OT: Obama is Conservative

[gandalf]

Aecetia, point well-taken. No disrespect intended.

Also, if I could clarify: I think the last several posts are more a response to the partisan hacks who post here, smacking down the jackasses.

Oh shit. I don’t want to become one of them! It’s like Star Wars, isn’t it? Tempted by the dark side, drawn into conflict. Oh man, I’ve got to rethink things here… <g>

Anyhow, devotion to a political candidate, not so much. But I do prefer Obama as a candidate at this point. A bit like Eisenhower, centrist and realist. I used to think favorably of McCain but he seems to do an awful lot of kissing up to the Bush43 neocon/evangelist establishment these days.

The larger point I’m interested in seeing discussed is that the LABELS are bogus. An analysis of BO’s foreign policy positions reveals him to be more of a realist and conservative than the idealogical and interventionist republican platform.

And that’s interesting, since all we hear these days is liberal-this, liberal-that. Hmmm…

[surveyor]

attention to detail

gandalf: I can understand if you look at the “bomb at Pearl Harbor” statement in isolation and think it’s just a simple misstatement. If that was the only blunder he did, I wouldn’t mention it and I would not think it important. Unfortunately, it has been a pattern with him from the beginning.

And I can at least judge what he said, as opposed to putting words into his mouth (like where you suggest that “he knew damn well it wasn’t accurate”, where is the evidence for that?).

Here’s another item as well: the speech may have been written by someone else, but the fact that he doesn’t proofread the speech or at least take a look at the speech for inaccuracies before he does that speech? That implies a lack of attention to detail.

And so again, when faced with something derogatory about Obama, you have again resorted to name-calling.

In any case, the evidence is there. The lack of attention to detail, the lack of knowledge in history, the lack of analytical thinking, all combined with the least qualified resume with no significant list of accomplishments of note. While this list is certainly not enough to convince you, gandalf, of his inadequacy, it is enough for me.

And honestly, if you are willing to entrust Obama to make major decisions for you based just because he has a better college degree and says he knows better than you but doesn’t give you the “hard data”, then I suggest you look at the bottom of this website, look at that phrase, and turn in your piggington card.

edit: For the record, I’ve never said he was dumb. Naive, lack of knowledge in history, yes. Dumb, no.

[surveyor]

attention to detail

gandalf: I can understand if you look at the “bomb at Pearl Harbor” statement in isolation and think it’s just a simple misstatement. If that was the only blunder he did, I wouldn’t mention it and I would not think it important. Unfortunately, it has been a pattern with him from the beginning.

And I can at least judge what he said, as opposed to putting words into his mouth (like where you suggest that “he knew damn well it wasn’t accurate”, where is the evidence for that?).

Here’s another item as well: the speech may have been written by someone else, but the fact that he doesn’t proofread the speech or at least take a look at the speech for inaccuracies before he does that speech? That implies a lack of attention to detail.

And so again, when faced with something derogatory about Obama, you have again resorted to name-calling.

In any case, the evidence is there. The lack of attention to detail, the lack of knowledge in history, the lack of analytical thinking, all combined with the least qualified resume with no significant list of accomplishments of note. While this list is certainly not enough to convince you, gandalf, of his inadequacy, it is enough for me.

And honestly, if you are willing to entrust Obama to make major decisions for you based just because he has a better college degree and says he knows better than you but doesn’t give you the “hard data”, then I suggest you look at the bottom of this website, look at that phrase, and turn in your piggington card.

edit: For the record, I’ve never said he was dumb. Naive, lack of knowledge in history, yes. Dumb, no.

[surveyor]

attention to detail

gandalf: I can understand if you look at the “bomb at Pearl Harbor” statement in isolation and think it’s just a simple misstatement. If that was the only blunder he did, I wouldn’t mention it and I would not think it important. Unfortunately, it has been a pattern with him from the beginning.

And I can at least judge what he said, as opposed to putting words into his mouth (like where you suggest that “he knew damn well it wasn’t accurate”, where is the evidence for that?).

Here’s another item as well: the speech may have been written by someone else, but the fact that he doesn’t proofread the speech or at least take a look at the speech for inaccuracies before he does that speech? That implies a lack of attention to detail.

And so again, when faced with something derogatory about Obama, you have again resorted to name-calling.

In any case, the evidence is there. The lack of attention to detail, the lack of knowledge in history, the lack of analytical thinking, all combined with the least qualified resume with no significant list of accomplishments of note. While this list is certainly not enough to convince you, gandalf, of his inadequacy, it is enough for me.

And honestly, if you are willing to entrust Obama to make major decisions for you based just because he has a better college degree and says he knows better than you but doesn’t give you the “hard data”, then I suggest you look at the bottom of this website, look at that phrase, and turn in your piggington card.

edit: For the record, I’ve never said he was dumb. Naive, lack of knowledge in history, yes. Dumb, no.

[surveyor]

attention to detail

gandalf: I can understand if you look at the “bomb at Pearl Harbor” statement in isolation and think it’s just a simple misstatement. If that was the only blunder he did, I wouldn’t mention it and I would not think it important. Unfortunately, it has been a pattern with him from the beginning.

And I can at least judge what he said, as opposed to putting words into his mouth (like where you suggest that “he knew damn well it wasn’t accurate”, where is the evidence for that?).

Here’s another item as well: the speech may have been written by someone else, but the fact that he doesn’t proofread the speech or at least take a look at the speech for inaccuracies before he does that speech? That implies a lack of attention to detail.

And so again, when faced with something derogatory about Obama, you have again resorted to name-calling.

In any case, the evidence is there. The lack of attention to detail, the lack of knowledge in history, the lack of analytical thinking, all combined with the least qualified resume with no significant list of accomplishments of note. While this list is certainly not enough to convince you, gandalf, of his inadequacy, it is enough for me.

And honestly, if you are willing to entrust Obama to make major decisions for you based just because he has a better college degree and says he knows better than you but doesn’t give you the “hard data”, then I suggest you look at the bottom of this website, look at that phrase, and turn in your piggington card.

edit: For the record, I’ve never said he was dumb. Naive, lack of knowledge in history, yes. Dumb, no.

[surveyor]

attention to detail

gandalf: I can understand if you look at the “bomb at Pearl Harbor” statement in isolation and think it’s just a simple misstatement. If that was the only blunder he did, I wouldn’t mention it and I would not think it important. Unfortunately, it has been a pattern with him from the beginning.

And I can at least judge what he said, as opposed to putting words into his mouth (like where you suggest that “he knew damn well it wasn’t accurate”, where is the evidence for that?).

Here’s another item as well: the speech may have been written by someone else, but the fact that he doesn’t proofread the speech or at least take a look at the speech for inaccuracies before he does that speech? That implies a lack of attention to detail.

And so again, when faced with something derogatory about Obama, you have again resorted to name-calling.

In any case, the evidence is there. The lack of attention to detail, the lack of knowledge in history, the lack of analytical thinking, all combined with the least qualified resume with no significant list of accomplishments of note. While this list is certainly not enough to convince you, gandalf, of his inadequacy, it is enough for me.

And honestly, if you are willing to entrust Obama to make major decisions for you based just because he has a better college degree and says he knows better than you but doesn’t give you the “hard data”, then I suggest you look at the bottom of this website, look at that phrase, and turn in your piggington card.

edit: For the record, I’ve never said he was dumb. Naive, lack of knowledge in history, yes. Dumb, no.

[gandalf]

Naw, surveyor. That’s a typo/error in the speech. Busy men, they have no time to prepare and proof everything. That’s not how it works. Obama, any VIP for that matter, is more properly understood as an ‘organization’ of people. In comparison to Hillary or McCain, the Obama organization has been reasonably well-run up to this point.

I’ll share a truly valid concern of mine, assuming Obama becomes the next president…

It’s ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL that he surround himself with competent and talented people. I expect but do not know if he will reach across the aisle for this. He should. Particularly on matters of foreign policy. Politics stops at the water’s edge.

The verdict is still out on this one. At this point, it’s probable Obama will be elected. Let’s hope for the best, that he fills his administration with men and women of character, talent and vision.

[gandalf]

Naw, surveyor. That’s a typo/error in the speech. Busy men, they have no time to prepare and proof everything. That’s not how it works. Obama, any VIP for that matter, is more properly understood as an ‘organization’ of people. In comparison to Hillary or McCain, the Obama organization has been reasonably well-run up to this point.

I’ll share a truly valid concern of mine, assuming Obama becomes the next president…

It’s ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL that he surround himself with competent and talented people. I expect but do not know if he will reach across the aisle for this. He should. Particularly on matters of foreign policy. Politics stops at the water’s edge.

The verdict is still out on this one. At this point, it’s probable Obama will be elected. Let’s hope for the best, that he fills his administration with men and women of character, talent and vision.

[gandalf]

Naw, surveyor. That’s a typo/error in the speech. Busy men, they have no time to prepare and proof everything. That’s not how it works. Obama, any VIP for that matter, is more properly understood as an ‘organization’ of people. In comparison to Hillary or McCain, the Obama organization has been reasonably well-run up to this point.

I’ll share a truly valid concern of mine, assuming Obama becomes the next president…

It’s ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL that he surround himself with competent and talented people. I expect but do not know if he will reach across the aisle for this. He should. Particularly on matters of foreign policy. Politics stops at the water’s edge.

The verdict is still out on this one. At this point, it’s probable Obama will be elected. Let’s hope for the best, that he fills his administration with men and women of character, talent and vision.

[gandalf]

Naw, surveyor. That’s a typo/error in the speech. Busy men, they have no time to prepare and proof everything. That’s not how it works. Obama, any VIP for that matter, is more properly understood as an ‘organization’ of people. In comparison to Hillary or McCain, the Obama organization has been reasonably well-run up to this point.

I’ll share a truly valid concern of mine, assuming Obama becomes the next president…

It’s ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL that he surround himself with competent and talented people. I expect but do not know if he will reach across the aisle for this. He should. Particularly on matters of foreign policy. Politics stops at the water’s edge.

The verdict is still out on this one. At this point, it’s probable Obama will be elected. Let’s hope for the best, that he fills his administration with men and women of character, talent and vision.

[gandalf]

Naw, surveyor. That’s a typo/error in the speech. Busy men, they have no time to prepare and proof everything. That’s not how it works. Obama, any VIP for that matter, is more properly understood as an ‘organization’ of people. In comparison to Hillary or McCain, the Obama organization has been reasonably well-run up to this point.

I’ll share a truly valid concern of mine, assuming Obama becomes the next president…

It’s ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL that he surround himself with competent and talented people. I expect but do not know if he will reach across the aisle for this. He should. Particularly on matters of foreign policy. Politics stops at the water’s edge.

The verdict is still out on this one. At this point, it’s probable Obama will be elected. Let’s hope for the best, that he fills his administration with men and women of character, talent and vision.

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]surveyor, please check the YouTube link posted by jfiq…

It’s really remarkable how he stumbles over “the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor” part. It could even have been something as small as a typo on the speech, leaving off the ‘s’ on bomb(s). He’s speaking in front of a large group of people and in front of cameras.

You agree?

Or do you think he’s dumb?

BTW, I don’t think Bush43 is dumb at all. He’s been incredibly shrewd and has won every ‘political’ battle he’s been in. I think his flaws are flaws of character and comprehension. And I also think he’s a chicken-shit and flinched after 9/11. Played right into AQ’s trap. Big-time.[/quote]

Bush’s main strength his is character and devotion to his ideals. Its called leadership. Leadership is what we ask for in a president.

Can you name a president with more guts and determination then Bush?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]surveyor, please check the YouTube link posted by jfiq…

It’s really remarkable how he stumbles over “the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor” part. It could even have been something as small as a typo on the speech, leaving off the ‘s’ on bomb(s). He’s speaking in front of a large group of people and in front of cameras.

You agree?

Or do you think he’s dumb?

BTW, I don’t think Bush43 is dumb at all. He’s been incredibly shrewd and has won every ‘political’ battle he’s been in. I think his flaws are flaws of character and comprehension. And I also think he’s a chicken-shit and flinched after 9/11. Played right into AQ’s trap. Big-time.[/quote]

Bush’s main strength his is character and devotion to his ideals. Its called leadership. Leadership is what we ask for in a president.

Can you name a president with more guts and determination then Bush?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]surveyor, please check the YouTube link posted by jfiq…

It’s really remarkable how he stumbles over “the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor” part. It could even have been something as small as a typo on the speech, leaving off the ‘s’ on bomb(s). He’s speaking in front of a large group of people and in front of cameras.

You agree?

Or do you think he’s dumb?

BTW, I don’t think Bush43 is dumb at all. He’s been incredibly shrewd and has won every ‘political’ battle he’s been in. I think his flaws are flaws of character and comprehension. And I also think he’s a chicken-shit and flinched after 9/11. Played right into AQ’s trap. Big-time.[/quote]

Bush’s main strength his is character and devotion to his ideals. Its called leadership. Leadership is what we ask for in a president.

Can you name a president with more guts and determination then Bush?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]surveyor, please check the YouTube link posted by jfiq…

It’s really remarkable how he stumbles over “the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor” part. It could even have been something as small as a typo on the speech, leaving off the ‘s’ on bomb(s). He’s speaking in front of a large group of people and in front of cameras.

You agree?

Or do you think he’s dumb?

BTW, I don’t think Bush43 is dumb at all. He’s been incredibly shrewd and has won every ‘political’ battle he’s been in. I think his flaws are flaws of character and comprehension. And I also think he’s a chicken-shit and flinched after 9/11. Played right into AQ’s trap. Big-time.[/quote]

Bush’s main strength his is character and devotion to his ideals. Its called leadership. Leadership is what we ask for in a president.

Can you name a president with more guts and determination then Bush?

John

[Author]

Posts