Originally Posted By gadzuux Carter promised truth and integrity, not competence and vision. Obama's promising both. He's shown an uncanny ability to build an organization by bringing people from differing backgrounds together. AND get them to function effectively to enact "change". It isn't all just high minded rhetoric - he's been doing this successfully throughout his career. What his campaign is acheiving right now is an unprecedented phenomenon. Right before our eyes - nothing up his sleeve. I'm as cynical as the next guy, but I'm willing to suspend it for a time to see how this all plays out. Could it all go horribly wrong? I suppose, but for now I'm buying exactly what he's selling - hope.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Talking doesn't equal concessions, compromise, or anything else. >> When you talk to rogue nations as though they are on equal footing with other nations that respect some manner of human rights for their citizens, you concede the fact that those governments are legitimate in their practices.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Carter promised truth and integrity, not competence and vision. Obama's promising both. >> How do you judge competence on the part of Obama? I mean Carter was a nuclear engineer and accomplished governor of Georgia. I would judge him as being pretty darn competent at things. Obama will fail for the same reasons Carter failed -- they were set up for it by the previous administration. There is no path to success in the next 4 years.
Originally Posted By Kimber Just as a point of fact - the Obama campaign's public relations attempts to spin this, to make this seem a simple slip of the lip are getting some more media attention - seems that this was Michelle's second stump speech of that particular day and she said exactly the same thing during both speeches - it was scripted for her, calculated completely, and she recited it dutifully. To an ovation. While I’ve not always agreed with the things my country has done nor the things it has stood for – especially in the last seven years – I’ve always been proud to be an American. The Obamas are a unique breed of American these days, the privileged minority. It’s impossible to take shots at them, even when their points are completely asinine, without being called a racist. They hide behind their race as though it were a screen and know that they’re intellectually bullet-proof. I have to ask just how gullible are his devotees? Do they actually believe that he can heal the divisions that separate this country? Why would he? He's profiting from each and every one of them. Pitting American against American is his chief tool and most effective weapon - his dogma isn't "Hope" it's "Fear". And they're afraid as they should be - he's all image and it doesn't take very much intelligence or imagination to foist this facade on the desperate. They want him to be real so badly that they've suspended their disbelief and taken that step into thin air - with our country on the line. He's a reflection and not reality. They have no idea what he will do, can do, cares to do, has the knowledge, the power or the influence to do. He can parrot the words of Martin Luther King and John Kennedy and Franklin Rosevelt with all the skills in his verbal armory. But, it takes great men to make great words reality - Barak Obama is decades away from anything approaching greatness. Barak Obama is a spoiled white kid in a bi-racial body. He’s NEVER been a black man in America. If you’ve a mind to vote for this fraud read his mind-numbingly boring book The Mendacity of Hype first and you’ll understand what drives him – page after page of pseudo-intellectual self congratulation. He's exactly as one of his aides described him “175 pounds of ambitionâ€. He’s a mirage and not the Messiah. The fad will fade and then what? Kim
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 << Carter promised truth and integrity, not competence and vision. Obama's promising both. >> How do you judge competence on the part of Obama? I mean Carter was a nuclear engineer and accomplished governor of Georgia. I would judge him as being pretty darn competent at things. Obama will fail for the same reasons Carter failed -- they were set up for it by the previous administration. There is no path to success in the next 4 years.<< I love that excuse, that way when a Democrat gets elected, you already have a handy dandy reason why he failed, all planned out ahead of time...It must be nice to be a Democrat and have all these handy excuses. I think then it would be fair to blame Bush's failures on 8 years of Bill Clinton? It's only fair right?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I think then it would be fair to blame Bush's failures on 8 years of Bill Clinton? >> No, not really a fair comparison at all considering everything we know has happened during the past 7 years and the consequences of those events.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I love that excuse, that way when a Democrat gets elected, you already have a handy dandy reason why he failed, all planned out ahead of time...It must be nice to be a Democrat and have all these handy excuses. >> And it works both ways. There won't be a successful Republican in the next 4 years either. Why do you think the GOP isn't going to nominate a social conservative to run at the head of their ticket? They'd rather set a moderate up for failure so they have a chance at getting a neo-con back in 4 years from now. It's all very calculated.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 LOL sure it is, the Republicans just knew how everyone would vote this year, and Hillary knows to lose this year so in 4 years she can win...all so calculated....
Originally Posted By Mr X **When you talk to rogue nations as though they are on equal footing with other nations that respect some manner of human rights for their citizens, you concede the fact that those governments are legitimate in their practices.** We climb willingly into bed with many nations who have no respect for any manner of human rights when it suits us, and don't label them "rogue".
Originally Posted By Mr X China would probably be the most blatant example, but there are plenty of others (mostly oil related, it seems).
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << We climb willingly into bed with many nations who have no respect for any manner of human rights when it suits us, and don't label them "rogue". >> I don't necessarily disagree.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << the Republicans just knew how everyone would vote this year, and Hillary knows to lose this year so in 4 years she can win...all so calculated.... >> It's more calculated than you would like to believe. Ask a neo-con why they are soliciting GOP members to register as Democrats and vote for Obama in state primaries. It's all very calculated in how some of these things shape up.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Talking doesn't equal concessions" Yes, it worked very well with Neville Chamberlain, didn't it. Talking is a concession.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I have to ask just how gullible are his devotees? " Profoundly so. Carter didn't promise competence? Are you kidding? You actually think someone is going to run on the idea that he will be incompetent? The fact is we didn't get vision, competence, truth, nor integrity. He said "I won't lie to you." Then he found out he had to. Really, the comparisons with Carter are quite easily made. We had a horrible Republican President in Nixon/Ford, and Carter came in saying how things in Washington are bad, and all that. You can't expect someone to be able to do a job going in with the attitude that EVERYONE he has to work with are useless idiots. People tend to not want to work with you then. This guy, if he lives through it, will be done in four years, and he'll leave behind a lot of very disappointed people.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Talking is a concession.<< You really seem to think saying something over and over again makes it true. Neville Chamberlain is one example, and he did make concessions that he didn't need to. He didn't make those concessions simply by talking. Ronald Reagan agreed to speak to Gorbachev and that was a good thing. (Of course, Reagan cut and run from the Middle East, too.) Look, if Obama becomes President and talks to Iran or North Korea and makes all sorts of stupid concessions, I'll be among many to criticize him. But talking doesn't equal that. This is the problem with politics today - people insist on demonizing every little thing said by candidates. I'm happy to listen to arguments that explain why not talking to our enemies is a smarter tactical and security move. But to say talking automatically means rolling over, is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Originally Posted By ecdc Back to the whole "Is Hillary done" question, story after story keeps popping up that plays on this theme. Here's one that's probably similar to others in different states: <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8349824" target="_blank">http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_ 8349824</a> And yesterday the New York Times had a story on her changed tone and rhetoric among her staffers. With both Ohio and Texas now statistically tied after she led there by double-digits weeks ago, it's almost impossible for her, it seems to me.
Originally Posted By mele <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLZ18U1Txnc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =XLZ18U1Txnc</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux Hillary's latest gambit has been to LOUDLY criticize obama for the temerity of claiming she supported NAFTA. Nevermind that it's verifiably true.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You really seem to think saying something over and over again makes it true." And you really seem to think that insulting me is some sort of way to make your point. It's not. It does make you look rather empty, though. "He didn't make those concessions simply by talking." Well, actually, yes, he did. "if Obama becomes President and talks to Iran or North Korea and makes all sorts of stupid concessions" Talking to them while they behave as they currently do IS a concession, whether you can understand this or not. We are talking to Libya now. Know why? They changed their behavior. That is the important first step. "But to say talking automatically means rolling over" It does. Because by talking to these people you are giving tacit acceptance of their behavior. If you knew anything about history at all, you would understand this. Apparently, you don't. It explains your vote for George Bush in 2000, though.
Originally Posted By friendofdd ^^^^^^ But, she reminds us, she wasn't in an elected office at the time, so it shouldnt count. She loves it both ways. 35 years of service and/or since she was elected Senator.
