ROFLMAO!! Don’t take this debate offline! It’s been funny as hell!
Surveyor, he’s got you. You are doing exactly what you are arguing against. Using an “expert” to prove your position. You are just using a lesser-accepted, nut-job expert. In legal negligence cases, you frequently have a “battle of the experts” to prove one’s case. Frequently, the expert with the better credentials and more convincing demeanor is the most persuasive. Bolton and Spencer against the rest of the foreign policy “elite” is a poor showing. Good luck.
Another comment, but a fine point, to say that Obama has “no knowledge of history” is to assume that you could determine his knowledge base. I think you could more successfully argue that his past discussions have caused you to believe that his appreciation of certain historical events is uninformed or naive. But that one event (Obama’s interpretation of Kennedy’s actions) is a poor statistical sample of the sum of a person’s knowledge of foreign affairs. (Even two such examples is still a small sample. If I spent a few minutes researching, I am sure I could find some homeruns in his arsenal. At least 2.) And to parrot someone else’s earlier comment–you’d be hard pressed to find a presidential candidate who is an expert at everything. That’s what their cabinet is for. What you really want is a good leader–someone who makes good decisions, is thoughtful and careful, and can inspire their people in a time of great challenge. We are heading into, IMHO, one of the hardest periods in our nation’s history. We don’t want a Carter (as much as I think his heart was in the right place), we need a leader who can inspire. (Kennedy and, gulp, Reagan comes to mind–those who know me know how hard it is for me to admit this.)
