OT: Obama is Conservative

[gandalf]

That’s well-said, aecetia. Not-so-crazy ramblings.

[Aecetia]

Thank you. I know the voucher idea is controversial, but the unionization of teaching has not improved test scores in California and it cannot all be blamed on either lack of money or non-English speakers dragging down the scores. Many of the home schoolers kick the public kids butts in tests because they can learn at their own pace and a lot of the PC crap does not translate into better jobs or job skills. I would also like to see trade schools. Not everyone has use for a college education. By the way, I did go to public school, but my son does not because I want him to get an education that will serve him well.

I would like to see employers who hire illegals fined and the fines used to improve the immigration process. I have heard people call in to talk show to say that they have been on waiting lists trying to legally immigrate for years! Knowing the feds, I can believe they would make this process tedious and have so many check and balance levels that would slow it down to a snail’s pace. We do need immigrants at all levels to bring their skills and energy to keep this country growing and the government could be doing a better job to screen those people in a timely manner.

[Aecetia]

Thank you. I know the voucher idea is controversial, but the unionization of teaching has not improved test scores in California and it cannot all be blamed on either lack of money or non-English speakers dragging down the scores. Many of the home schoolers kick the public kids butts in tests because they can learn at their own pace and a lot of the PC crap does not translate into better jobs or job skills. I would also like to see trade schools. Not everyone has use for a college education. By the way, I did go to public school, but my son does not because I want him to get an education that will serve him well.

I would like to see employers who hire illegals fined and the fines used to improve the immigration process. I have heard people call in to talk show to say that they have been on waiting lists trying to legally immigrate for years! Knowing the feds, I can believe they would make this process tedious and have so many check and balance levels that would slow it down to a snail’s pace. We do need immigrants at all levels to bring their skills and energy to keep this country growing and the government could be doing a better job to screen those people in a timely manner.

[Aecetia]

Thank you. I know the voucher idea is controversial, but the unionization of teaching has not improved test scores in California and it cannot all be blamed on either lack of money or non-English speakers dragging down the scores. Many of the home schoolers kick the public kids butts in tests because they can learn at their own pace and a lot of the PC crap does not translate into better jobs or job skills. I would also like to see trade schools. Not everyone has use for a college education. By the way, I did go to public school, but my son does not because I want him to get an education that will serve him well.

I would like to see employers who hire illegals fined and the fines used to improve the immigration process. I have heard people call in to talk show to say that they have been on waiting lists trying to legally immigrate for years! Knowing the feds, I can believe they would make this process tedious and have so many check and balance levels that would slow it down to a snail’s pace. We do need immigrants at all levels to bring their skills and energy to keep this country growing and the government could be doing a better job to screen those people in a timely manner.

[Aecetia]

Thank you. I know the voucher idea is controversial, but the unionization of teaching has not improved test scores in California and it cannot all be blamed on either lack of money or non-English speakers dragging down the scores. Many of the home schoolers kick the public kids butts in tests because they can learn at their own pace and a lot of the PC crap does not translate into better jobs or job skills. I would also like to see trade schools. Not everyone has use for a college education. By the way, I did go to public school, but my son does not because I want him to get an education that will serve him well.

I would like to see employers who hire illegals fined and the fines used to improve the immigration process. I have heard people call in to talk show to say that they have been on waiting lists trying to legally immigrate for years! Knowing the feds, I can believe they would make this process tedious and have so many check and balance levels that would slow it down to a snail’s pace. We do need immigrants at all levels to bring their skills and energy to keep this country growing and the government could be doing a better job to screen those people in a timely manner.

[Aecetia]

Thank you. I know the voucher idea is controversial, but the unionization of teaching has not improved test scores in California and it cannot all be blamed on either lack of money or non-English speakers dragging down the scores. Many of the home schoolers kick the public kids butts in tests because they can learn at their own pace and a lot of the PC crap does not translate into better jobs or job skills. I would also like to see trade schools. Not everyone has use for a college education. By the way, I did go to public school, but my son does not because I want him to get an education that will serve him well.

I would like to see employers who hire illegals fined and the fines used to improve the immigration process. I have heard people call in to talk show to say that they have been on waiting lists trying to legally immigrate for years! Knowing the feds, I can believe they would make this process tedious and have so many check and balance levels that would slow it down to a snail’s pace. We do need immigrants at all levels to bring their skills and energy to keep this country growing and the government could be doing a better job to screen those people in a timely manner.

[surveyor]

readings

Again, gandalf: reading comprehension. I’ve already answered some of your assertions.

1) Whether Obama is seen as conservative or liberal in foreign policy circles is irrelevant. It’s terrific for talking points and people who rely on soundbites instead of factual analysis, but ultimately it is unimportant.

2) His lack of knowledge and understanding regarding history makes any foreign policy approaches by him highly questionable.

3) His tendency to regard the war on terrorism as a correllary to a war on poverty displays a lack of concern on how terrorism is being fueled by Islamofacism.

4) As Allan has pointed out correctly, the writer Zakaria is a well-known internationalist and views America as a waning power soon to be replaced.

5) Lastly, anyone can label policies as pragmatic, realistic, idealistic. Are the policies and analyses of the problem correct? In both cases, neither presidential candidate gets it right. Obama just gets it more wrong. Call it liberal or conservative, it’s still wrong.

[surveyor]

readings

Again, gandalf: reading comprehension. I’ve already answered some of your assertions.

1) Whether Obama is seen as conservative or liberal in foreign policy circles is irrelevant. It’s terrific for talking points and people who rely on soundbites instead of factual analysis, but ultimately it is unimportant.

2) His lack of knowledge and understanding regarding history makes any foreign policy approaches by him highly questionable.

3) His tendency to regard the war on terrorism as a correllary to a war on poverty displays a lack of concern on how terrorism is being fueled by Islamofacism.

4) As Allan has pointed out correctly, the writer Zakaria is a well-known internationalist and views America as a waning power soon to be replaced.

5) Lastly, anyone can label policies as pragmatic, realistic, idealistic. Are the policies and analyses of the problem correct? In both cases, neither presidential candidate gets it right. Obama just gets it more wrong. Call it liberal or conservative, it’s still wrong.

[surveyor]

readings

Again, gandalf: reading comprehension. I’ve already answered some of your assertions.

1) Whether Obama is seen as conservative or liberal in foreign policy circles is irrelevant. It’s terrific for talking points and people who rely on soundbites instead of factual analysis, but ultimately it is unimportant.

2) His lack of knowledge and understanding regarding history makes any foreign policy approaches by him highly questionable.

3) His tendency to regard the war on terrorism as a correllary to a war on poverty displays a lack of concern on how terrorism is being fueled by Islamofacism.

4) As Allan has pointed out correctly, the writer Zakaria is a well-known internationalist and views America as a waning power soon to be replaced.

5) Lastly, anyone can label policies as pragmatic, realistic, idealistic. Are the policies and analyses of the problem correct? In both cases, neither presidential candidate gets it right. Obama just gets it more wrong. Call it liberal or conservative, it’s still wrong.

[surveyor]

readings

Again, gandalf: reading comprehension. I’ve already answered some of your assertions.

1) Whether Obama is seen as conservative or liberal in foreign policy circles is irrelevant. It’s terrific for talking points and people who rely on soundbites instead of factual analysis, but ultimately it is unimportant.

2) His lack of knowledge and understanding regarding history makes any foreign policy approaches by him highly questionable.

3) His tendency to regard the war on terrorism as a correllary to a war on poverty displays a lack of concern on how terrorism is being fueled by Islamofacism.

4) As Allan has pointed out correctly, the writer Zakaria is a well-known internationalist and views America as a waning power soon to be replaced.

5) Lastly, anyone can label policies as pragmatic, realistic, idealistic. Are the policies and analyses of the problem correct? In both cases, neither presidential candidate gets it right. Obama just gets it more wrong. Call it liberal or conservative, it’s still wrong.

[surveyor]

readings

Again, gandalf: reading comprehension. I’ve already answered some of your assertions.

1) Whether Obama is seen as conservative or liberal in foreign policy circles is irrelevant. It’s terrific for talking points and people who rely on soundbites instead of factual analysis, but ultimately it is unimportant.

2) His lack of knowledge and understanding regarding history makes any foreign policy approaches by him highly questionable.

3) His tendency to regard the war on terrorism as a correllary to a war on poverty displays a lack of concern on how terrorism is being fueled by Islamofacism.

4) As Allan has pointed out correctly, the writer Zakaria is a well-known internationalist and views America as a waning power soon to be replaced.

5) Lastly, anyone can label policies as pragmatic, realistic, idealistic. Are the policies and analyses of the problem correct? In both cases, neither presidential candidate gets it right. Obama just gets it more wrong. Call it liberal or conservative, it’s still wrong.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I don’t think casca likes Jets fans, either!

Okay, on a more serious note: I would assess Obama’s foreign policy position on his pronoucements regarding engaging other countries in dialogue as well as his statements on potential US intervention(s).

The Zakaria article was a lofty piece of sophistry that did absolutely nothing in terms of articulating Obama’s policy positions.

We do have Obama himself discussing having peer-to-peer discussions with Syria and Iran, as well as intervening in Pakistan (which he did fail to recognize as a sovereign nation). I don’t think engaging renegade states like Syria or Iran is a conservative position, nor do I feel it is a very “realistic” position, rather I think it does display a fairly breathtaking naivete.

He does not have a good grasp of history and that alarms me also. Please remember that Neville Chamberlain was not some idealistic fool, either. He was an experienced British politician and Prime Minister, but made the fatal mistake of treating Hitler in good faith and expecting the same in return. For Chamberlain, the specter of WWI was only a generation removed, and he was determined to avoid another repeat of a European war. Hitler, on the other hand, was a self aggrandizing madman who would stop at nothing to achieve his vision of a Pan-Germanic Europe, including going to war. He was militarizing Germany in direct contravention of the Versailles Treaty and the British and French policies of appeasement were only fuelling his belief that they were too weak willed to openly confront him and risk war. Sound familiar?

To me, it sounds very much like the situation with Iran and President I-Am-a-Dinner-Jacket. Continued European dissembling, combined with any sort of serious response or willingness to confront him has resulted in the present situation. Does engaging in further dialogue here help? Does having a strong grasp of history help? Does understanding the nature of the regime, the people and the motivations? And, I am not saying the McCain is possessed of a modicum more understanding than Obama is. Let me be very clear about that. I find his singing “bomb Iran” to the strains of the Beach Boys “Barbara Ann” chilling as hell.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I don’t think casca likes Jets fans, either!

Okay, on a more serious note: I would assess Obama’s foreign policy position on his pronoucements regarding engaging other countries in dialogue as well as his statements on potential US intervention(s).

The Zakaria article was a lofty piece of sophistry that did absolutely nothing in terms of articulating Obama’s policy positions.

We do have Obama himself discussing having peer-to-peer discussions with Syria and Iran, as well as intervening in Pakistan (which he did fail to recognize as a sovereign nation). I don’t think engaging renegade states like Syria or Iran is a conservative position, nor do I feel it is a very “realistic” position, rather I think it does display a fairly breathtaking naivete.

He does not have a good grasp of history and that alarms me also. Please remember that Neville Chamberlain was not some idealistic fool, either. He was an experienced British politician and Prime Minister, but made the fatal mistake of treating Hitler in good faith and expecting the same in return. For Chamberlain, the specter of WWI was only a generation removed, and he was determined to avoid another repeat of a European war. Hitler, on the other hand, was a self aggrandizing madman who would stop at nothing to achieve his vision of a Pan-Germanic Europe, including going to war. He was militarizing Germany in direct contravention of the Versailles Treaty and the British and French policies of appeasement were only fuelling his belief that they were too weak willed to openly confront him and risk war. Sound familiar?

To me, it sounds very much like the situation with Iran and President I-Am-a-Dinner-Jacket. Continued European dissembling, combined with any sort of serious response or willingness to confront him has resulted in the present situation. Does engaging in further dialogue here help? Does having a strong grasp of history help? Does understanding the nature of the regime, the people and the motivations? And, I am not saying the McCain is possessed of a modicum more understanding than Obama is. Let me be very clear about that. I find his singing “bomb Iran” to the strains of the Beach Boys “Barbara Ann” chilling as hell.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I don’t think casca likes Jets fans, either!

Okay, on a more serious note: I would assess Obama’s foreign policy position on his pronoucements regarding engaging other countries in dialogue as well as his statements on potential US intervention(s).

The Zakaria article was a lofty piece of sophistry that did absolutely nothing in terms of articulating Obama’s policy positions.

We do have Obama himself discussing having peer-to-peer discussions with Syria and Iran, as well as intervening in Pakistan (which he did fail to recognize as a sovereign nation). I don’t think engaging renegade states like Syria or Iran is a conservative position, nor do I feel it is a very “realistic” position, rather I think it does display a fairly breathtaking naivete.

He does not have a good grasp of history and that alarms me also. Please remember that Neville Chamberlain was not some idealistic fool, either. He was an experienced British politician and Prime Minister, but made the fatal mistake of treating Hitler in good faith and expecting the same in return. For Chamberlain, the specter of WWI was only a generation removed, and he was determined to avoid another repeat of a European war. Hitler, on the other hand, was a self aggrandizing madman who would stop at nothing to achieve his vision of a Pan-Germanic Europe, including going to war. He was militarizing Germany in direct contravention of the Versailles Treaty and the British and French policies of appeasement were only fuelling his belief that they were too weak willed to openly confront him and risk war. Sound familiar?

To me, it sounds very much like the situation with Iran and President I-Am-a-Dinner-Jacket. Continued European dissembling, combined with any sort of serious response or willingness to confront him has resulted in the present situation. Does engaging in further dialogue here help? Does having a strong grasp of history help? Does understanding the nature of the regime, the people and the motivations? And, I am not saying the McCain is possessed of a modicum more understanding than Obama is. Let me be very clear about that. I find his singing “bomb Iran” to the strains of the Beach Boys “Barbara Ann” chilling as hell.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I don’t think casca likes Jets fans, either!

Okay, on a more serious note: I would assess Obama’s foreign policy position on his pronoucements regarding engaging other countries in dialogue as well as his statements on potential US intervention(s).

The Zakaria article was a lofty piece of sophistry that did absolutely nothing in terms of articulating Obama’s policy positions.

We do have Obama himself discussing having peer-to-peer discussions with Syria and Iran, as well as intervening in Pakistan (which he did fail to recognize as a sovereign nation). I don’t think engaging renegade states like Syria or Iran is a conservative position, nor do I feel it is a very “realistic” position, rather I think it does display a fairly breathtaking naivete.

He does not have a good grasp of history and that alarms me also. Please remember that Neville Chamberlain was not some idealistic fool, either. He was an experienced British politician and Prime Minister, but made the fatal mistake of treating Hitler in good faith and expecting the same in return. For Chamberlain, the specter of WWI was only a generation removed, and he was determined to avoid another repeat of a European war. Hitler, on the other hand, was a self aggrandizing madman who would stop at nothing to achieve his vision of a Pan-Germanic Europe, including going to war. He was militarizing Germany in direct contravention of the Versailles Treaty and the British and French policies of appeasement were only fuelling his belief that they were too weak willed to openly confront him and risk war. Sound familiar?

To me, it sounds very much like the situation with Iran and President I-Am-a-Dinner-Jacket. Continued European dissembling, combined with any sort of serious response or willingness to confront him has resulted in the present situation. Does engaging in further dialogue here help? Does having a strong grasp of history help? Does understanding the nature of the regime, the people and the motivations? And, I am not saying the McCain is possessed of a modicum more understanding than Obama is. Let me be very clear about that. I find his singing “bomb Iran” to the strains of the Beach Boys “Barbara Ann” chilling as hell.

[Author]

Posts