[surveyor]

impressions

Rustico: So, you believe that we, the U.S., are committing war crimes, you think that we are brutal, that we colonize and subjugate lands, that Israel is a de facto colony of the U.S., kill thousands of people without justification, and yet I get called a “neocon” and a “douchebag” because I quoted John Bolton for saying:

“It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills.”

I mean, your post just exactly proved Bolton’s statement, but ok.

So let’s take this logic further: with your mindset, with you believing all this, as a lawyer and negotiator, are you willing to use strong diplomacy and negotiation in order to increase America’s position? To insist that America’s interests be preserved? Or will you somehow say to yourself, well it’s our fault that we’re in this situation to begin with, so I’ll just cut them some slack and hopefully they’ll be nicer to us because of it. Because everything is our fault. After all.

So maybe when I say that I would not want Obama, who holds many of the same views you do, to represent the U.S., maybe it’s based on reason. Because I would not want you to be representing me in court if that were the case.

As for history, I mention it because there are many here who cannot use research, logic, and reasoning to escape their emotional response to issues. Perhaps when we have a little distance then we can look at the issues objectively. For now, as is evidenced by many here, the issues are too raw to discuss rationally. And we technically aren’t even discussing those issues, we’re just discussing Obama. Those issues are a distraction and do nothing to assess Obama’s qualifications or lack thereof. Perhaps if Bush was running again, it would certainly be relevant, but he is not.

Allan: I never brought up the use of the word “neocon”, although I did use the word “left.” In my opinion, both words are actually fairly benign but it still evokes an emotional response.

gandalf: again, I point to you the question you asked. You asked when did diplomacy and negotiation become a surrender. The answer was when Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler to avoid war. History shows us that this was a crucial error, as that Hitler had no intention of abiding by his agreements. Hitler perceived (correctly) that his enemies had no stomach for war and that he could proceed with his plans for Germany to encompass all of Europe. Right or wrong, this episode has been used as an example of the failure of diplomacy.

Now, did I say that diplomacy never works? No. Did I say that it wouldn’t work against Iran? No, but I did say that if your mindset is that of a Rustico (as noted above), then your negotiation will not go well for your client (which would be the U.S.).

And finally:

[quote=gandalf]AS TO MY ORIGINAL POINT: Too many people right now putting partisan politics before country and it’s a very serious time. Enough with the horseshit already, quoting Bolton as if he was Churchill. You’re smoking crack on that one, my friend. If you don’t want to get called a douchebag, stop holding up Bolton as if he was Churchill and labeling Obama as an America-hating leftie appeaser.[/quote]

When you resort to name-calling, you are falling into partisan politics. (again, look up “projection”). I am not engaging in politics. Your only problem with my argument is that I quoted Bolton, but you haven’t addressed the core substance of his quote.

One of Bolton’s cricisms is that Obama has a poor knowledge of history. Yes, I do agree with him, but that is because there is ample evidence of it.

• Marking the anniversary of the March 1965 “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Ala., Obama, speaking at a church, said his parents got together “because of what happened in Selma.” Obama was born in 1961.

• From Obama’s website: Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples’ lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum.”

(note, Hugo Chavez came to power during the Clinton Administration, and was first elected President of Venezuela in 1998, two years before the Bush Administration took office.)

• His incorrectly stating in New Mexico on Memorial Day weekend that his uncle helped liberate the victims of Auschwitz, when in fact it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. Earlier in 2002 he had said his grandfather knew U.S. troops who had liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka, both of which were liberated by Russian troops alone.

Oh, another good one:

[quote=gandalf]surveyor, as to your so-called ‘logic’, I really wouldn’t call it that. You borrow bits and pieces from different layers, piece them together inconsistently and pronounce it analysis. [/quote]

gandalf: this process is usually widely known as “education.” When you present no credible arguments to impeach my facts or analyses, and resort to name-calling and irrelevant statements, the result, in the rules of logic and debate, necessitate that you have been “schooled”.

When you guys start arguing facts about Obama, let me know.

[surveyor]

impressions

Rustico: So, you believe that we, the U.S., are committing war crimes, you think that we are brutal, that we colonize and subjugate lands, that Israel is a de facto colony of the U.S., kill thousands of people without justification, and yet I get called a “neocon” and a “douchebag” because I quoted John Bolton for saying:

“It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills.”

I mean, your post just exactly proved Bolton’s statement, but ok.

So let’s take this logic further: with your mindset, with you believing all this, as a lawyer and negotiator, are you willing to use strong diplomacy and negotiation in order to increase America’s position? To insist that America’s interests be preserved? Or will you somehow say to yourself, well it’s our fault that we’re in this situation to begin with, so I’ll just cut them some slack and hopefully they’ll be nicer to us because of it. Because everything is our fault. After all.

So maybe when I say that I would not want Obama, who holds many of the same views you do, to represent the U.S., maybe it’s based on reason. Because I would not want you to be representing me in court if that were the case.

As for history, I mention it because there are many here who cannot use research, logic, and reasoning to escape their emotional response to issues. Perhaps when we have a little distance then we can look at the issues objectively. For now, as is evidenced by many here, the issues are too raw to discuss rationally. And we technically aren’t even discussing those issues, we’re just discussing Obama. Those issues are a distraction and do nothing to assess Obama’s qualifications or lack thereof. Perhaps if Bush was running again, it would certainly be relevant, but he is not.

Allan: I never brought up the use of the word “neocon”, although I did use the word “left.” In my opinion, both words are actually fairly benign but it still evokes an emotional response.

gandalf: again, I point to you the question you asked. You asked when did diplomacy and negotiation become a surrender. The answer was when Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler to avoid war. History shows us that this was a crucial error, as that Hitler had no intention of abiding by his agreements. Hitler perceived (correctly) that his enemies had no stomach for war and that he could proceed with his plans for Germany to encompass all of Europe. Right or wrong, this episode has been used as an example of the failure of diplomacy.

Now, did I say that diplomacy never works? No. Did I say that it wouldn’t work against Iran? No, but I did say that if your mindset is that of a Rustico (as noted above), then your negotiation will not go well for your client (which would be the U.S.).

And finally:

[quote=gandalf]AS TO MY ORIGINAL POINT: Too many people right now putting partisan politics before country and it’s a very serious time. Enough with the horseshit already, quoting Bolton as if he was Churchill. You’re smoking crack on that one, my friend. If you don’t want to get called a douchebag, stop holding up Bolton as if he was Churchill and labeling Obama as an America-hating leftie appeaser.[/quote]

When you resort to name-calling, you are falling into partisan politics. (again, look up “projection”). I am not engaging in politics. Your only problem with my argument is that I quoted Bolton, but you haven’t addressed the core substance of his quote.

One of Bolton’s cricisms is that Obama has a poor knowledge of history. Yes, I do agree with him, but that is because there is ample evidence of it.

• Marking the anniversary of the March 1965 “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Ala., Obama, speaking at a church, said his parents got together “because of what happened in Selma.” Obama was born in 1961.

• From Obama’s website: Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples’ lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum.”

(note, Hugo Chavez came to power during the Clinton Administration, and was first elected President of Venezuela in 1998, two years before the Bush Administration took office.)

• His incorrectly stating in New Mexico on Memorial Day weekend that his uncle helped liberate the victims of Auschwitz, when in fact it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. Earlier in 2002 he had said his grandfather knew U.S. troops who had liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka, both of which were liberated by Russian troops alone.

Oh, another good one:

[quote=gandalf]surveyor, as to your so-called ‘logic’, I really wouldn’t call it that. You borrow bits and pieces from different layers, piece them together inconsistently and pronounce it analysis. [/quote]

gandalf: this process is usually widely known as “education.” When you present no credible arguments to impeach my facts or analyses, and resort to name-calling and irrelevant statements, the result, in the rules of logic and debate, necessitate that you have been “schooled”.

When you guys start arguing facts about Obama, let me know.

[surveyor]

impressions

Rustico: So, you believe that we, the U.S., are committing war crimes, you think that we are brutal, that we colonize and subjugate lands, that Israel is a de facto colony of the U.S., kill thousands of people without justification, and yet I get called a “neocon” and a “douchebag” because I quoted John Bolton for saying:

“It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills.”

I mean, your post just exactly proved Bolton’s statement, but ok.

So let’s take this logic further: with your mindset, with you believing all this, as a lawyer and negotiator, are you willing to use strong diplomacy and negotiation in order to increase America’s position? To insist that America’s interests be preserved? Or will you somehow say to yourself, well it’s our fault that we’re in this situation to begin with, so I’ll just cut them some slack and hopefully they’ll be nicer to us because of it. Because everything is our fault. After all.

So maybe when I say that I would not want Obama, who holds many of the same views you do, to represent the U.S., maybe it’s based on reason. Because I would not want you to be representing me in court if that were the case.

As for history, I mention it because there are many here who cannot use research, logic, and reasoning to escape their emotional response to issues. Perhaps when we have a little distance then we can look at the issues objectively. For now, as is evidenced by many here, the issues are too raw to discuss rationally. And we technically aren’t even discussing those issues, we’re just discussing Obama. Those issues are a distraction and do nothing to assess Obama’s qualifications or lack thereof. Perhaps if Bush was running again, it would certainly be relevant, but he is not.

Allan: I never brought up the use of the word “neocon”, although I did use the word “left.” In my opinion, both words are actually fairly benign but it still evokes an emotional response.

gandalf: again, I point to you the question you asked. You asked when did diplomacy and negotiation become a surrender. The answer was when Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler to avoid war. History shows us that this was a crucial error, as that Hitler had no intention of abiding by his agreements. Hitler perceived (correctly) that his enemies had no stomach for war and that he could proceed with his plans for Germany to encompass all of Europe. Right or wrong, this episode has been used as an example of the failure of diplomacy.

Now, did I say that diplomacy never works? No. Did I say that it wouldn’t work against Iran? No, but I did say that if your mindset is that of a Rustico (as noted above), then your negotiation will not go well for your client (which would be the U.S.).

And finally:

[quote=gandalf]AS TO MY ORIGINAL POINT: Too many people right now putting partisan politics before country and it’s a very serious time. Enough with the horseshit already, quoting Bolton as if he was Churchill. You’re smoking crack on that one, my friend. If you don’t want to get called a douchebag, stop holding up Bolton as if he was Churchill and labeling Obama as an America-hating leftie appeaser.[/quote]

When you resort to name-calling, you are falling into partisan politics. (again, look up “projection”). I am not engaging in politics. Your only problem with my argument is that I quoted Bolton, but you haven’t addressed the core substance of his quote.

One of Bolton’s cricisms is that Obama has a poor knowledge of history. Yes, I do agree with him, but that is because there is ample evidence of it.

• Marking the anniversary of the March 1965 “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Ala., Obama, speaking at a church, said his parents got together “because of what happened in Selma.” Obama was born in 1961.

• From Obama’s website: Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples’ lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum.”

(note, Hugo Chavez came to power during the Clinton Administration, and was first elected President of Venezuela in 1998, two years before the Bush Administration took office.)

• His incorrectly stating in New Mexico on Memorial Day weekend that his uncle helped liberate the victims of Auschwitz, when in fact it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. Earlier in 2002 he had said his grandfather knew U.S. troops who had liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka, both of which were liberated by Russian troops alone.

Oh, another good one:

[quote=gandalf]surveyor, as to your so-called ‘logic’, I really wouldn’t call it that. You borrow bits and pieces from different layers, piece them together inconsistently and pronounce it analysis. [/quote]

gandalf: this process is usually widely known as “education.” When you present no credible arguments to impeach my facts or analyses, and resort to name-calling and irrelevant statements, the result, in the rules of logic and debate, necessitate that you have been “schooled”.

When you guys start arguing facts about Obama, let me know.

[surveyor]

impressions

Rustico: So, you believe that we, the U.S., are committing war crimes, you think that we are brutal, that we colonize and subjugate lands, that Israel is a de facto colony of the U.S., kill thousands of people without justification, and yet I get called a “neocon” and a “douchebag” because I quoted John Bolton for saying:

“It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills.”

I mean, your post just exactly proved Bolton’s statement, but ok.

So let’s take this logic further: with your mindset, with you believing all this, as a lawyer and negotiator, are you willing to use strong diplomacy and negotiation in order to increase America’s position? To insist that America’s interests be preserved? Or will you somehow say to yourself, well it’s our fault that we’re in this situation to begin with, so I’ll just cut them some slack and hopefully they’ll be nicer to us because of it. Because everything is our fault. After all.

So maybe when I say that I would not want Obama, who holds many of the same views you do, to represent the U.S., maybe it’s based on reason. Because I would not want you to be representing me in court if that were the case.

As for history, I mention it because there are many here who cannot use research, logic, and reasoning to escape their emotional response to issues. Perhaps when we have a little distance then we can look at the issues objectively. For now, as is evidenced by many here, the issues are too raw to discuss rationally. And we technically aren’t even discussing those issues, we’re just discussing Obama. Those issues are a distraction and do nothing to assess Obama’s qualifications or lack thereof. Perhaps if Bush was running again, it would certainly be relevant, but he is not.

Allan: I never brought up the use of the word “neocon”, although I did use the word “left.” In my opinion, both words are actually fairly benign but it still evokes an emotional response.

gandalf: again, I point to you the question you asked. You asked when did diplomacy and negotiation become a surrender. The answer was when Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler to avoid war. History shows us that this was a crucial error, as that Hitler had no intention of abiding by his agreements. Hitler perceived (correctly) that his enemies had no stomach for war and that he could proceed with his plans for Germany to encompass all of Europe. Right or wrong, this episode has been used as an example of the failure of diplomacy.

Now, did I say that diplomacy never works? No. Did I say that it wouldn’t work against Iran? No, but I did say that if your mindset is that of a Rustico (as noted above), then your negotiation will not go well for your client (which would be the U.S.).

And finally:

[quote=gandalf]AS TO MY ORIGINAL POINT: Too many people right now putting partisan politics before country and it’s a very serious time. Enough with the horseshit already, quoting Bolton as if he was Churchill. You’re smoking crack on that one, my friend. If you don’t want to get called a douchebag, stop holding up Bolton as if he was Churchill and labeling Obama as an America-hating leftie appeaser.[/quote]

When you resort to name-calling, you are falling into partisan politics. (again, look up “projection”). I am not engaging in politics. Your only problem with my argument is that I quoted Bolton, but you haven’t addressed the core substance of his quote.

One of Bolton’s cricisms is that Obama has a poor knowledge of history. Yes, I do agree with him, but that is because there is ample evidence of it.

• Marking the anniversary of the March 1965 “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Ala., Obama, speaking at a church, said his parents got together “because of what happened in Selma.” Obama was born in 1961.

• From Obama’s website: Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples’ lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum.”

(note, Hugo Chavez came to power during the Clinton Administration, and was first elected President of Venezuela in 1998, two years before the Bush Administration took office.)

• His incorrectly stating in New Mexico on Memorial Day weekend that his uncle helped liberate the victims of Auschwitz, when in fact it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. Earlier in 2002 he had said his grandfather knew U.S. troops who had liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka, both of which were liberated by Russian troops alone.

Oh, another good one:

[quote=gandalf]surveyor, as to your so-called ‘logic’, I really wouldn’t call it that. You borrow bits and pieces from different layers, piece them together inconsistently and pronounce it analysis. [/quote]

gandalf: this process is usually widely known as “education.” When you present no credible arguments to impeach my facts or analyses, and resort to name-calling and irrelevant statements, the result, in the rules of logic and debate, necessitate that you have been “schooled”.

When you guys start arguing facts about Obama, let me know.

[surveyor]

afx:

Reading comprehension is key.

I have not in this conversation ever said that “left” was a bad thing. I have also not said that “neocon” was good. However, in the discussion of the ideology, which approach will produce the desired results? My statement, my thesis is that the answer is not Obama. When you engage in a diplomatic action or negotiation, you need to serve your client and honestly the left has shown that it has other concerns on its mind. To prove this point, I have shown how Obama’s statements and an honest discussion of history show such a mindset.

Have I called Obama an idiot? No. Have I called anyone of you guys idiots? No. At best I have accused you guys of being uninformed. At best I have said Obama has some serious issues when it comes to experience and knowledge of history. Guys, try actually reading through my posts instead of instantly saying “neocon!”. You assume that I am a “neocon” as well. How do you know? Have I said I am? Have I said that “neocon good, left bad?”. Unfortunately, many of you who are harping on me are more interested in calling me names as opposed to actually arguing the point. So what if I am a neocon? What if I am a leftist? Does that invalidate my argument? No it does not.

I also emphasized in a previous post that I do not in fact oppose diplomacy or negotiation. However, that negotiation must be carried out properly and with a certain amount of conviction for the client (the U.S.). An ideology that believes that the U.S. is at fault for the situation will not produce the desired results. Since Obama (and those he surrounds himself with) adheres to that belief, I do not wish him to be President.

And by the way, using George W. Bush as the primary means of impeaching an argument is still an “ad hominem” attack and falls well short of a point in attacking said argument.

(the question asked was, when did diplomacy/negotiation turn into a weakness. The answer was the Neville Chamberlain “Peace in our Time” speech. I was not saying anything negative about Neville Chamberlain, Obama, or Bush. I was just stating a known fact.).

Again, you can say “neocon” is a bad word and you can say “left” is a good word. GO AHEAD. It does not attack my argument. (maybe if we spend one more page on this, everyone will get my point).

Anyone else?

[surveyor]

afx:

Reading comprehension is key.

I have not in this conversation ever said that “left” was a bad thing. I have also not said that “neocon” was good. However, in the discussion of the ideology, which approach will produce the desired results? My statement, my thesis is that the answer is not Obama. When you engage in a diplomatic action or negotiation, you need to serve your client and honestly the left has shown that it has other concerns on its mind. To prove this point, I have shown how Obama’s statements and an honest discussion of history show such a mindset.

Have I called Obama an idiot? No. Have I called anyone of you guys idiots? No. At best I have accused you guys of being uninformed. At best I have said Obama has some serious issues when it comes to experience and knowledge of history. Guys, try actually reading through my posts instead of instantly saying “neocon!”. You assume that I am a “neocon” as well. How do you know? Have I said I am? Have I said that “neocon good, left bad?”. Unfortunately, many of you who are harping on me are more interested in calling me names as opposed to actually arguing the point. So what if I am a neocon? What if I am a leftist? Does that invalidate my argument? No it does not.

I also emphasized in a previous post that I do not in fact oppose diplomacy or negotiation. However, that negotiation must be carried out properly and with a certain amount of conviction for the client (the U.S.). An ideology that believes that the U.S. is at fault for the situation will not produce the desired results. Since Obama (and those he surrounds himself with) adheres to that belief, I do not wish him to be President.

And by the way, using George W. Bush as the primary means of impeaching an argument is still an “ad hominem” attack and falls well short of a point in attacking said argument.

(the question asked was, when did diplomacy/negotiation turn into a weakness. The answer was the Neville Chamberlain “Peace in our Time” speech. I was not saying anything negative about Neville Chamberlain, Obama, or Bush. I was just stating a known fact.).

Again, you can say “neocon” is a bad word and you can say “left” is a good word. GO AHEAD. It does not attack my argument. (maybe if we spend one more page on this, everyone will get my point).

Anyone else?

[surveyor]

afx:

Reading comprehension is key.

I have not in this conversation ever said that “left” was a bad thing. I have also not said that “neocon” was good. However, in the discussion of the ideology, which approach will produce the desired results? My statement, my thesis is that the answer is not Obama. When you engage in a diplomatic action or negotiation, you need to serve your client and honestly the left has shown that it has other concerns on its mind. To prove this point, I have shown how Obama’s statements and an honest discussion of history show such a mindset.

Have I called Obama an idiot? No. Have I called anyone of you guys idiots? No. At best I have accused you guys of being uninformed. At best I have said Obama has some serious issues when it comes to experience and knowledge of history. Guys, try actually reading through my posts instead of instantly saying “neocon!”. You assume that I am a “neocon” as well. How do you know? Have I said I am? Have I said that “neocon good, left bad?”. Unfortunately, many of you who are harping on me are more interested in calling me names as opposed to actually arguing the point. So what if I am a neocon? What if I am a leftist? Does that invalidate my argument? No it does not.

I also emphasized in a previous post that I do not in fact oppose diplomacy or negotiation. However, that negotiation must be carried out properly and with a certain amount of conviction for the client (the U.S.). An ideology that believes that the U.S. is at fault for the situation will not produce the desired results. Since Obama (and those he surrounds himself with) adheres to that belief, I do not wish him to be President.

And by the way, using George W. Bush as the primary means of impeaching an argument is still an “ad hominem” attack and falls well short of a point in attacking said argument.

(the question asked was, when did diplomacy/negotiation turn into a weakness. The answer was the Neville Chamberlain “Peace in our Time” speech. I was not saying anything negative about Neville Chamberlain, Obama, or Bush. I was just stating a known fact.).

Again, you can say “neocon” is a bad word and you can say “left” is a good word. GO AHEAD. It does not attack my argument. (maybe if we spend one more page on this, everyone will get my point).

Anyone else?

[surveyor]

afx:

Reading comprehension is key.

I have not in this conversation ever said that “left” was a bad thing. I have also not said that “neocon” was good. However, in the discussion of the ideology, which approach will produce the desired results? My statement, my thesis is that the answer is not Obama. When you engage in a diplomatic action or negotiation, you need to serve your client and honestly the left has shown that it has other concerns on its mind. To prove this point, I have shown how Obama’s statements and an honest discussion of history show such a mindset.

Have I called Obama an idiot? No. Have I called anyone of you guys idiots? No. At best I have accused you guys of being uninformed. At best I have said Obama has some serious issues when it comes to experience and knowledge of history. Guys, try actually reading through my posts instead of instantly saying “neocon!”. You assume that I am a “neocon” as well. How do you know? Have I said I am? Have I said that “neocon good, left bad?”. Unfortunately, many of you who are harping on me are more interested in calling me names as opposed to actually arguing the point. So what if I am a neocon? What if I am a leftist? Does that invalidate my argument? No it does not.

I also emphasized in a previous post that I do not in fact oppose diplomacy or negotiation. However, that negotiation must be carried out properly and with a certain amount of conviction for the client (the U.S.). An ideology that believes that the U.S. is at fault for the situation will not produce the desired results. Since Obama (and those he surrounds himself with) adheres to that belief, I do not wish him to be President.

And by the way, using George W. Bush as the primary means of impeaching an argument is still an “ad hominem” attack and falls well short of a point in attacking said argument.

(the question asked was, when did diplomacy/negotiation turn into a weakness. The answer was the Neville Chamberlain “Peace in our Time” speech. I was not saying anything negative about Neville Chamberlain, Obama, or Bush. I was just stating a known fact.).

Again, you can say “neocon” is a bad word and you can say “left” is a good word. GO AHEAD. It does not attack my argument. (maybe if we spend one more page on this, everyone will get my point).

Anyone else?

[surveyor]

afx:

Reading comprehension is key.

I have not in this conversation ever said that “left” was a bad thing. I have also not said that “neocon” was good. However, in the discussion of the ideology, which approach will produce the desired results? My statement, my thesis is that the answer is not Obama. When you engage in a diplomatic action or negotiation, you need to serve your client and honestly the left has shown that it has other concerns on its mind. To prove this point, I have shown how Obama’s statements and an honest discussion of history show such a mindset.

Have I called Obama an idiot? No. Have I called anyone of you guys idiots? No. At best I have accused you guys of being uninformed. At best I have said Obama has some serious issues when it comes to experience and knowledge of history. Guys, try actually reading through my posts instead of instantly saying “neocon!”. You assume that I am a “neocon” as well. How do you know? Have I said I am? Have I said that “neocon good, left bad?”. Unfortunately, many of you who are harping on me are more interested in calling me names as opposed to actually arguing the point. So what if I am a neocon? What if I am a leftist? Does that invalidate my argument? No it does not.

I also emphasized in a previous post that I do not in fact oppose diplomacy or negotiation. However, that negotiation must be carried out properly and with a certain amount of conviction for the client (the U.S.). An ideology that believes that the U.S. is at fault for the situation will not produce the desired results. Since Obama (and those he surrounds himself with) adheres to that belief, I do not wish him to be President.

And by the way, using George W. Bush as the primary means of impeaching an argument is still an “ad hominem” attack and falls well short of a point in attacking said argument.

(the question asked was, when did diplomacy/negotiation turn into a weakness. The answer was the Neville Chamberlain “Peace in our Time” speech. I was not saying anything negative about Neville Chamberlain, Obama, or Bush. I was just stating a known fact.).

Again, you can say “neocon” is a bad word and you can say “left” is a good word. GO AHEAD. It does not attack my argument. (maybe if we spend one more page on this, everyone will get my point).

Anyone else?

[surveyor]

quickshots

[quote=gandalf]
Ordinarily, I don’t call people names. These aren’t ordinary times (Bolton is a DOUCHEBAG).
[/quote]

Don’t sell yourself short. You did it three times within a 24 hour period. 🙂

[quote=gandalf]
– Since when did diplomacy become equated with surrender or weakness? That’s not correct. Who is saying this? Why?
[/quote]

Wiki the name Neville Chamberlain.

Or “France” 🙂

[quote=gandalf]
– Why attack Obama as a “leftie who blames America”? Because he supports diplomacy? How are the two connected?
[/quote]

It’s not that he supports diplomacy. What he proposes is to hold diplomatic talks “with no preconditions.” That is what many enemies of the U.S. want because under those “no preconditions” they can lobby for a reduced set of obligations in negotiations or obtain international credibility, credibility that should not be given due to their actions. It’s a shortcut to what they want.

[quote=gandalf]
We’re on the verge of WWIII and all neocons do is rant about liberal Americans. (Who hates America?) I’m looking forward to November. We’re throwing the bums out. By that time Israel will have bombed Iran. Gets interesting from there, bro’. I sure hope we have our ducks in a row.
[/quote]

I believe we are discussing the qualifications of peoples who are asking for our vote for be president.

On to page 12…

[surveyor]

quickshots

[quote=gandalf]
Ordinarily, I don’t call people names. These aren’t ordinary times (Bolton is a DOUCHEBAG).
[/quote]

Don’t sell yourself short. You did it three times within a 24 hour period. 🙂

[quote=gandalf]
– Since when did diplomacy become equated with surrender or weakness? That’s not correct. Who is saying this? Why?
[/quote]

Wiki the name Neville Chamberlain.

Or “France” 🙂

[quote=gandalf]
– Why attack Obama as a “leftie who blames America”? Because he supports diplomacy? How are the two connected?
[/quote]

It’s not that he supports diplomacy. What he proposes is to hold diplomatic talks “with no preconditions.” That is what many enemies of the U.S. want because under those “no preconditions” they can lobby for a reduced set of obligations in negotiations or obtain international credibility, credibility that should not be given due to their actions. It’s a shortcut to what they want.

[quote=gandalf]
We’re on the verge of WWIII and all neocons do is rant about liberal Americans. (Who hates America?) I’m looking forward to November. We’re throwing the bums out. By that time Israel will have bombed Iran. Gets interesting from there, bro’. I sure hope we have our ducks in a row.
[/quote]

I believe we are discussing the qualifications of peoples who are asking for our vote for be president.

On to page 12…

[surveyor]

quickshots

[quote=gandalf]
Ordinarily, I don’t call people names. These aren’t ordinary times (Bolton is a DOUCHEBAG).
[/quote]

Don’t sell yourself short. You did it three times within a 24 hour period. 🙂

[quote=gandalf]
– Since when did diplomacy become equated with surrender or weakness? That’s not correct. Who is saying this? Why?
[/quote]

Wiki the name Neville Chamberlain.

Or “France” 🙂

[quote=gandalf]
– Why attack Obama as a “leftie who blames America”? Because he supports diplomacy? How are the two connected?
[/quote]

It’s not that he supports diplomacy. What he proposes is to hold diplomatic talks “with no preconditions.” That is what many enemies of the U.S. want because under those “no preconditions” they can lobby for a reduced set of obligations in negotiations or obtain international credibility, credibility that should not be given due to their actions. It’s a shortcut to what they want.

[quote=gandalf]
We’re on the verge of WWIII and all neocons do is rant about liberal Americans. (Who hates America?) I’m looking forward to November. We’re throwing the bums out. By that time Israel will have bombed Iran. Gets interesting from there, bro’. I sure hope we have our ducks in a row.
[/quote]

I believe we are discussing the qualifications of peoples who are asking for our vote for be president.

On to page 12…

[surveyor]

quickshots

[quote=gandalf]
Ordinarily, I don’t call people names. These aren’t ordinary times (Bolton is a DOUCHEBAG).
[/quote]

Don’t sell yourself short. You did it three times within a 24 hour period. 🙂

[quote=gandalf]
– Since when did diplomacy become equated with surrender or weakness? That’s not correct. Who is saying this? Why?
[/quote]

Wiki the name Neville Chamberlain.

Or “France” 🙂

[quote=gandalf]
– Why attack Obama as a “leftie who blames America”? Because he supports diplomacy? How are the two connected?
[/quote]

It’s not that he supports diplomacy. What he proposes is to hold diplomatic talks “with no preconditions.” That is what many enemies of the U.S. want because under those “no preconditions” they can lobby for a reduced set of obligations in negotiations or obtain international credibility, credibility that should not be given due to their actions. It’s a shortcut to what they want.

[quote=gandalf]
We’re on the verge of WWIII and all neocons do is rant about liberal Americans. (Who hates America?) I’m looking forward to November. We’re throwing the bums out. By that time Israel will have bombed Iran. Gets interesting from there, bro’. I sure hope we have our ducks in a row.
[/quote]

I believe we are discussing the qualifications of peoples who are asking for our vote for be president.

On to page 12…

[surveyor]

quickshots

[quote=gandalf]
Ordinarily, I don’t call people names. These aren’t ordinary times (Bolton is a DOUCHEBAG).
[/quote]

Don’t sell yourself short. You did it three times within a 24 hour period. 🙂

[quote=gandalf]
– Since when did diplomacy become equated with surrender or weakness? That’s not correct. Who is saying this? Why?
[/quote]

Wiki the name Neville Chamberlain.

Or “France” 🙂

[quote=gandalf]
– Why attack Obama as a “leftie who blames America”? Because he supports diplomacy? How are the two connected?
[/quote]

It’s not that he supports diplomacy. What he proposes is to hold diplomatic talks “with no preconditions.” That is what many enemies of the U.S. want because under those “no preconditions” they can lobby for a reduced set of obligations in negotiations or obtain international credibility, credibility that should not be given due to their actions. It’s a shortcut to what they want.

[quote=gandalf]
We’re on the verge of WWIII and all neocons do is rant about liberal Americans. (Who hates America?) I’m looking forward to November. We’re throwing the bums out. By that time Israel will have bombed Iran. Gets interesting from there, bro’. I sure hope we have our ducks in a row.
[/quote]

I believe we are discussing the qualifications of peoples who are asking for our vote for be president.

On to page 12…

[surveyor]

[quote=larrylujack]No. You have gone beyond your stated reasons by quoting Bolton’s article, and marrying yourself to it in your thread, and therefore aligining yourself to Bolton and the neocon ideology, so you must answer for it.
I have no love for Obama, but I despise the neocons due to their abject failure in Iraq, etc.[/quote]

Larry, I was ASKED for an example of Obama’s lack of qualifications in foreign policy and because his obviously lack of knowledge in history. The Bolton article was a pretty good one that had specific historical and statement criticism of Obama. Whether or not Bolton had a hand in Iraq (which he actually says in his book that he didn’t have a whole lot of input in) is irrelevant. The criticism remains.

Unfortunately, the only answer for this out of many people is, well, he was a neocon so of course he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

That is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. It does nothing to answer the criticism.

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

[Author]

Posts