schizo2buyORnot is dumber than a box of rocks

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: My apologies. S**t! Is this the ad hominem post?

Who am I supposed to be making fun of again?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I would go over to the “Obama is a conservative” post, but that’s gotten all Robert’s Rules of Order and I have completely lost the handle on where everything is there.

I think I am a bigoted anti-Muslim, pro-Neocon, post-colonialist racist (subtle, though). I’d have to recheck the thread to be sure.

I’m all for the name calling here, though. Why are we upset again?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I would go over to the “Obama is a conservative” post, but that’s gotten all Robert’s Rules of Order and I have completely lost the handle on where everything is there.

I think I am a bigoted anti-Muslim, pro-Neocon, post-colonialist racist (subtle, though). I’d have to recheck the thread to be sure.

I’m all for the name calling here, though. Why are we upset again?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I would go over to the “Obama is a conservative” post, but that’s gotten all Robert’s Rules of Order and I have completely lost the handle on where everything is there.

I think I am a bigoted anti-Muslim, pro-Neocon, post-colonialist racist (subtle, though). I’d have to recheck the thread to be sure.

I’m all for the name calling here, though. Why are we upset again?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I would go over to the “Obama is a conservative” post, but that’s gotten all Robert’s Rules of Order and I have completely lost the handle on where everything is there.

I think I am a bigoted anti-Muslim, pro-Neocon, post-colonialist racist (subtle, though). I’d have to recheck the thread to be sure.

I’m all for the name calling here, though. Why are we upset again?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I would go over to the “Obama is a conservative” post, but that’s gotten all Robert’s Rules of Order and I have completely lost the handle on where everything is there.

I think I am a bigoted anti-Muslim, pro-Neocon, post-colonialist racist (subtle, though). I’d have to recheck the thread to be sure.

I’m all for the name calling here, though. Why are we upset again?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.[/quote]

And now I am just pissed. That was the best post I have seen in 2 weeks. Why did you not throw up one of those days ago???!!!!!

The only issue I see is that Zakaria has to place his foreign policy positions somewhere (or just not write the article). Zakaria has a significantly deeper pool to draw upon with Obama than he did with Bush or Clinton (though he may have been in high school then). And Biden’s remark has merit. Bottom line it just does. Its not totally accurate but he does not have a strong history serving in the international arena. Again being on the foreign relations committees does give him more juice than his predecessors upon election (with the exception of Bush 41). I don’t think that the deficit of several years between his and McCain’s CV will be as costly as all that but it will certainly come into play.

Very well put allan.
I still wish Surveyor had given me that 5 days ago.Would have made for a better (though less entertaining) debate.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.[/quote]

And now I am just pissed. That was the best post I have seen in 2 weeks. Why did you not throw up one of those days ago???!!!!!

The only issue I see is that Zakaria has to place his foreign policy positions somewhere (or just not write the article). Zakaria has a significantly deeper pool to draw upon with Obama than he did with Bush or Clinton (though he may have been in high school then). And Biden’s remark has merit. Bottom line it just does. Its not totally accurate but he does not have a strong history serving in the international arena. Again being on the foreign relations committees does give him more juice than his predecessors upon election (with the exception of Bush 41). I don’t think that the deficit of several years between his and McCain’s CV will be as costly as all that but it will certainly come into play.

Very well put allan.
I still wish Surveyor had given me that 5 days ago.Would have made for a better (though less entertaining) debate.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.[/quote]

And now I am just pissed. That was the best post I have seen in 2 weeks. Why did you not throw up one of those days ago???!!!!!

The only issue I see is that Zakaria has to place his foreign policy positions somewhere (or just not write the article). Zakaria has a significantly deeper pool to draw upon with Obama than he did with Bush or Clinton (though he may have been in high school then). And Biden’s remark has merit. Bottom line it just does. Its not totally accurate but he does not have a strong history serving in the international arena. Again being on the foreign relations committees does give him more juice than his predecessors upon election (with the exception of Bush 41). I don’t think that the deficit of several years between his and McCain’s CV will be as costly as all that but it will certainly come into play.

Very well put allan.
I still wish Surveyor had given me that 5 days ago.Would have made for a better (though less entertaining) debate.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.[/quote]

And now I am just pissed. That was the best post I have seen in 2 weeks. Why did you not throw up one of those days ago???!!!!!

The only issue I see is that Zakaria has to place his foreign policy positions somewhere (or just not write the article). Zakaria has a significantly deeper pool to draw upon with Obama than he did with Bush or Clinton (though he may have been in high school then). And Biden’s remark has merit. Bottom line it just does. Its not totally accurate but he does not have a strong history serving in the international arena. Again being on the foreign relations committees does give him more juice than his predecessors upon election (with the exception of Bush 41). I don’t think that the deficit of several years between his and McCain’s CV will be as costly as all that but it will certainly come into play.

Very well put allan.
I still wish Surveyor had given me that 5 days ago.Would have made for a better (though less entertaining) debate.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.[/quote]

And now I am just pissed. That was the best post I have seen in 2 weeks. Why did you not throw up one of those days ago???!!!!!

The only issue I see is that Zakaria has to place his foreign policy positions somewhere (or just not write the article). Zakaria has a significantly deeper pool to draw upon with Obama than he did with Bush or Clinton (though he may have been in high school then). And Biden’s remark has merit. Bottom line it just does. Its not totally accurate but he does not have a strong history serving in the international arena. Again being on the foreign relations committees does give him more juice than his predecessors upon election (with the exception of Bush 41). I don’t think that the deficit of several years between his and McCain’s CV will be as costly as all that but it will certainly come into play.

Very well put allan.
I still wish Surveyor had given me that 5 days ago.Would have made for a better (though less entertaining) debate.

[gandalf]

LMAO! That just cracked me up…

“Yah, fuck it dude. Let’s go bowling.”

<ha,ha>

[gandalf]

LMAO! That just cracked me up…

“Yah, fuck it dude. Let’s go bowling.”

<ha,ha>

[gandalf]

LMAO! That just cracked me up…

“Yah, fuck it dude. Let’s go bowling.”

<ha,ha>

[gandalf]

LMAO! That just cracked me up…

“Yah, fuck it dude. Let’s go bowling.”

<ha,ha>

[Author]

Posts