OT: Obama is Conservative

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
If we are doing a comparison of gotchas and verbal gaffes, then why use Obama as a target?[/quote]

Well, he’s only running for president. I do notice that many people are critical of George W. Bush because they say he lies, that he can’t speak well, and they use that to insult his intelligence and make fun of him. However, when Obama does the same things, people object to calling him out on those mistakes. Hardly sounds fair. As Americans, we should be able to kick the tires before we buy the car, can’t we?

And besides, if Obama is unable to speak well, he has a thin resume, has a lack of understanding regarding history, and then he lies, what else does he have to offer? Is this really a person you want for president? Really?

I actually don’t mind Obama making mistakes (in my view, the only way not to make mistakes is to not do anything), but we should be able to at least call him to task for it.

[/quote]
Actually I agree. We should be able to call him on it. However, my point is that these are cheap shots. You would make a better case by just saying that his policies are weak and then explain why. If you are looking to just do cheap shots, then I submit to you that this may be too intelligent a blog for you (and thats kind of sad). I don’t say this to be insulting. I say this because I would like to actually discuss policy with you. You have something good to say but you keep hiding it behind weak lines and cheap shots. Please step up dude. I’ll wait for you. I really would like to hear your real points.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]This 7 min video of Obama at a press conference yesterday is painful to watch.

Some make fun of GWB and how he handles questions. Obama makes GWB look like Perry Mason.

http://www.hcsfjm.com/

John[/quote]

I honestly believe this is the first time I have heard Bush described as a middle aged gay man.

Please give better comments.

Calling these comments are like calling L Ron Hubbard a philosopher.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]This 7 min video of Obama at a press conference yesterday is painful to watch.

Some make fun of GWB and how he handles questions. Obama makes GWB look like Perry Mason.

http://www.hcsfjm.com/

John[/quote]

I honestly believe this is the first time I have heard Bush described as a middle aged gay man.

Please give better comments.

Calling these comments are like calling L Ron Hubbard a philosopher.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]This 7 min video of Obama at a press conference yesterday is painful to watch.

Some make fun of GWB and how he handles questions. Obama makes GWB look like Perry Mason.

http://www.hcsfjm.com/

John[/quote]

I honestly believe this is the first time I have heard Bush described as a middle aged gay man.

Please give better comments.

Calling these comments are like calling L Ron Hubbard a philosopher.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]This 7 min video of Obama at a press conference yesterday is painful to watch.

Some make fun of GWB and how he handles questions. Obama makes GWB look like Perry Mason.

http://www.hcsfjm.com/

John[/quote]

I honestly believe this is the first time I have heard Bush described as a middle aged gay man.

Please give better comments.

Calling these comments are like calling L Ron Hubbard a philosopher.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]This 7 min video of Obama at a press conference yesterday is painful to watch.

Some make fun of GWB and how he handles questions. Obama makes GWB look like Perry Mason.

http://www.hcsfjm.com/

John[/quote]

I honestly believe this is the first time I have heard Bush described as a middle aged gay man.

Please give better comments.

Calling these comments are like calling L Ron Hubbard a philosopher.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: You wrote: “The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments”.

This is a popular misconception and one that has been furthered by cinema (David Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” comes to mind), books and the media.

In point of fact most of the “tremendous economic and intellectual developments” you cite were actually products of the conquered peoples (the Jews, for instance) and not the Arabs/Muslims/Moors themselves. Bernard Lewis and other Arabist authors have made this point as well.

The “religious tolerance” you cite is also something of a sweeping generalization rather than a specific truth. The Spanish Reconquista came about because the Spaniards sought to throw off the repressive government they lived under. The Crusades are another example of what happens after several centuries of Islamic “religious tolerance”.

Whether or not the worldwide Islamic Caliphate that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda envision will be a reality is obviously open to debate. However, it is gaining traction and in areas from Indonesia to Egypt to Turkey to Britain. Wahhabist Islam is not only virulent, but viral. It threatens regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (in my opinion, at even greater danger of destabilizing than Saudi Arabia), as well as democratic countries like Holland, France, Britain and Italy.

You’re correct that our being nicer isn’t really at issue. Our being smarter certainly is, and gandalf has astutely pointed out that we are barking up the wrong tree with our nation building exercise in Iraq. However, I would point out that Iran’s animosity at present has far less to do with our questionable coup in 1953 and far more to do with regional hegemony. And, in that case, the example of Neville Chamberlain is quite relevant. Perhaps the Iranians aren’t as dangerous as Herr Hitler in the late 1930s, but, with a nuke, even petty dictators can punch far above their weight.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: You wrote: “The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments”.

This is a popular misconception and one that has been furthered by cinema (David Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” comes to mind), books and the media.

In point of fact most of the “tremendous economic and intellectual developments” you cite were actually products of the conquered peoples (the Jews, for instance) and not the Arabs/Muslims/Moors themselves. Bernard Lewis and other Arabist authors have made this point as well.

The “religious tolerance” you cite is also something of a sweeping generalization rather than a specific truth. The Spanish Reconquista came about because the Spaniards sought to throw off the repressive government they lived under. The Crusades are another example of what happens after several centuries of Islamic “religious tolerance”.

Whether or not the worldwide Islamic Caliphate that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda envision will be a reality is obviously open to debate. However, it is gaining traction and in areas from Indonesia to Egypt to Turkey to Britain. Wahhabist Islam is not only virulent, but viral. It threatens regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (in my opinion, at even greater danger of destabilizing than Saudi Arabia), as well as democratic countries like Holland, France, Britain and Italy.

You’re correct that our being nicer isn’t really at issue. Our being smarter certainly is, and gandalf has astutely pointed out that we are barking up the wrong tree with our nation building exercise in Iraq. However, I would point out that Iran’s animosity at present has far less to do with our questionable coup in 1953 and far more to do with regional hegemony. And, in that case, the example of Neville Chamberlain is quite relevant. Perhaps the Iranians aren’t as dangerous as Herr Hitler in the late 1930s, but, with a nuke, even petty dictators can punch far above their weight.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: You wrote: “The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments”.

This is a popular misconception and one that has been furthered by cinema (David Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” comes to mind), books and the media.

In point of fact most of the “tremendous economic and intellectual developments” you cite were actually products of the conquered peoples (the Jews, for instance) and not the Arabs/Muslims/Moors themselves. Bernard Lewis and other Arabist authors have made this point as well.

The “religious tolerance” you cite is also something of a sweeping generalization rather than a specific truth. The Spanish Reconquista came about because the Spaniards sought to throw off the repressive government they lived under. The Crusades are another example of what happens after several centuries of Islamic “religious tolerance”.

Whether or not the worldwide Islamic Caliphate that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda envision will be a reality is obviously open to debate. However, it is gaining traction and in areas from Indonesia to Egypt to Turkey to Britain. Wahhabist Islam is not only virulent, but viral. It threatens regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (in my opinion, at even greater danger of destabilizing than Saudi Arabia), as well as democratic countries like Holland, France, Britain and Italy.

You’re correct that our being nicer isn’t really at issue. Our being smarter certainly is, and gandalf has astutely pointed out that we are barking up the wrong tree with our nation building exercise in Iraq. However, I would point out that Iran’s animosity at present has far less to do with our questionable coup in 1953 and far more to do with regional hegemony. And, in that case, the example of Neville Chamberlain is quite relevant. Perhaps the Iranians aren’t as dangerous as Herr Hitler in the late 1930s, but, with a nuke, even petty dictators can punch far above their weight.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: You wrote: “The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments”.

This is a popular misconception and one that has been furthered by cinema (David Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” comes to mind), books and the media.

In point of fact most of the “tremendous economic and intellectual developments” you cite were actually products of the conquered peoples (the Jews, for instance) and not the Arabs/Muslims/Moors themselves. Bernard Lewis and other Arabist authors have made this point as well.

The “religious tolerance” you cite is also something of a sweeping generalization rather than a specific truth. The Spanish Reconquista came about because the Spaniards sought to throw off the repressive government they lived under. The Crusades are another example of what happens after several centuries of Islamic “religious tolerance”.

Whether or not the worldwide Islamic Caliphate that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda envision will be a reality is obviously open to debate. However, it is gaining traction and in areas from Indonesia to Egypt to Turkey to Britain. Wahhabist Islam is not only virulent, but viral. It threatens regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (in my opinion, at even greater danger of destabilizing than Saudi Arabia), as well as democratic countries like Holland, France, Britain and Italy.

You’re correct that our being nicer isn’t really at issue. Our being smarter certainly is, and gandalf has astutely pointed out that we are barking up the wrong tree with our nation building exercise in Iraq. However, I would point out that Iran’s animosity at present has far less to do with our questionable coup in 1953 and far more to do with regional hegemony. And, in that case, the example of Neville Chamberlain is quite relevant. Perhaps the Iranians aren’t as dangerous as Herr Hitler in the late 1930s, but, with a nuke, even petty dictators can punch far above their weight.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: You wrote: “The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments”.

This is a popular misconception and one that has been furthered by cinema (David Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” comes to mind), books and the media.

In point of fact most of the “tremendous economic and intellectual developments” you cite were actually products of the conquered peoples (the Jews, for instance) and not the Arabs/Muslims/Moors themselves. Bernard Lewis and other Arabist authors have made this point as well.

The “religious tolerance” you cite is also something of a sweeping generalization rather than a specific truth. The Spanish Reconquista came about because the Spaniards sought to throw off the repressive government they lived under. The Crusades are another example of what happens after several centuries of Islamic “religious tolerance”.

Whether or not the worldwide Islamic Caliphate that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda envision will be a reality is obviously open to debate. However, it is gaining traction and in areas from Indonesia to Egypt to Turkey to Britain. Wahhabist Islam is not only virulent, but viral. It threatens regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (in my opinion, at even greater danger of destabilizing than Saudi Arabia), as well as democratic countries like Holland, France, Britain and Italy.

You’re correct that our being nicer isn’t really at issue. Our being smarter certainly is, and gandalf has astutely pointed out that we are barking up the wrong tree with our nation building exercise in Iraq. However, I would point out that Iran’s animosity at present has far less to do with our questionable coup in 1953 and far more to do with regional hegemony. And, in that case, the example of Neville Chamberlain is quite relevant. Perhaps the Iranians aren’t as dangerous as Herr Hitler in the late 1930s, but, with a nuke, even petty dictators can punch far above their weight.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: You wrote: “The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments”.

This is a popular misconception and one that has been furthered by cinema (David Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” comes to mind), books and the media.

In point of fact most of the “tremendous economic and intellectual developments” you cite were actually products of the conquered peoples (the Jews, for instance) and not the Arabs/Muslims/Moors themselves. Bernard Lewis and other Arabist authors have made this point as well.

The “religious tolerance” you cite is also something of a sweeping generalization rather than a specific truth. The Spanish Reconquista came about because the Spaniards sought to throw off the repressive government they lived under. The Crusades are another example of what happens after several centuries of Islamic “religious tolerance”.

Whether or not the worldwide Islamic Caliphate that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda envision will be a reality is obviously open to debate. However, it is gaining traction and in areas from Indonesia to Egypt to Turkey to Britain. Wahhabist Islam is not only virulent, but viral. It threatens regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (in my opinion, at even greater danger of destabilizing than Saudi Arabia), as well as democratic countries like Holland, France, Britain and Italy.

You’re correct that our being nicer isn’t really at issue. Our being smarter certainly is, and gandalf has astutely pointed out that we are barking up the wrong tree with our nation building exercise in Iraq. However, I would point out that Iran’s animosity at present has far less to do with our questionable coup in 1953 and far more to do with regional hegemony. And, in that case, the example of Neville Chamberlain is quite relevant. Perhaps the Iranians aren’t as dangerous as Herr Hitler in the late 1930s, but, with a nuke, even petty dictators can punch far above their weight. [/quote]

Regarding the great works:
I think that the assertion you reference is accurate. All empires lay claim to conquered tech. Recall tea does not grow in Britain. That does not really bear on the conversation.
Regarding religious tolerance:
It is widely accepted by historians that Christians and Jews lived well among the Muslims prior to the reconquista and various crusades. Also, citing examples of ethno-religious cleansing does not go far in making your point.

Regarding global Wahabism: It started in Saudi Arabia. It is not like an Iphone. People aren’t such sheep that they just get programmed. They adopt it in places where it makes sense.

That pretty much excludes all places without dictators. If you can find one democracy with a wahabist hegemony I will be surprised.

Our mutual animosity with Iran is grounded in history. That was my point. We are not in danger of ever being invaded by them but we have a lot of 2-way bitterness.
If they have now, or if they get, a nuke this will be a different conversation. They have incentive to get one now because they have a hostile neighbor with nukes. I would like to see that situation and animosity reduced.

Again, Neville Chamberlain applies when we start giving things away. I will concede your point the first time we allow Iran to take over Jordan or northern Israel. But that is not what we are doing or talking about doing. We are talking about talking. Which is something i believe in (perhaps you noticed).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: You wrote: “The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments”.

This is a popular misconception and one that has been furthered by cinema (David Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” comes to mind), books and the media.

In point of fact most of the “tremendous economic and intellectual developments” you cite were actually products of the conquered peoples (the Jews, for instance) and not the Arabs/Muslims/Moors themselves. Bernard Lewis and other Arabist authors have made this point as well.

The “religious tolerance” you cite is also something of a sweeping generalization rather than a specific truth. The Spanish Reconquista came about because the Spaniards sought to throw off the repressive government they lived under. The Crusades are another example of what happens after several centuries of Islamic “religious tolerance”.

Whether or not the worldwide Islamic Caliphate that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda envision will be a reality is obviously open to debate. However, it is gaining traction and in areas from Indonesia to Egypt to Turkey to Britain. Wahhabist Islam is not only virulent, but viral. It threatens regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (in my opinion, at even greater danger of destabilizing than Saudi Arabia), as well as democratic countries like Holland, France, Britain and Italy.

You’re correct that our being nicer isn’t really at issue. Our being smarter certainly is, and gandalf has astutely pointed out that we are barking up the wrong tree with our nation building exercise in Iraq. However, I would point out that Iran’s animosity at present has far less to do with our questionable coup in 1953 and far more to do with regional hegemony. And, in that case, the example of Neville Chamberlain is quite relevant. Perhaps the Iranians aren’t as dangerous as Herr Hitler in the late 1930s, but, with a nuke, even petty dictators can punch far above their weight. [/quote]

Regarding the great works:
I think that the assertion you reference is accurate. All empires lay claim to conquered tech. Recall tea does not grow in Britain. That does not really bear on the conversation.
Regarding religious tolerance:
It is widely accepted by historians that Christians and Jews lived well among the Muslims prior to the reconquista and various crusades. Also, citing examples of ethno-religious cleansing does not go far in making your point.

Regarding global Wahabism: It started in Saudi Arabia. It is not like an Iphone. People aren’t such sheep that they just get programmed. They adopt it in places where it makes sense.

That pretty much excludes all places without dictators. If you can find one democracy with a wahabist hegemony I will be surprised.

Our mutual animosity with Iran is grounded in history. That was my point. We are not in danger of ever being invaded by them but we have a lot of 2-way bitterness.
If they have now, or if they get, a nuke this will be a different conversation. They have incentive to get one now because they have a hostile neighbor with nukes. I would like to see that situation and animosity reduced.

Again, Neville Chamberlain applies when we start giving things away. I will concede your point the first time we allow Iran to take over Jordan or northern Israel. But that is not what we are doing or talking about doing. We are talking about talking. Which is something i believe in (perhaps you noticed).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: You wrote: “The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments”.

This is a popular misconception and one that has been furthered by cinema (David Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” comes to mind), books and the media.

In point of fact most of the “tremendous economic and intellectual developments” you cite were actually products of the conquered peoples (the Jews, for instance) and not the Arabs/Muslims/Moors themselves. Bernard Lewis and other Arabist authors have made this point as well.

The “religious tolerance” you cite is also something of a sweeping generalization rather than a specific truth. The Spanish Reconquista came about because the Spaniards sought to throw off the repressive government they lived under. The Crusades are another example of what happens after several centuries of Islamic “religious tolerance”.

Whether or not the worldwide Islamic Caliphate that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda envision will be a reality is obviously open to debate. However, it is gaining traction and in areas from Indonesia to Egypt to Turkey to Britain. Wahhabist Islam is not only virulent, but viral. It threatens regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (in my opinion, at even greater danger of destabilizing than Saudi Arabia), as well as democratic countries like Holland, France, Britain and Italy.

You’re correct that our being nicer isn’t really at issue. Our being smarter certainly is, and gandalf has astutely pointed out that we are barking up the wrong tree with our nation building exercise in Iraq. However, I would point out that Iran’s animosity at present has far less to do with our questionable coup in 1953 and far more to do with regional hegemony. And, in that case, the example of Neville Chamberlain is quite relevant. Perhaps the Iranians aren’t as dangerous as Herr Hitler in the late 1930s, but, with a nuke, even petty dictators can punch far above their weight. [/quote]

Regarding the great works:
I think that the assertion you reference is accurate. All empires lay claim to conquered tech. Recall tea does not grow in Britain. That does not really bear on the conversation.
Regarding religious tolerance:
It is widely accepted by historians that Christians and Jews lived well among the Muslims prior to the reconquista and various crusades. Also, citing examples of ethno-religious cleansing does not go far in making your point.

Regarding global Wahabism: It started in Saudi Arabia. It is not like an Iphone. People aren’t such sheep that they just get programmed. They adopt it in places where it makes sense.

That pretty much excludes all places without dictators. If you can find one democracy with a wahabist hegemony I will be surprised.

Our mutual animosity with Iran is grounded in history. That was my point. We are not in danger of ever being invaded by them but we have a lot of 2-way bitterness.
If they have now, or if they get, a nuke this will be a different conversation. They have incentive to get one now because they have a hostile neighbor with nukes. I would like to see that situation and animosity reduced.

Again, Neville Chamberlain applies when we start giving things away. I will concede your point the first time we allow Iran to take over Jordan or northern Israel. But that is not what we are doing or talking about doing. We are talking about talking. Which is something i believe in (perhaps you noticed).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: You wrote: “The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments”.

This is a popular misconception and one that has been furthered by cinema (David Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” comes to mind), books and the media.

In point of fact most of the “tremendous economic and intellectual developments” you cite were actually products of the conquered peoples (the Jews, for instance) and not the Arabs/Muslims/Moors themselves. Bernard Lewis and other Arabist authors have made this point as well.

The “religious tolerance” you cite is also something of a sweeping generalization rather than a specific truth. The Spanish Reconquista came about because the Spaniards sought to throw off the repressive government they lived under. The Crusades are another example of what happens after several centuries of Islamic “religious tolerance”.

Whether or not the worldwide Islamic Caliphate that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda envision will be a reality is obviously open to debate. However, it is gaining traction and in areas from Indonesia to Egypt to Turkey to Britain. Wahhabist Islam is not only virulent, but viral. It threatens regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (in my opinion, at even greater danger of destabilizing than Saudi Arabia), as well as democratic countries like Holland, France, Britain and Italy.

You’re correct that our being nicer isn’t really at issue. Our being smarter certainly is, and gandalf has astutely pointed out that we are barking up the wrong tree with our nation building exercise in Iraq. However, I would point out that Iran’s animosity at present has far less to do with our questionable coup in 1953 and far more to do with regional hegemony. And, in that case, the example of Neville Chamberlain is quite relevant. Perhaps the Iranians aren’t as dangerous as Herr Hitler in the late 1930s, but, with a nuke, even petty dictators can punch far above their weight. [/quote]

Regarding the great works:
I think that the assertion you reference is accurate. All empires lay claim to conquered tech. Recall tea does not grow in Britain. That does not really bear on the conversation.
Regarding religious tolerance:
It is widely accepted by historians that Christians and Jews lived well among the Muslims prior to the reconquista and various crusades. Also, citing examples of ethno-religious cleansing does not go far in making your point.

Regarding global Wahabism: It started in Saudi Arabia. It is not like an Iphone. People aren’t such sheep that they just get programmed. They adopt it in places where it makes sense.

That pretty much excludes all places without dictators. If you can find one democracy with a wahabist hegemony I will be surprised.

Our mutual animosity with Iran is grounded in history. That was my point. We are not in danger of ever being invaded by them but we have a lot of 2-way bitterness.
If they have now, or if they get, a nuke this will be a different conversation. They have incentive to get one now because they have a hostile neighbor with nukes. I would like to see that situation and animosity reduced.

Again, Neville Chamberlain applies when we start giving things away. I will concede your point the first time we allow Iran to take over Jordan or northern Israel. But that is not what we are doing or talking about doing. We are talking about talking. Which is something i believe in (perhaps you noticed).

[Author]

Posts