Charlie Rose

topazgirl  06/26/2012 06:09 AM Report

REMant: ...New heights? ...NEW HEIGHTS?! Does the name "Bush" come to mind? Or does a black Democrat just send the GOP over-the-edge?...

DDD  06/23/2012 09:15 AM Report

( CHARLIE and IRAN )

Charlie you are probably the most wise man alive today that I have ever seen.

I do categorize the wise-hood of a person in relation to?

1 The wise man always see thinks as they are in order to

2 translate and understand the reason of the subject way and how they are as they are

3 In order to found a solution for the better.

You do understand Nr 1 and Nr 2 with almost every person that you interview.

While in many case you can not find a solution for the better by yourself just because it is not your trained profession to do so because many of those personalities that you interview work with different kind of categories of profession that requires its own significance knowledge.

But do to the superior intelligent that you have does you understand if there is a problem with the leadership of a movement in almost all categories of profession and because of this reason you can calculated for your self what should be done in order to change the leadership of that profession that requires its own significance knowledge in order to make the movement into a greater success.

I have discover that the ruling governance of Iran bother you a lot because of the geopolitical importance that this nation has.

Further was a lot of investment done in that nation on behalf of R.F family and others that was lost during the revolution.

But today there is no importance in relation to what others has done to some and what some has done to others the importance should in relation to what others and some can do together in order to built a future that will benefit both sides.

Let us ask our self this simple question?

What kind of look did Moscow, Tehran , Shanghai and the economical capital of USA new york had in comparison to one and other during the 1920s?

It should be punishable to even compare this cities with New york.

The other question we should ask our self is ?

How much has the world developed in term of economical and scientific achievement because of the political philosophical correctness of USA and the racial British Germanic Angola Saxon that succeeded to developed the world where we are today?

For sure has other nations followed the concept of USA with some modification of there governance in term of economical rule of law.

But when it comes to the creation of new scientific achievement no nation will ever be as successful as USA and some of its allies even if they follow the same institutional philosophical correctness,

Today many of the students try there best to challenge there own teacher wit out being aware or willing to accept that there teacher can only be challenge in a probable way in term of scientific achievement by his own offspring only.

What Iran needs today is no swindlers to political party who are living outside or in the nation that is using nice philosophical words in order to deliver an illusion of a better life for the masses and by doing so the opposition parties can become successful by challenging the political establishment in Iran.

Today the world has changed a lot in comparison to 30 years ago the masses are steel driven by pact mentality instinct and share the same inferior intelligent as there previous generation did in term of finding solution to complicated political problems.

But what the new generation has changed from in comparison to there previous generation is there desire for a better life this desire is a universal desire that has shaken up the majority governance of the world but in different kind of ways even inside the USA does people wish for a better life that will benefit the masses and they have even participate for this cause by protesting in the streets.

Therefore one of the most efficient way to push for a change inside Iran is to create a economical civilization that will compete to the economical civilization that has been created by the governance of Iran.

By doing so the new generation will no longer think if it is necessary to fight for a change about 1 or several items that worry them.

Instead they will hear and see from others that serve the opposite economical civilization and understand how much they themselves will benefit by becoming like them even those who serve the aims of the top rulers will be convinced that this concept is much better.

What I am trying to tell you is that words only create psychological illusions and illusions only changed the view of the masses and once the masses fight for illusions and the result become something else that they thought it would be they will never again fight as they once did the new generation of Iran has learned from the previous generation and therefore they are only ready to fight for concrete facts.

By building a new economical civilization along side Tehran will this competition create possibilities for change inside the nation that can never be created by 1 million charismatic philosophical swindlers whose words are taken directly by the gods themselves.

But when the concrete facts has been created in the nation the efficient of only 1 or 2 charismatic philosophical swindlers will create such a great impact on the psychology of the masses and there fierce spiritual movement that even the gods will look to one and other with astonishment.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/22/2012 04:23 PM Report

"Can you define an Obama doctrine?" Charlie asks.

We are told at the heart of this book is the notion of American primacy in the world. America is the unquestioned world leader and America is able to serve as the world leader and is always looked to.

Now look at this photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Barack_Obama%27s_Kenyan_relatives.jpg

And this photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ann_Dunham_with_father_and_children_%28enhanced%29.jpg

I think he is wrong. The Obama doctrine is to come together in a melting pot and that is why he doesn't try to end the United Nations like John Bolton wanted to do.

OLAN  06/22/2012 02:56 PM Report

It is a matter of practicality, taken into consideration the President’s diverse background and hence unique understanding, generation gap with the coming up of new generations, the technology revolution…

It has its pros and cons. But no matter how diverse our background is, there is a limitation.

With respect to doctrine, it is dangerous to have a doctrine that works in a rapidly changing world without adequate information of people you are dealing with.

How to balance the two is a difficult task.

tabs  06/22/2012 01:31 PM Report

Barrack Obama wanted to be a trans formative President with a "social conscience." In the area of Foreign Policy Barrack it should be remembered as a child lived in Indonesia where his point of view was that of an outsider looking at the US from afar. Barrack has wanted to empower the smaller voices in the world making the US subservient to the collective voice and or will of the world (to be in service of). Couple this with with his leadership style of not doing well with real time events aka "leading from the rear" and you have a foreign policy that over time began to drift into indecision. The culmination of this drift was during the Arab Spring, at that point something different began to happen, the hit on Bin Laden took place and American Foreign Policy on at least the tactical level sharpened up, as if another hand took the helm (Clinton, Panetta, Daley and Petraeus?) With the leaving of Daley in January 2012 some of that drift started to reemerge, but with the Elections in the fall of 2012 looming the President seemingly has been focused on his bid for reelection and as such Ms Clinton appears to be shouldering the load of the day to day.

The problem with the Obama doctrine is that he forgets that his constituency is the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES and not the people of the world. The various peoples of the world have their own governments to represent their interests. Augustus Caesar well understood that if he gave up being Caesar (leadership of the world) the only way he would leave the Palatine would be feet first. Sharing power is not an option when you are no. one.

Further it did not escape ones attention that Mr Baker(R) and Ms Clinton(D)during this weeks Charlie Rose program seemed to be very collegial. Perhaps one can speculate that this is a signal that there are those on both sides of the aisle that are willing to negotiate and compromise in order to serve American interests.

REMant  06/22/2012 11:10 AM Report

Interesting, but I don't think much has changed at all. Everything in this admin appears to me to be viewed from the perspective of a community organizer, with its counterpart in the "quiet Americans," long before the Kennedy years. Certainly evident in Johnson's attitude regardless of Westmoreland's tactics. Indeed I think the disjuncture is what troubled and baffled him the most. He wanted to help his little brown buddies. Why were they fighting him? And no matter what is said by it, this admin has taken executive power to new heights, while at the same time seeking authority through treaty obligations, and, of course, continuing to spend off-budget, with the connivance of the Fed. This, BTW, deserved 45 mins, and Newsroom, 15.