Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
jficquette
Participant[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
Participant[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
Participant[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
Participant[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
Participant[quote=gandalf]Allan, I had trouble with Zakaria’s labels as well.
I think the larger point is correct though, Bush/McCain and the new Republican party is ideological and interventionist, while Obama’s positions are more in line with conservatism and even approach realpolitik at times. I think he’s closer to Bush 41 and Eisenhower.
And I agree, BTW, that the main driver with AQ is religious extremism.
My counter question would be, do you really truly honestly believe Obama is that ignorant?
Consider Obama’s background:
Columbia University, BA in Political Science, Thesis on Soviet Disarmament
Harvard Law, magna cum laude, President Law Review
Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law at University Chicago
Senator, elected by the majority of the state of Illinois (not House of Representative districts), sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee with access to intelligence
The whole notion that he’s dumb or ignorant or naive? I just don’t buy it. Who on this board has this kind of career or credentials? surveyor??
[/quote]
Gandalf, you are just an intellectual snob who doesn’t understand that character, judgement, integrity is not something you “learn” in today’s dumbed down educational system.
BTW, Obama refuses to release his thesis. I would guess that it would be just as unorganized, and inconsistent as Obama is as a person.
The Unibomber, Kaczynski, attended Harvard and University of Michgan and obtained a PHD in Math. He also taugh at Berkeley at the tender age of 25.
So much for credentials with Kaczynski.
My guess is Obama is more of an affirmation action case then anything. He certainly didn’t have enough sense to stop going to his racist church and he certainly isn’t bright enough to have consistent views or maybe he just isn’t bright enough to remember what he has said in the past.
As far as teaching constitutioanl law goes look how poorly he fields questions on the secound amendment. This is an area he should be an expert in but is inconsistent.
John
Participant[quote=gandalf]Allan, I had trouble with Zakaria’s labels as well.
I think the larger point is correct though, Bush/McCain and the new Republican party is ideological and interventionist, while Obama’s positions are more in line with conservatism and even approach realpolitik at times. I think he’s closer to Bush 41 and Eisenhower.
And I agree, BTW, that the main driver with AQ is religious extremism.
My counter question would be, do you really truly honestly believe Obama is that ignorant?
Consider Obama’s background:
Columbia University, BA in Political Science, Thesis on Soviet Disarmament
Harvard Law, magna cum laude, President Law Review
Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law at University Chicago
Senator, elected by the majority of the state of Illinois (not House of Representative districts), sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee with access to intelligence
The whole notion that he’s dumb or ignorant or naive? I just don’t buy it. Who on this board has this kind of career or credentials? surveyor??
[/quote]
Gandalf, you are just an intellectual snob who doesn’t understand that character, judgement, integrity is not something you “learn” in today’s dumbed down educational system.
BTW, Obama refuses to release his thesis. I would guess that it would be just as unorganized, and inconsistent as Obama is as a person.
The Unibomber, Kaczynski, attended Harvard and University of Michgan and obtained a PHD in Math. He also taugh at Berkeley at the tender age of 25.
So much for credentials with Kaczynski.
My guess is Obama is more of an affirmation action case then anything. He certainly didn’t have enough sense to stop going to his racist church and he certainly isn’t bright enough to have consistent views or maybe he just isn’t bright enough to remember what he has said in the past.
As far as teaching constitutioanl law goes look how poorly he fields questions on the secound amendment. This is an area he should be an expert in but is inconsistent.
John
Participant[quote=gandalf]Allan, I had trouble with Zakaria’s labels as well.
I think the larger point is correct though, Bush/McCain and the new Republican party is ideological and interventionist, while Obama’s positions are more in line with conservatism and even approach realpolitik at times. I think he’s closer to Bush 41 and Eisenhower.
And I agree, BTW, that the main driver with AQ is religious extremism.
My counter question would be, do you really truly honestly believe Obama is that ignorant?
Consider Obama’s background:
Columbia University, BA in Political Science, Thesis on Soviet Disarmament
Harvard Law, magna cum laude, President Law Review
Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law at University Chicago
Senator, elected by the majority of the state of Illinois (not House of Representative districts), sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee with access to intelligence
The whole notion that he’s dumb or ignorant or naive? I just don’t buy it. Who on this board has this kind of career or credentials? surveyor??
[/quote]
Gandalf, you are just an intellectual snob who doesn’t understand that character, judgement, integrity is not something you “learn” in today’s dumbed down educational system.
BTW, Obama refuses to release his thesis. I would guess that it would be just as unorganized, and inconsistent as Obama is as a person.
The Unibomber, Kaczynski, attended Harvard and University of Michgan and obtained a PHD in Math. He also taugh at Berkeley at the tender age of 25.
So much for credentials with Kaczynski.
My guess is Obama is more of an affirmation action case then anything. He certainly didn’t have enough sense to stop going to his racist church and he certainly isn’t bright enough to have consistent views or maybe he just isn’t bright enough to remember what he has said in the past.
As far as teaching constitutioanl law goes look how poorly he fields questions on the secound amendment. This is an area he should be an expert in but is inconsistent.
John
Participant[quote=gandalf]Allan, I had trouble with Zakaria’s labels as well.
I think the larger point is correct though, Bush/McCain and the new Republican party is ideological and interventionist, while Obama’s positions are more in line with conservatism and even approach realpolitik at times. I think he’s closer to Bush 41 and Eisenhower.
And I agree, BTW, that the main driver with AQ is religious extremism.
My counter question would be, do you really truly honestly believe Obama is that ignorant?
Consider Obama’s background:
Columbia University, BA in Political Science, Thesis on Soviet Disarmament
Harvard Law, magna cum laude, President Law Review
Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law at University Chicago
Senator, elected by the majority of the state of Illinois (not House of Representative districts), sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee with access to intelligence
The whole notion that he’s dumb or ignorant or naive? I just don’t buy it. Who on this board has this kind of career or credentials? surveyor??
[/quote]
Gandalf, you are just an intellectual snob who doesn’t understand that character, judgement, integrity is not something you “learn” in today’s dumbed down educational system.
BTW, Obama refuses to release his thesis. I would guess that it would be just as unorganized, and inconsistent as Obama is as a person.
The Unibomber, Kaczynski, attended Harvard and University of Michgan and obtained a PHD in Math. He also taugh at Berkeley at the tender age of 25.
So much for credentials with Kaczynski.
My guess is Obama is more of an affirmation action case then anything. He certainly didn’t have enough sense to stop going to his racist church and he certainly isn’t bright enough to have consistent views or maybe he just isn’t bright enough to remember what he has said in the past.
As far as teaching constitutioanl law goes look how poorly he fields questions on the secound amendment. This is an area he should be an expert in but is inconsistent.
John
Participant[quote=gandalf]Allan, I had trouble with Zakaria’s labels as well.
I think the larger point is correct though, Bush/McCain and the new Republican party is ideological and interventionist, while Obama’s positions are more in line with conservatism and even approach realpolitik at times. I think he’s closer to Bush 41 and Eisenhower.
And I agree, BTW, that the main driver with AQ is religious extremism.
My counter question would be, do you really truly honestly believe Obama is that ignorant?
Consider Obama’s background:
Columbia University, BA in Political Science, Thesis on Soviet Disarmament
Harvard Law, magna cum laude, President Law Review
Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law at University Chicago
Senator, elected by the majority of the state of Illinois (not House of Representative districts), sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee with access to intelligence
The whole notion that he’s dumb or ignorant or naive? I just don’t buy it. Who on this board has this kind of career or credentials? surveyor??
[/quote]
Gandalf, you are just an intellectual snob who doesn’t understand that character, judgement, integrity is not something you “learn” in today’s dumbed down educational system.
BTW, Obama refuses to release his thesis. I would guess that it would be just as unorganized, and inconsistent as Obama is as a person.
The Unibomber, Kaczynski, attended Harvard and University of Michgan and obtained a PHD in Math. He also taugh at Berkeley at the tender age of 25.
So much for credentials with Kaczynski.
My guess is Obama is more of an affirmation action case then anything. He certainly didn’t have enough sense to stop going to his racist church and he certainly isn’t bright enough to have consistent views or maybe he just isn’t bright enough to remember what he has said in the past.
As far as teaching constitutioanl law goes look how poorly he fields questions on the secound amendment. This is an area he should be an expert in but is inconsistent.
John
Participant[quote=gandalf]casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.
I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.
surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.
As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.
What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.
As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.
Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.
Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.
Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.
Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.[/quote]
Here is the you tube clip of Obama and his bomb on pearl harbor.
Participant[quote=gandalf]casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.
I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.
surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.
As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.
What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.
As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.
Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.
Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.
Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.
Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.[/quote]
Here is the you tube clip of Obama and his bomb on pearl harbor.
Participant[quote=gandalf]casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.
I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.
surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.
As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.
What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.
As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.
Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.
Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.
Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.
Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.[/quote]
Here is the you tube clip of Obama and his bomb on pearl harbor.
Participant[quote=gandalf]casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.
I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.
surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.
As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.
What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.
As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.
Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.
Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.
Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.
Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.[/quote]
Here is the you tube clip of Obama and his bomb on pearl harbor.
Participant[quote=gandalf]casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.
I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.
surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.
As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.
What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.
As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.
Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.
Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.
Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.
Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.[/quote]
Here is the you tube clip of Obama and his bomb on pearl harbor.
-
AuthorPosts
