[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.

[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…

[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…

[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…

[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…

[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…

[gandalf]

That’s another good link, jfiq.

I don’t see the huge ‘flip-flop’ here. The Supreme Court’s decision was quite a bit more nuanced than the MSM reported. Obama’s position on gun control is basically the same: the individual has a right to own handguns but the government has the right to impose common sense regulations on the purchase and ownership. If his position changed, it went from 45% to 55%.

Besides, I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass about gun control. That wasn’t the topic. This discussion is about foreign policy.

[gandalf]

That’s another good link, jfiq.

I don’t see the huge ‘flip-flop’ here. The Supreme Court’s decision was quite a bit more nuanced than the MSM reported. Obama’s position on gun control is basically the same: the individual has a right to own handguns but the government has the right to impose common sense regulations on the purchase and ownership. If his position changed, it went from 45% to 55%.

Besides, I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass about gun control. That wasn’t the topic. This discussion is about foreign policy.

[gandalf]

That’s another good link, jfiq.

I don’t see the huge ‘flip-flop’ here. The Supreme Court’s decision was quite a bit more nuanced than the MSM reported. Obama’s position on gun control is basically the same: the individual has a right to own handguns but the government has the right to impose common sense regulations on the purchase and ownership. If his position changed, it went from 45% to 55%.

Besides, I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass about gun control. That wasn’t the topic. This discussion is about foreign policy.

[gandalf]

That’s another good link, jfiq.

I don’t see the huge ‘flip-flop’ here. The Supreme Court’s decision was quite a bit more nuanced than the MSM reported. Obama’s position on gun control is basically the same: the individual has a right to own handguns but the government has the right to impose common sense regulations on the purchase and ownership. If his position changed, it went from 45% to 55%.

Besides, I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass about gun control. That wasn’t the topic. This discussion is about foreign policy.

[gandalf]

That’s another good link, jfiq.

I don’t see the huge ‘flip-flop’ here. The Supreme Court’s decision was quite a bit more nuanced than the MSM reported. Obama’s position on gun control is basically the same: the individual has a right to own handguns but the government has the right to impose common sense regulations on the purchase and ownership. If his position changed, it went from 45% to 55%.

Besides, I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass about gun control. That wasn’t the topic. This discussion is about foreign policy.

[Author]

Posts