to substantially withdraw troops, but he isn&#039;t opposed to potential wars in other countries, and isn&#039;t opposed to the US govt&#039;s interventionist foreign policy.  

It is once again an argument on technicalities (how long do we intervene in which country at what time?), and not a fundamental rejection of interventionism.  Paul is the only candidate offering non-interventionism, and Obama&#039;s supporters appear content to bash Bush and the Iraq war (which is justified) while not thinking about the more strategic and critical issue of whether a foreign policy of interventionism is justified.  The latter would require a high level of rationality in our society, electoral process, and political parties, a level of rationality which is conspicuously absent.

And Zbig as one of Obama&#039;s foreign policy advisors clearly signals that interventionism will continue under a Pres. Obama.  Their issues will not be how to end interventionism, but how to manage and conduct interventionism better than Bush has.  Raimondo is stretching it a bit to consider Obama anti-war in any meaningful sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Huckabee is definitely the Establishment&#8217;s diversion candidate.  They can route all the conservative angst about McCain behind Huckabee, who will, by all indications, simply endorse McCain once he gets the sufficient number of delegates.  While there are still 3 active Republican candidates, the media, and the Republican Party, and McCain and Huckabee, all portray it as a two man race between McCain and Huckabee.  Paul is the subject of media blackout.  If the Republican campaign was a simple two man race between McCain and Paul, then Paul would likely be the beneficiary of conservative distaste for McCain, which would give him more momentum and potential influence at the Republican convention.</p>
<p>Obama is definitely capitalizing on the &#8220;anti-war&#8221; sentiment  among the public, but from what I can tell, he is opposed to the way the Republicans conducted the Iraq war and wants to substantially withdraw troops, but he isn&#8217;t opposed to potential wars in other countries, and isn&#8217;t opposed to the US govt&#8217;s interventionist foreign policy.  </p>
<p>It is once again an argument on technicalities (how long do we intervene in which country at what time?), and not a fundamental rejection of interventionism.  Paul is the only candidate offering non-interventionism, and Obama&#8217;s supporters appear content to bash Bush and the Iraq war (which is justified) while not thinking about the more strategic and critical issue of whether a foreign policy of interventionism is justified.  The latter would require a high level of rationality in our society, electoral process, and political parties, a level of rationality which is conspicuously absent.</p>
<p>And Zbig as one of Obama&#8217;s foreign policy advisors clearly signals that interventionism will continue under a Pres. Obama.  Their issues will not be how to end interventionism, but how to manage and conduct interventionism better than Bush has.  Raimondo is stretching it a bit to consider Obama anti-war in any meaningful sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: redman</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-128005</link>
		<dc:creator>redman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:40:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/#comment-128005</guid>
		<description>I must say it has perplexed me how Huckabee has remained in the race (and run numerous TV ads) with supposedly no money.  I traveled to Chicago a week before super Tuesday.  The only TV ads I saw were for Huckabee.  When I returned to New York, again, the only ads I saw were for Huckabee.  What gives?  Wasn&#039;t this guy supposedly broke, and he&#039;s running ads in two of the most expensive markets in America, both with next to no Repblican voters?

Soemthing isn&#039;t right in Denmark.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I must say it has perplexed me how Huckabee has remained in the race (and run numerous TV ads) with supposedly no money.  I traveled to Chicago a week before super Tuesday.  The only TV ads I saw were for Huckabee.  When I returned to New York, again, the only ads I saw were for Huckabee.  What gives?  Wasn&#8217;t this guy supposedly broke, and he&#8217;s running ads in two of the most expensive markets in America, both with next to no Repblican voters?</p>
<p>Soemthing isn&#8217;t right in Denmark.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: badri</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-128004</link>
		<dc:creator>badri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:39:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/#comment-128004</guid>
		<description>mr.raimondo i think you are missing a lot in your article to situate obama as an &quot; anti-war : candidate . it may have some thing to do with your desire to keep a grand narrative that war party will go after any one who does not totally toe the line . how ever it is a big leap from there to claiming some one is anti-war . former senator gravel was much closer to mark when in one of the debates he asked him who would you nuke ( bomb ? )  next . he speaks from at least 3 sides of his mouth to make sure one gets to listen what one likes . 
let us see :
obama wants (1) 100000 more combat troops ( 2) stronger defence / more money for MIC (3) no option off the table vis a vis iran ( 4) more war in afganistan ( 5 ) start a war on pakistan ( 6 ) definitely does not want to close any bases / cut troops / bring them home ( 7 ) did his obligatory crawling before AIPAC here and isaraelies there when he put a stamp of approval for their war crimes against lebanon  ( 8 ) have a look at his advisers . how many war criminals / staunch believers in american empire . perhaps not as belligerent as neo-cons but still imperialists to core .
i can add few more ..
i am kind of disappointed as you are usually lot more sharper . let us hope some obamaites will be pleased enough to donate to fund raiser ( a silver lining ?  :) ]
regards .
ps : you should now and then cross post some blog posts from Taki&#039;s  . i think more readers here .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>mr.raimondo i think you are missing a lot in your article to situate obama as an &#8221; anti-war : candidate . it may have some thing to do with your desire to keep a grand narrative that war party will go after any one who does not totally toe the line . how ever it is a big leap from there to claiming some one is anti-war . former senator gravel was much closer to mark when in one of the debates he asked him who would you nuke ( bomb ? )  next . he speaks from at least 3 sides of his mouth to make sure one gets to listen what one likes .<br />
let us see :<br />
obama wants (1) 100000 more combat troops ( 2) stronger defence / more money for MIC (3) no option off the table vis a vis iran ( 4) more war in afganistan ( 5 ) start a war on pakistan ( 6 ) definitely does not want to close any bases / cut troops / bring them home ( 7 ) did his obligatory crawling before AIPAC here and isaraelies there when he put a stamp of approval for their war crimes against lebanon  ( 8 ) have a look at his advisers . how many war criminals / staunch believers in american empire . perhaps not as belligerent as neo-cons but still imperialists to core .<br />
i can add few more ..<br />
i am kind of disappointed as you are usually lot more sharper . let us hope some obamaites will be pleased enough to donate to fund raiser ( a silver lining ?  :) ]<br />
regards .<br />
ps : you should now and then cross post some blog posts from Taki&#8217;s  . i think more readers here .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dontreallycare</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-127987</link>
		<dc:creator>dontreallycare</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:41:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/14/reading-my-mind/#comment-127987</guid>
		<description>I think we should all vote for McCain, let the military go kick butt and sak questions later... seems to be the only way to end all this crap</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think we should all vote for McCain, let the military go kick butt and sak questions later&#8230; seems to be the only way to end all this crap</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

