OT: Obama is Conservative

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the analogy, it involves people making claims that are not popularly accepted and using quotes from non-respected authorities.

Have you read the Wikipedia for Spencer or Bolton?
They are not widely respected.
Are their articles written by liberal spambots?

Most of the leaders in their fields (which they are on the periphery of) do not take these two seriously. I do not either.

Your Spencer remarks seem to say that it is unfair to impeach his ability as an expert and still to say that he is respected. I disagree with the first part and the canon of theology and world religious studies disagrees with you on the second.

You say you have brought evidence and that it is in the book Spencer wrote. If you knew it so well you would be re-stating it and would have assimilated it. You have not. You just told me to read a book. I would venture to say I have read many on this topic. If you (or your muse) can cite specific primary sources (eg: archives, records or the like), I will check it out. If I learn something then cool. I would rather be informed than right.

My “experts” are experts for a reason. They are peer-reviewed, they document their research, and they are respected by most. Just having a different opinion from them does not make for credibility or for a good opinion.

If you get hurt by being called on the bigotry thing, then I pity you. Not interested in hurting you but it must be painful to meet the dictionary definition and yet be averse to the label.

These criticisms of your argument are analysis of the things you say. They are not an irrelevant attack on the character of your peeps. Honestly, their character really is irrelevant. Their expertise is very relevant.

So let me ask, do you really think that all assertions should be treated the same? For example, if I assert that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration, would citing one of the groups that says those things make for a good argument? Would you really be addressing that assertion and trying to prove a negative?

[quote=surveyor]analogous?

Comparing Jerry Fallwell/CO2 vs. Robert Spencer/your “experts”? Hardly analogous. Spencer, despite your opinion, is respected in many circles as an expert on islamic and middle eastern history. He can speak with some authority on the subject.

In any case, I did bring the data. The data is in the book that Spencer wrote. History is readily observable and it is its own evidence. The Jews and the Christians have written about their own sufferings under the islamic caliphates and it is those writings that Spencer references. That is specific refutation of what your so-called historian “experts” write about. It’s really not that hard to understand. And yes, I do have the book readily at hand. I dislike google searches myself because some stuff are written out of context. I like to quote the books I do have on hand as opposed to just googling. And certainly I don’t want to quote a book unless I’ve read it already (damn library doesn’t have Andrew Bostom’s book yet).

And here’s the thing – you are claiming to question the expertise of my experts, but your criticisms of reputation or respect is not related to actual expertise. There’s no way you can call Spencer or Bolton incompetent. Maybe if you did, that would be a valid criticism. That’s not what you were going for however.

Like I said, nice try. When you debate, you answer an argument. You said something, I answered here’s an expert who refutes that, and your response was, well my expert is not respected. Wrong. You just lost the point. If you had responded, well here’s so-and-so and he wrote that Spencer was wrong or so-and-so who says that the my point is correct, then you would have been able to push the argument to a draw. Unfortunately, that’s not what you did. We could have disagreed respectfully and that would have ended that.

Instead you go into name-calling and ad hominems. =tsk= Anyways, sticks and stones.

“Ha-HA!” – Phil Ken Sebben[/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cooprider][quote=gandalf]In traditional discussions of foreign policy, Obama’s positions are what we would term ‘conservative’. [/quote]

I didn’t revisit the now 6 pages of posts to see if this is where I originally found the link so don’t slam me if I’m reposting it.

Obama a conservative? Only if Marx was a catholic priest.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551%5B/quote%5D
I read the editorial and it made the point effectively that Obama is a liberal and left leaning.

That is accurate.
That is why the public is voting for him.
Bush has really pushed the public to the left.

The problem in the editorial is that it pulls out a bunch of irrelevant shit (eg: why the influence of his dad who left him before he was 10?).

The other piece that your post addresses is Z’s article. That would be the one which this thread is based on.
It seems that the thrust of that article is that Obama has foreign policy that is mostly rooted in pre-neocon conservatism.
On that front he really has a point. He does draw on Reagan and Bush 41 as inspiration. They are not in his camp but they did have success.

Yes he is left-leaning on domestic stuff. He is not socialist (look at Germany’s system as a comparison) but he does lean more to the left that where we are today on domestic and social issues.

Also, Marx was an atheist Jew (I think…).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cooprider][quote=gandalf]In traditional discussions of foreign policy, Obama’s positions are what we would term ‘conservative’. [/quote]

I didn’t revisit the now 6 pages of posts to see if this is where I originally found the link so don’t slam me if I’m reposting it.

Obama a conservative? Only if Marx was a catholic priest.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551%5B/quote%5D
I read the editorial and it made the point effectively that Obama is a liberal and left leaning.

That is accurate.
That is why the public is voting for him.
Bush has really pushed the public to the left.

The problem in the editorial is that it pulls out a bunch of irrelevant shit (eg: why the influence of his dad who left him before he was 10?).

The other piece that your post addresses is Z’s article. That would be the one which this thread is based on.
It seems that the thrust of that article is that Obama has foreign policy that is mostly rooted in pre-neocon conservatism.
On that front he really has a point. He does draw on Reagan and Bush 41 as inspiration. They are not in his camp but they did have success.

Yes he is left-leaning on domestic stuff. He is not socialist (look at Germany’s system as a comparison) but he does lean more to the left that where we are today on domestic and social issues.

Also, Marx was an atheist Jew (I think…).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cooprider][quote=gandalf]In traditional discussions of foreign policy, Obama’s positions are what we would term ‘conservative’. [/quote]

I didn’t revisit the now 6 pages of posts to see if this is where I originally found the link so don’t slam me if I’m reposting it.

Obama a conservative? Only if Marx was a catholic priest.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551%5B/quote%5D
I read the editorial and it made the point effectively that Obama is a liberal and left leaning.

That is accurate.
That is why the public is voting for him.
Bush has really pushed the public to the left.

The problem in the editorial is that it pulls out a bunch of irrelevant shit (eg: why the influence of his dad who left him before he was 10?).

The other piece that your post addresses is Z’s article. That would be the one which this thread is based on.
It seems that the thrust of that article is that Obama has foreign policy that is mostly rooted in pre-neocon conservatism.
On that front he really has a point. He does draw on Reagan and Bush 41 as inspiration. They are not in his camp but they did have success.

Yes he is left-leaning on domestic stuff. He is not socialist (look at Germany’s system as a comparison) but he does lean more to the left that where we are today on domestic and social issues.

Also, Marx was an atheist Jew (I think…).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cooprider][quote=gandalf]In traditional discussions of foreign policy, Obama’s positions are what we would term ‘conservative’. [/quote]

I didn’t revisit the now 6 pages of posts to see if this is where I originally found the link so don’t slam me if I’m reposting it.

Obama a conservative? Only if Marx was a catholic priest.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551%5B/quote%5D
I read the editorial and it made the point effectively that Obama is a liberal and left leaning.

That is accurate.
That is why the public is voting for him.
Bush has really pushed the public to the left.

The problem in the editorial is that it pulls out a bunch of irrelevant shit (eg: why the influence of his dad who left him before he was 10?).

The other piece that your post addresses is Z’s article. That would be the one which this thread is based on.
It seems that the thrust of that article is that Obama has foreign policy that is mostly rooted in pre-neocon conservatism.
On that front he really has a point. He does draw on Reagan and Bush 41 as inspiration. They are not in his camp but they did have success.

Yes he is left-leaning on domestic stuff. He is not socialist (look at Germany’s system as a comparison) but he does lean more to the left that where we are today on domestic and social issues.

Also, Marx was an atheist Jew (I think…).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cooprider][quote=gandalf]In traditional discussions of foreign policy, Obama’s positions are what we would term ‘conservative’. [/quote]

I didn’t revisit the now 6 pages of posts to see if this is where I originally found the link so don’t slam me if I’m reposting it.

Obama a conservative? Only if Marx was a catholic priest.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551%5B/quote%5D
I read the editorial and it made the point effectively that Obama is a liberal and left leaning.

That is accurate.
That is why the public is voting for him.
Bush has really pushed the public to the left.

The problem in the editorial is that it pulls out a bunch of irrelevant shit (eg: why the influence of his dad who left him before he was 10?).

The other piece that your post addresses is Z’s article. That would be the one which this thread is based on.
It seems that the thrust of that article is that Obama has foreign policy that is mostly rooted in pre-neocon conservatism.
On that front he really has a point. He does draw on Reagan and Bush 41 as inspiration. They are not in his camp but they did have success.

Yes he is left-leaning on domestic stuff. He is not socialist (look at Germany’s system as a comparison) but he does lean more to the left that where we are today on domestic and social issues.

Also, Marx was an atheist Jew (I think…).

[surveyor]

wiki?

I hate to break it to you dan but wikipedia is hardly the most accurate thing out there. If you take wikipedia as gospel, you’ve gotta improve your research methods (and you accuse me of lousy research?).

[quote=urbanrealtor]Most of the leaders in their fields (which they are on the periphery of) do not take these two seriously. I do not either. [/quote]

And again, this doesn’t mean that the points Bolton or Spencer made were wrong.

[quote=urbanrealtor]You say you have brought evidence and that it is in the book Spencer wrote. If you knew it so well you would be re-stating it and would have assimilated it. You have not. You just told me to read a book. I would venture to say I have read many on this topic. If you (or your muse) can cite specific primary sources (eg: archives, records or the like), I will check it out. If I learn something then cool. I would rather be informed than right.[/quote]

Hey, this is a blog post. I’m not going to spoonfeed the data to you. Just know that there is specific refutation of your assertion that the muslims treated their minorities well. Here is one of those books. Your response wasn’t hey the book is wrong, hey the book doesn’t say that, your response was that Spencer was not respected. That doesn’t in anyway refute what the book says. Still an ad hominem attack no matter how you want to revise your thinking. I’m saying, you know here is a book which challenges your facts. If you want to read it, fine, if not, fine, who cares, but this is the book you can consult.

And hey I don’t care about the bigotry thing. It just means your arguments are SO weak. That’s what bringing it up means. Certainly being called names by people can get tiring after awhile, but I’m rational enough to think, hey, that’s all they got? My self-identity is not dependent on you or any others.

[quote=urbanrealtor]These criticisms of your argument are analysis of the things you say. They are not an irrelevant attack on the character of your peeps. Honestly, their character really is irrelevant. Their expertise is very relevant.[/quote]

The problem is that you think expertise is based on the reputation or respect which is given by others. That’s not true, who cares about that? Is the data correct? But again, you didn’t attack the data, you attacked the person writing it. I mean, Spencer hates muslims? That’s your response? Really? Weak sauce, man.

[quote=urbanrealtor]My “experts” are experts for a reason. They are peer-reviewed, they document their research, and they are respected by most. Just having a different opinion from them does not make for credibility or for a good opinion.[/quote]

I am not purporting that Spencer and Bolton are exalted just because they have differing opinions. I am also not suggesting that Spencer and Bolton are credible for the same reason. I’m also not saying my experts are better than your experts. All I’m saying that here is the evidence that specifically refutes what you are saying. Here is the evidence that says your historians are wrong.

[quote=urbanrealtor]So let me ask, do you really think that all assertions should be treated the same? For example, if I assert that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration, would citing one of the groups that says those things make for a good argument? Would you really be addressing that assertion and trying to prove a negative?[/quote]

Hey, assert all you want. There were several ways to attack my arguments, and you chose the weakest ones. If you did make such an assertion, we would have to take a look at what data the group points to that say that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration. Let’s go ahead and examine it, and talk about it. But I wouldn’t have responded, hey those guys are certified whackos, so let’s just forget what they’re talking about. Or I could have responded, this study so and so says that’s not true.

THAT’S how to debate.

(i have the distinct feeling that rich is going to come by anytime now and slap us both around…).

(dang! it’s 12:42! gotta get a life).

[surveyor]

wiki?

I hate to break it to you dan but wikipedia is hardly the most accurate thing out there. If you take wikipedia as gospel, you’ve gotta improve your research methods (and you accuse me of lousy research?).

[quote=urbanrealtor]Most of the leaders in their fields (which they are on the periphery of) do not take these two seriously. I do not either. [/quote]

And again, this doesn’t mean that the points Bolton or Spencer made were wrong.

[quote=urbanrealtor]You say you have brought evidence and that it is in the book Spencer wrote. If you knew it so well you would be re-stating it and would have assimilated it. You have not. You just told me to read a book. I would venture to say I have read many on this topic. If you (or your muse) can cite specific primary sources (eg: archives, records or the like), I will check it out. If I learn something then cool. I would rather be informed than right.[/quote]

Hey, this is a blog post. I’m not going to spoonfeed the data to you. Just know that there is specific refutation of your assertion that the muslims treated their minorities well. Here is one of those books. Your response wasn’t hey the book is wrong, hey the book doesn’t say that, your response was that Spencer was not respected. That doesn’t in anyway refute what the book says. Still an ad hominem attack no matter how you want to revise your thinking. I’m saying, you know here is a book which challenges your facts. If you want to read it, fine, if not, fine, who cares, but this is the book you can consult.

And hey I don’t care about the bigotry thing. It just means your arguments are SO weak. That’s what bringing it up means. Certainly being called names by people can get tiring after awhile, but I’m rational enough to think, hey, that’s all they got? My self-identity is not dependent on you or any others.

[quote=urbanrealtor]These criticisms of your argument are analysis of the things you say. They are not an irrelevant attack on the character of your peeps. Honestly, their character really is irrelevant. Their expertise is very relevant.[/quote]

The problem is that you think expertise is based on the reputation or respect which is given by others. That’s not true, who cares about that? Is the data correct? But again, you didn’t attack the data, you attacked the person writing it. I mean, Spencer hates muslims? That’s your response? Really? Weak sauce, man.

[quote=urbanrealtor]My “experts” are experts for a reason. They are peer-reviewed, they document their research, and they are respected by most. Just having a different opinion from them does not make for credibility or for a good opinion.[/quote]

I am not purporting that Spencer and Bolton are exalted just because they have differing opinions. I am also not suggesting that Spencer and Bolton are credible for the same reason. I’m also not saying my experts are better than your experts. All I’m saying that here is the evidence that specifically refutes what you are saying. Here is the evidence that says your historians are wrong.

[quote=urbanrealtor]So let me ask, do you really think that all assertions should be treated the same? For example, if I assert that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration, would citing one of the groups that says those things make for a good argument? Would you really be addressing that assertion and trying to prove a negative?[/quote]

Hey, assert all you want. There were several ways to attack my arguments, and you chose the weakest ones. If you did make such an assertion, we would have to take a look at what data the group points to that say that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration. Let’s go ahead and examine it, and talk about it. But I wouldn’t have responded, hey those guys are certified whackos, so let’s just forget what they’re talking about. Or I could have responded, this study so and so says that’s not true.

THAT’S how to debate.

(i have the distinct feeling that rich is going to come by anytime now and slap us both around…).

(dang! it’s 12:42! gotta get a life).

[surveyor]

wiki?

I hate to break it to you dan but wikipedia is hardly the most accurate thing out there. If you take wikipedia as gospel, you’ve gotta improve your research methods (and you accuse me of lousy research?).

[quote=urbanrealtor]Most of the leaders in their fields (which they are on the periphery of) do not take these two seriously. I do not either. [/quote]

And again, this doesn’t mean that the points Bolton or Spencer made were wrong.

[quote=urbanrealtor]You say you have brought evidence and that it is in the book Spencer wrote. If you knew it so well you would be re-stating it and would have assimilated it. You have not. You just told me to read a book. I would venture to say I have read many on this topic. If you (or your muse) can cite specific primary sources (eg: archives, records or the like), I will check it out. If I learn something then cool. I would rather be informed than right.[/quote]

Hey, this is a blog post. I’m not going to spoonfeed the data to you. Just know that there is specific refutation of your assertion that the muslims treated their minorities well. Here is one of those books. Your response wasn’t hey the book is wrong, hey the book doesn’t say that, your response was that Spencer was not respected. That doesn’t in anyway refute what the book says. Still an ad hominem attack no matter how you want to revise your thinking. I’m saying, you know here is a book which challenges your facts. If you want to read it, fine, if not, fine, who cares, but this is the book you can consult.

And hey I don’t care about the bigotry thing. It just means your arguments are SO weak. That’s what bringing it up means. Certainly being called names by people can get tiring after awhile, but I’m rational enough to think, hey, that’s all they got? My self-identity is not dependent on you or any others.

[quote=urbanrealtor]These criticisms of your argument are analysis of the things you say. They are not an irrelevant attack on the character of your peeps. Honestly, their character really is irrelevant. Their expertise is very relevant.[/quote]

The problem is that you think expertise is based on the reputation or respect which is given by others. That’s not true, who cares about that? Is the data correct? But again, you didn’t attack the data, you attacked the person writing it. I mean, Spencer hates muslims? That’s your response? Really? Weak sauce, man.

[quote=urbanrealtor]My “experts” are experts for a reason. They are peer-reviewed, they document their research, and they are respected by most. Just having a different opinion from them does not make for credibility or for a good opinion.[/quote]

I am not purporting that Spencer and Bolton are exalted just because they have differing opinions. I am also not suggesting that Spencer and Bolton are credible for the same reason. I’m also not saying my experts are better than your experts. All I’m saying that here is the evidence that specifically refutes what you are saying. Here is the evidence that says your historians are wrong.

[quote=urbanrealtor]So let me ask, do you really think that all assertions should be treated the same? For example, if I assert that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration, would citing one of the groups that says those things make for a good argument? Would you really be addressing that assertion and trying to prove a negative?[/quote]

Hey, assert all you want. There were several ways to attack my arguments, and you chose the weakest ones. If you did make such an assertion, we would have to take a look at what data the group points to that say that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration. Let’s go ahead and examine it, and talk about it. But I wouldn’t have responded, hey those guys are certified whackos, so let’s just forget what they’re talking about. Or I could have responded, this study so and so says that’s not true.

THAT’S how to debate.

(i have the distinct feeling that rich is going to come by anytime now and slap us both around…).

(dang! it’s 12:42! gotta get a life).

[surveyor]

wiki?

I hate to break it to you dan but wikipedia is hardly the most accurate thing out there. If you take wikipedia as gospel, you’ve gotta improve your research methods (and you accuse me of lousy research?).

[quote=urbanrealtor]Most of the leaders in their fields (which they are on the periphery of) do not take these two seriously. I do not either. [/quote]

And again, this doesn’t mean that the points Bolton or Spencer made were wrong.

[quote=urbanrealtor]You say you have brought evidence and that it is in the book Spencer wrote. If you knew it so well you would be re-stating it and would have assimilated it. You have not. You just told me to read a book. I would venture to say I have read many on this topic. If you (or your muse) can cite specific primary sources (eg: archives, records or the like), I will check it out. If I learn something then cool. I would rather be informed than right.[/quote]

Hey, this is a blog post. I’m not going to spoonfeed the data to you. Just know that there is specific refutation of your assertion that the muslims treated their minorities well. Here is one of those books. Your response wasn’t hey the book is wrong, hey the book doesn’t say that, your response was that Spencer was not respected. That doesn’t in anyway refute what the book says. Still an ad hominem attack no matter how you want to revise your thinking. I’m saying, you know here is a book which challenges your facts. If you want to read it, fine, if not, fine, who cares, but this is the book you can consult.

And hey I don’t care about the bigotry thing. It just means your arguments are SO weak. That’s what bringing it up means. Certainly being called names by people can get tiring after awhile, but I’m rational enough to think, hey, that’s all they got? My self-identity is not dependent on you or any others.

[quote=urbanrealtor]These criticisms of your argument are analysis of the things you say. They are not an irrelevant attack on the character of your peeps. Honestly, their character really is irrelevant. Their expertise is very relevant.[/quote]

The problem is that you think expertise is based on the reputation or respect which is given by others. That’s not true, who cares about that? Is the data correct? But again, you didn’t attack the data, you attacked the person writing it. I mean, Spencer hates muslims? That’s your response? Really? Weak sauce, man.

[quote=urbanrealtor]My “experts” are experts for a reason. They are peer-reviewed, they document their research, and they are respected by most. Just having a different opinion from them does not make for credibility or for a good opinion.[/quote]

I am not purporting that Spencer and Bolton are exalted just because they have differing opinions. I am also not suggesting that Spencer and Bolton are credible for the same reason. I’m also not saying my experts are better than your experts. All I’m saying that here is the evidence that specifically refutes what you are saying. Here is the evidence that says your historians are wrong.

[quote=urbanrealtor]So let me ask, do you really think that all assertions should be treated the same? For example, if I assert that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration, would citing one of the groups that says those things make for a good argument? Would you really be addressing that assertion and trying to prove a negative?[/quote]

Hey, assert all you want. There were several ways to attack my arguments, and you chose the weakest ones. If you did make such an assertion, we would have to take a look at what data the group points to that say that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration. Let’s go ahead and examine it, and talk about it. But I wouldn’t have responded, hey those guys are certified whackos, so let’s just forget what they’re talking about. Or I could have responded, this study so and so says that’s not true.

THAT’S how to debate.

(i have the distinct feeling that rich is going to come by anytime now and slap us both around…).

(dang! it’s 12:42! gotta get a life).

[surveyor]

wiki?

I hate to break it to you dan but wikipedia is hardly the most accurate thing out there. If you take wikipedia as gospel, you’ve gotta improve your research methods (and you accuse me of lousy research?).

[quote=urbanrealtor]Most of the leaders in their fields (which they are on the periphery of) do not take these two seriously. I do not either. [/quote]

And again, this doesn’t mean that the points Bolton or Spencer made were wrong.

[quote=urbanrealtor]You say you have brought evidence and that it is in the book Spencer wrote. If you knew it so well you would be re-stating it and would have assimilated it. You have not. You just told me to read a book. I would venture to say I have read many on this topic. If you (or your muse) can cite specific primary sources (eg: archives, records or the like), I will check it out. If I learn something then cool. I would rather be informed than right.[/quote]

Hey, this is a blog post. I’m not going to spoonfeed the data to you. Just know that there is specific refutation of your assertion that the muslims treated their minorities well. Here is one of those books. Your response wasn’t hey the book is wrong, hey the book doesn’t say that, your response was that Spencer was not respected. That doesn’t in anyway refute what the book says. Still an ad hominem attack no matter how you want to revise your thinking. I’m saying, you know here is a book which challenges your facts. If you want to read it, fine, if not, fine, who cares, but this is the book you can consult.

And hey I don’t care about the bigotry thing. It just means your arguments are SO weak. That’s what bringing it up means. Certainly being called names by people can get tiring after awhile, but I’m rational enough to think, hey, that’s all they got? My self-identity is not dependent on you or any others.

[quote=urbanrealtor]These criticisms of your argument are analysis of the things you say. They are not an irrelevant attack on the character of your peeps. Honestly, their character really is irrelevant. Their expertise is very relevant.[/quote]

The problem is that you think expertise is based on the reputation or respect which is given by others. That’s not true, who cares about that? Is the data correct? But again, you didn’t attack the data, you attacked the person writing it. I mean, Spencer hates muslims? That’s your response? Really? Weak sauce, man.

[quote=urbanrealtor]My “experts” are experts for a reason. They are peer-reviewed, they document their research, and they are respected by most. Just having a different opinion from them does not make for credibility or for a good opinion.[/quote]

I am not purporting that Spencer and Bolton are exalted just because they have differing opinions. I am also not suggesting that Spencer and Bolton are credible for the same reason. I’m also not saying my experts are better than your experts. All I’m saying that here is the evidence that specifically refutes what you are saying. Here is the evidence that says your historians are wrong.

[quote=urbanrealtor]So let me ask, do you really think that all assertions should be treated the same? For example, if I assert that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration, would citing one of the groups that says those things make for a good argument? Would you really be addressing that assertion and trying to prove a negative?[/quote]

Hey, assert all you want. There were several ways to attack my arguments, and you chose the weakest ones. If you did make such an assertion, we would have to take a look at what data the group points to that say that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration. Let’s go ahead and examine it, and talk about it. But I wouldn’t have responded, hey those guys are certified whackos, so let’s just forget what they’re talking about. Or I could have responded, this study so and so says that’s not true.

THAT’S how to debate.

(i have the distinct feeling that rich is going to come by anytime now and slap us both around…).

(dang! it’s 12:42! gotta get a life).

[gandalf]

Did anybody catch General Petraeus’ recent comments to the Heritage Foundation? They were non-partisan, but he is clearly aligned with the foreign policy positions of Barack Obama:

http://washingtonindependent.com/11381/petraeus

Any sensible observer would conclude that Obama represents a return to responsible, pragmatic and conservative foreign policy.

BTW, McCain talks a lot about the surge, as if troop count made the difference. It was a marginal factor. The so-called ‘surge’ was successful for other more important reasons. Those who know this, understand McCain is playing politics with war.

Obama / Biden ’08

[gandalf]

Did anybody catch General Petraeus’ recent comments to the Heritage Foundation? They were non-partisan, but he is clearly aligned with the foreign policy positions of Barack Obama:

http://washingtonindependent.com/11381/petraeus

Any sensible observer would conclude that Obama represents a return to responsible, pragmatic and conservative foreign policy.

BTW, McCain talks a lot about the surge, as if troop count made the difference. It was a marginal factor. The so-called ‘surge’ was successful for other more important reasons. Those who know this, understand McCain is playing politics with war.

Obama / Biden ’08

[gandalf]

Did anybody catch General Petraeus’ recent comments to the Heritage Foundation? They were non-partisan, but he is clearly aligned with the foreign policy positions of Barack Obama:

http://washingtonindependent.com/11381/petraeus

Any sensible observer would conclude that Obama represents a return to responsible, pragmatic and conservative foreign policy.

BTW, McCain talks a lot about the surge, as if troop count made the difference. It was a marginal factor. The so-called ‘surge’ was successful for other more important reasons. Those who know this, understand McCain is playing politics with war.

Obama / Biden ’08

[gandalf]

Did anybody catch General Petraeus’ recent comments to the Heritage Foundation? They were non-partisan, but he is clearly aligned with the foreign policy positions of Barack Obama:

http://washingtonindependent.com/11381/petraeus

Any sensible observer would conclude that Obama represents a return to responsible, pragmatic and conservative foreign policy.

BTW, McCain talks a lot about the surge, as if troop count made the difference. It was a marginal factor. The so-called ‘surge’ was successful for other more important reasons. Those who know this, understand McCain is playing politics with war.

Obama / Biden ’08

[Author]

Posts