Negatives about Obama.

[Jarod]

I will be voting for Obama but here are my fears.

It seems to me he made some comments about meeting with forign leaders of nations we have problems with, that sounded nieve and smacked of inexperience.

I am also conserned about the pull out of Iraq immideatly at any cost plan.

Any thoughts?

[Chapdog]

I think that he needs to clarify about meeting with leaders.. for example.. osama bin ladin is not a leader but he is our enemy.. However - I totally agree with this method of world diplomacy.. this guys got the oration, brain, and charisma to become a VERY influential world diplomat that benefits us greatly in terms of foreign investment.

In terms of iraq.. we will not be pulling out. we will have a permanent base there for years to come. It doesn't matter who is elected.. Pulling out of the war zone and into the base is a different story.

[Dungheap]

I will be voting for Obama but here are my fears.

It seems to me he made some comments about meeting with forign leaders of nations we have problems with, that sounded nieve and smacked of inexperience.

I am also conserned about the pull out of Iraq immideatly at any cost plan.

Any thoughts?


1) Diplomacy is for the naive and inexperienced. The serious experienced folks just blow shit up.

2) He doesn't have a "pull out of Iraq immediately at any cost plan" so you have nothing to worry about.

[charver]

If taking steps to meet with and talk to foreign leaders America has a problem with is deemed naive then roll on naivety. Adopting staunch hard-line attitudes hasn't exactly had the world eager to follow America's lead.

[Damocles]

I think that he needs to clarify about meeting with leaders.. for example.. osama bin ladin is not a leader but he is our enemy.. However - I totally agree with this method of world diplomacy.. this guys got the oration, brain, and charisma to become a VERY influential world diplomat that benefits us greatly in terms of foreign investment.

In terms of iraq.. we will not be pulling out. we will have a permanent base there for years to come. It doesn't matter who is elected.. Pulling out of the war zone and into the base is a different story.
Basically you are saying you are voting for Secretary of State then?

[evince]

He is a very bright man. He will chose very capable people to help him.

I dont fear anything about President O. I feel more hopeful than I have for many years.

[blackascoal]

I will be voting for Obama but here are my fears.

It seems to me he made some comments about meeting with forign leaders of nations we have problems with, that sounded nieve and smacked of inexperience.

I am also conserned about the pull out of Iraq immideatly at any cost plan.

Any thoughts?

His comments about his wilingness to talk to anyone, any nation is the very reason that I and many Americans look forward to his presidency.

The notion that we shouldn't talk to anyone we don't approve of has proven to be a miserable, and quite frankly, a completely unintellectual failure of catostrophic proportions. How do you solve problems or gain better understandings if you don't talk to those with whom you disagree?

Obama is EXACTLY what America needs at this time and the world will give a tremendous sigh of relief if he becomes the president. American arrogance no loonger has to be tolerated by other nations and it would behove us to grow the fuck up and understand the world we live in.

We are not cowboys who rule the world, nor should we rule the world.

Getting out of Iraq is the only intelligent course of action and Americans have finally stopped listening to the bullshit about "dominoe effects" and "Al Queda."

We invaded Iraq to steal the oil .. pure and simple .. and the Iraqi people know that very well. We built the largest embassy on the planet in Baghdad because we never intended to leave.

With new developments in Cuba, Pakistan, Serbia to name a few, it's time we let intelligence, REAL INTELLIGENCE, speak for America.

[Dungheap]

Basically you are saying you are voting for Secretary of State then?


Yeah, because presidents play no role in diplomacy efforts. It's not like they meet with foreign leaders or anything.

:rolleyes:

[Cypress]

Negatives about Obama.

His centrist, incrementalist economic, healthcare and trade policies. We need bold leadership in those areas.


I think he might be pretty good on civil rights, and on foreign policy.

[Damocles]

Yeah, because presidents play no role in diplomacy efforts. It's not like they meet with foreign leaders or anything.

:rolleyes:
Not nearly as consistently as the Secretary of State whose job it is to do so.

If you want a Secretary of State find out who he is selecting for that position, he has too many other things to do to be able to singlehandedly fix diplomacy. When he speaks of "talking to leaders" he is speaking of sending teams in to do so. Who will they be?

[Topspin]

he's moderate OMG he might actually get things done

[LadyT]

LOL. If he has a pull out of Iraq immediately plan, he's perfect then.

[blackascoal]

Not nearly as consistently as the Secretary of State whose job it is to do so.

If you want a Secretary of State find out who he is selecting for that position, he has too many other things to do to be able to singlehandedly fix diplomacy. When he speaks of "talking to leaders" he is speaking of sending teams in to do so. Who will they be?

The president gets to select the Secretary of State who will deliver his message and speak his thoughts.

[Socrtease]

Basically you are saying you are voting for Secretary of State then?Reagan did the same thing. His oratory made him the president and the diplomat in chief when he began negotiating With Gorby.

[Chapdog]

Negatives about Obama.

His centrist, incrementalist economic, healthcare and trade policies. We need bold leadership in those areas.


I think he might be pretty good on civil rights, and on foreign policy.

he is going to be the president of America people.. not president of the republican agenda or the democrat agenda. IM glad we finally have someone who will be financially centrist.

[LadyT]

Not nearly as consistently as the Secretary of State whose job it is to do so.

If you want a Secretary of State find out who he is selecting for that position, he has too many other things to do to be able to singlehandedly fix diplomacy. When he speaks of "talking to leaders" he is speaking of sending teams in to do so. Who will they be?

That's a piss poor assertion. The US needs to amend a lot of broken relationships that the person you voted for broke. This is going to have to start at the top.

Although I guess if I were a Bush voter, I'd have to convince myself that the presidents job isn't to really meet with foreign leaders given Bush's track record.

[Damocles]

The president gets to select the Secretary of State who will deliver his message and speak his thoughts.
That is what I said. Pay attention. I know you took the PHd Program at the Canadian Kid University of Miscomprehending Reading With Aforethought, but many here see through it too easily.

[Socrtease]

he is going to be the president of America people.. not president of the republican agenda or the democrat agenda. IM glad we finally have someone who will be financially centrist.Yeah imagine actually having a president of the United States again rather than a president of the republican party or democratic party. How cool would that be.

[Damocles]

That's a piss poor assertion. The US needs to amend a lot of broken relationships that the person you voted for broke. This is going to have to start at the top.


This is simply not understanding who does what job in the Administration.



Although I guess if I were a Bush voter, I'd have to convince myself that the presidents job isn't to really meet with foreign leaders given Bush's track record.

It was not a criticism, it was simply pointing out that the vast majority of the diplomacy will be handled by the Secretary of State regardless of who is elected. Who will he select as Secretary of State? Because that is who will be doing what he promises.

I will trust that Obama would never rub the shoulders of the new German Premier.

[Onceler]

1) He's a plagiarist; politicians are supposed to write every word of their own speeches, without any outside input.
2) He's not "electable" in a general election (or, another way of saying it: he's black)
3) He's terrified of debating more than 20 times
4) He can actually string words together in an inspiring way, which is too much for the country to digest after 8 years of Bush
5) Not only did he smoke pot, but he inhaled it, as well. It's the inhaling part that really damns you, in this instance.

[blackascoal]

That is what I said. Pay attention. I know you took the PHd Program at the Canadian Kid University of Miscomprehending Reading With Aforethought, but many here see through it too easily.

Shit .. maybe you're just dumb.


Basically you are saying you are voting for Secretary of State then?

No, he's voting for a president, not a SOS.

[Damocles]

Shit .. maybe you're just dumb.



No, he's voting for a president, not a SOS.
Why do you ignore the point I make?

He will be President. While a portion of his job is meeting foreign dignitaries, it is not all of his job like it is for the Secretary of State. When, "He will be good meeting those people" is the only criteria, then you must ask yourself who he will appoint as SoS because that is who will be doing those meetings.

[blackascoal]

Why do you ignore the point I make?

He will be President. While a portion of his job is meeting foreign dignitaries, it is not all of his job like it is for the Secretary of State. When, "He will be good meeting those people" is the only criteria, then you must ask yourself who he will appoint as SoS because that is who will be doing those meetings.

Your "Canadian Kid" criticisms aside .. how is it that you don't recognize the failure of your argument?

The PRESIDENT gets to choose his SOS .. pay attention .. who delivers the message the PRESIDENT sends him to deliver .. THUS, whether the PRESIDENT actually sits face to face with other leaders, those leaders will still get the message the PRESIDENT wanted them to get.

No one has even sligtly intimated that meeting with dignitaries is his entire job.

The crux of the argument is that he is willing to communicate and talk with them either directly or through a subordinate.

What point are you trying to make?

[Damocles]

Your "Canadian Kid" criticisms aside .. how is it that you don't recognize the failure of your argument?

The PRESIDENT gets to choose his SOS .. pay attention .. who delivers the message the PRESIDENT sends him to deliver .. THUS, whether the PRESIDENT actually sits face to face with other leaders, those leaders will still get the message the PRESIDENT wanted them to get.

No one has even sligtly intimated that meeting with dignitaries is his entire job.

The crux of the argument is that he is willing to communicate and talk with them either directly or through a subordinate.

What point are you trying to make?
Pay attention.

I have said it three times on this thread alone. My point is....

We are voting for him for President, who he selects as SoS (should he win) will be the largest portion of our diplomacy, not him. This should not be the sole reason for voting for him, if it is it would be best to have him as SoS, not President.

And "nobody has slightly inimated" is total rubbish. They listed it as the sole reason they thought he was a good choice. If such is the case, President isn't where he should be.

[LadyT]

The problem with your assetion Damo is that you assumed that you erroneously assumed that was the only criteria that qualifies him to be a good leader. Yes. Obama will have other responsibilities that will make him 1000 times better at being president than Hillary and McCain. Being able to facilitate good diplomacy is one of them. Highlighting his diplomacy ability in no way shape or form implies that that is all that he can do.

[Damocles]

The problem with your assetion Damo is that you assumed that you erroneously assumed that was the only criteria that qualifies him to be a good leader. Yes. Obama will have other responsibilities that will make him 1000 times better at being president than Hillary and McCain. Being able to facilitate good diplomacy is one of them. Highlighting his diplomacy ability in no way shape or form implies that that is all that he can do.
No, that was the only criteria listed approving of him in the post. Hence the question mark.

Don't be deliberately disingenuous.

[Damocles]

Look.

I wasn't criticizing Obama, so y'all can stop protecting your hero. I was criticizing the post that only had diplomacy as the reason to vote for him. I was questioning the reasoning behind voting for him solely for that reason and seeking a more in depth answer as to why he thought Obama is the godlike figure taking position in most people's imaginations.

[blackascoal]

Pay attention.

I have said it three times on this thread alone. My point is....

We are voting for him for President, who he selects as SoS (should he win) will be the largest portion of our diplomacy, not him. This should not be the sole reason for voting for him, if it is it would be best to have him as SoS, not President.

And "nobody has slightly inimated" is total rubbish. They listed it as the sole reason they thought he was a good choice. If such is the case, President isn't where he should be.

That kind of stupid thought must have been what was behind your decsion to vote for the disaster of George Bush. .. make that the OBVIOUS disaster of george Bush.

The glaring and total failure of your argument which unfortunately you can't see is IF HE WAS THE SOS HE WOULD BE FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF A PRESIDENT WHO MAY NOT HAVE HIS WILLINGNESS TO TALK TO OTHER WORLD LEADERS .. THUS YOUR SUGGESTION THAT HE SHOULD BE SOS, NOT PRESIDENT IS PLAINLY STUPID.

WE ARE VOTING FOR HIM AS PRESIDENT so he can dispatch an SOS or pick up the phone and discuss world events with other leaders.

Damn .. you should be careful using CK analogies.

[Superfreak]

1) He's a plagiarist; politicians are supposed to write every word of their own speeches, without any outside input.
2) He's not "electable" in a general election (or, another way of saying it: he's black)
3) He's terrified of debating more than 20 times
4) He can actually string words together in an inspiring way, which is too much for the country to digest after 8 years of Bush
5) Not only did he smoke pot, but he inhaled it, as well. It's the inhaling part that really damns you, in this instance.

:lolup:

[blackascoal]

Look.

I wasn't criticizing Obama, so y'all can stop protecting your hero. I was criticizing the post that only had diplomacy as the reason to vote for him. I was questioning the reasoning behind voting for him solely for that reason and seeking a more in depth answer as to why he thought Obama is the godlike figure taking position in most people's imaginations.

Where is the post that says diplomacy is the only reason to vote for him?

[Damocles]

That kind of stupid thought must have been what was behind your decsion to vote for the worst president in American history.

The glaring and total failure of your argument which unfortunately you can't see is IF HE WAS THE SOS HE WOULD BE FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF A PRESIDENT WHO MAY NOT HAVE HIS WILLINGNESS TO TALK TOP OTHER WORLD LEADERS .. THUS YOUR SUGGESTION THAT HE SHOULD BE SOS, NOT PRESIDENT IS PLAINLY STUPID.

wE ARE VOTING FOR HIM AS PRESIDENT so he can dispatch an SOS or pick up the phone and discuss world events with other leaders.

Damn .. you should be careful using CK analogies.

One more time for the slow.

I was not criticizing Obama. I was criticizing the post that listed it as the sole criteria for voting for him. If good diplomacy is his only merit then President is not what he should be.

What I was seeking was more inforamtion about why that poster wanted to vote for Obama.

Stop trying to protect the man I was not criticizing.

Well, I'll repeat it one more time....


I am not criticizing Obama, I was attempting to get more information from the poster than he provided by asking a question of him.

Thank you for participating, but you have provided no more information than I later provided when I said, "The President will select the SoS... and so forth"...

[Damocles]

Where is the post that says diplomacy is the only reason to vote for him?
It was what he listed. I therefore asked the question. Not to criticize Obama, but to get more information.

Now that there is five posts explaining in depth what I meant in a one sentence question about the action of another that was not criticizing anybody at all, can we get back to the topic rather than your defence of somebody who was not attacked at all?

Let Chapdog answer the question.

[blackascoal]

One more time for the slow.

I was not criticizing Obama. I was criticizing the post that listed it as the sole criteria for voting for him. If good diplomacy is his only merit then President is not what he should be.

What I was seeking was more inforamtion about why that poster wanted to vote for Obama.

Stop trying to protect the man I was not criticizing.

Well, I'll repeat it one more time....


I am not criticizing Obama, I was attempting to get more information from the poster than he provided by asking a question of him.

Thank you for participating, but you have provided no more information than I later provided when I said, "The President will select the SoS... and so forth"...

I don't have any problem with you criticizing Obama .. the problem is your illogic.

He shouldn't be SOS .. he should be the president .. and your illogic doesn't say anything worth saying.

[Damocles]

I don't have any problem with you criticizing Obama .. the problem is your illogic.

He shouldn't be SOS .. he should be the president .. and your illogic doesn't say anything worth saying.
*sigh*

Again, that was what my question was about, to get a deeper understanding than "Good Diplomat" as to why a totally different poster than you wanted to vote for him.

Repeating this inanity just cements that you assume rather than read a position before you post about me. You have some particular vendetta against me. Probably because I point out how disingenuous it is to take a question about something, assume a position, then start on a rant of how I am criticizing your new Idol when I mentioned nothing negative about his person.

[LadyT]

*sigh*

Again, that was what my question was about, to get a deeper understanding than "Good Diplomat" as to why a totally different poster than you wanted to vote for him.

Repeating this inanity just cements that you assume rather than read a position before you post about me. You have some particular vendetta against me. Probably because I point out how disingenuous it is to take a question about something, assume a position, then start on a rant of how I am criticizing your new Idol when I mentioned nothing negative about his person.

actually you were being presumptious when you phrased you're 'question'/'assumption'

"Basically you are saying you are voting for Secretary of State then? "

If you were geniunely curious as to whether or not he had more qualities you would have said something to the effect of, "Is that his only quality?" not, "Basically you your are saying......" That's a huge leap that was unwarranted and way off the mark.

[blackascoal]

*sigh*

Again, that was what my question was about, to get a deeper understanding than "Good Diplomat" as to why a totally different poster than you wanted to vote for him.

Repeating this inanity just cements that you assume rather than read a position before you post about me. You have some particular vendetta against me. Probably because I point out how disingenuous it is to take a question about something, assume a position, then start on a rant of how I am criticizing your new Idol when I mentioned nothing negative about his person.

I have no vendetta against you my brother .. but you should be careful using your CK analogies. Your first post to me on this issue was an attack. Surely you knew that I was going to bite back.

Obama isn't my idol .. was Bush yours?

I see him as the best person to vote for as president .. as you once saw Bush. Did that make him your idol?

[blackascoal]

actually you were being presumptious when you phrased you're 'question'/'assumption'

"Basically you are saying you are voting for Secretary of State then? "

If you were geniunely curious as to whether or not he had more qualities you would have said something to the effect of, "Is that his only quality?" not, "Basically you your are saying......" That's a huge leap that was unwarranted and way off the mark.

Correct

[Damocles]

actually you were being presumptious when you phrased you're 'question'/'assumption'

"Basically you are saying you are voting for Secretary of State then? "

If you were geniunely curious as to whether or not he had more qualities you would have said something to the effect of, "Is that his only quality?" not, "Basically you your are saying......" That's a huge leap that was unwarranted and way off the mark.
I phrased it to get an answer from the poster I asked the question to, regardless of whether you think I phrased it presumptiously I didn't criticize Obama in the question, the urge to jump to his defense notwithstanding.

[Damocles]

I have no vendetta against you my brother .. but you should be careful using your CK analogies. Your first post to me on this issue was an attack. Surely you knew that I was going to bite back.

Obama isn't my idol .. was Bush yours?

I see him as the best person to vote for as president .. as you once saw Bush. Did that make him your idol?
My first post to you was an attack because your first post attacked me for criticizing somebody I hadn't criticized.

Now jumping to the defense of somebody who wasn't even criticized... Yeah, that's a sign that he is your Idol.

[Damocles]

Not nearly as consistently as the Secretary of State whose job it is to do so.

If you want a Secretary of State find out who he is selecting for that position, he has too many other things to do to be able to singlehandedly fix diplomacy. When he speaks of "talking to leaders" he is speaking of sending teams in to do so. Who will they be?
Note this post where I directly asked the questions that I am speaking of. After somebody sardonically asked me to elaborate on my position.

Note also, I did not criticize Obama in this post either. In fact I am "assuming" victory and asking whom he would select as SoS who would have a strong position in getting his plan for diplomacy done.

[blackascoal]

My first post to you was an attack because your first post attacked me for criticizing somebody I hadn't criticized.

Now jumping to the defense of somebody who wasn't even criticized... Yeah, that's a sign that he is your Idol.

My first post to you ..


The president gets to select the Secretary of State who will deliver his message and speak his thoughts.

That's the "attack" you speak of???

You have no clothes on, my brother.

[Damocles]

My first post to you ..



That's the "attack" you speak of???

You have no clothes on, my brother.
I guess so.

I get annoyed when somebody simply repeats what I had earlier stated as if they are giving me information.

[blackascoal]

I guess so.

I get annoyed when somebody simply repeats what I had earlier stated as if they are giving me information.

It was not meant as an attack my brother.

I was simply highlighting the difference.

[Damocles]

It was not meant as an attack my brother.

I was simply highlighting the difference.
I understand. It was my "annoyed" that made it sound that way. *sigh*

The imperfection of myself is an ongoing discovery.

[blackascoal]

I understand. It was my "annoyed" that made it sound that way. *sigh*

The imperfection of myself is an ongoing discovery.

The imperfection of us both my brother.

You have touched on mine on more than one ocassion.

If only I was as perfect as my dog thinks I am. :)

[Superfreak]

If only I was as perfect as my dog thinks I am. :)

you like TOTALLY plagarized that line.

:rolleyes:

[blackascoal]

you like TOTALLY plagarized that line.

:rolleyes:

Yes, I did,

My dog told it to me. :)

[Socrtease]

Look.

I wasn't criticizing Obama, so y'all can stop protecting your hero. I was criticizing the post that only had diplomacy as the reason to vote for him. I was questioning the reasoning behind voting for him solely for that reason and seeking a more in depth answer as to why he thought Obama is the godlike figure taking position in most people's imaginations.

I am not voting for a hero. I am voting for a leader. Regardless of what Bush goober smoochers (and this does not imply you) say, what the rest of the world thinks about the US is at least in some part important. I believe he can regain some lost prestige in the world. Being the only ass kicker on the block does not excuse boorish behavior. I BELIEVE that Obama can be that sort of leader. You were in the Military, you must have had some people in your chain of command that just MADE you feel like you would follow them anywhere. I am not saying I would follow Obama anywhere but he has an air of leadership about him that has been lacking in this country for two decades. Say what they will about Reagan Dems cannot deny that he had leadership qualities that made people feel good about him and safe with him in the oval office. Now Republicans are NEVER going to say that about a dem president even if it is true, but it is one of the intangibles I sense whenever the guy speeks. If I am wrong and he fucks things up, the one thing I won't do that Republicans did is vote for the guy twice. I will vote for someone else.

[cawacko]

I am not voting for a hero. I am voting for a leader. Regardless of what Bush goober smoochers (and this does not imply you) say, what the rest of the world thinks about the US is at least in some part important. I believe he can regain some lost prestige in the world. Being the only ass kicker on the block does not excuse boorish behavior. I BELIEVE that Obama can be that sort of leader. You were in the Military, you must have had some people in your chain of command that just MADE you feel like you would follow them anywhere. I am not saying I would follow Obama anywhere but he has an air of leadership about him that has been lacking in this country for two decades. Say what they will about Reagan Dems cannot deny that he had leadership qualities that made people feel good about him and safe with him in the oval office. Now Republicans are NEVER going to say that about a dem president even if it is true, but it is one of the intangibles I sense whenever the guy speeks. If I am wrong and he fucks things up, the one thing I won't do that Republicans did is vote for the guy twice. I will vote for someone else.

I like Obama and agree he has that air of confidence you speak about. As for whether he will be a great leader only time will tell. If he wins the Presidency and becomes a great leader then I would defintely state so. Right now though what we have to go on is potential which he has a lot of.

[Damocles]

I am not voting for a hero. I am voting for a leader. Regardless of what Bush goober smoochers (and this does not imply you) say, what the rest of the world thinks about the US is at least in some part important. I believe he can regain some lost prestige in the world. Being the only ass kicker on the block does not excuse boorish behavior. I BELIEVE that Obama can be that sort of leader. You were in the Military, you must have had some people in your chain of command that just MADE you feel like you would follow them anywhere. I am not saying I would follow Obama anywhere but he has an air of leadership about him that has been lacking in this country for two decades. Say what they will about Reagan Dems cannot deny that he had leadership qualities that made people feel good about him and safe with him in the oval office. Now Republicans are NEVER going to say that about a dem president even if it is true, but it is one of the intangibles I sense whenever the guy speeks. If I am wrong and he fucks things up, the one thing I won't do that Republicans did is vote for the guy twice. I will vote for someone else.
I still await to see how he performs against McCain, or HillBilly if she gets it. With Billary scuttling her campaign though I can't see her winning.

[Socrtease]

I still await to see how he performs against McCain, or HillBilly if she gets it. With Billary scuttling her campaign though I can't see her winning.Ever think that maybe Bill feels there is only room in the family for one former president? He acts like he is purposely fucking it all up.

[Damocles]

Ever think that maybe Bill feels there is only room in the family for one former president? He acts like he is purposely fucking it all up.
It's a theory of mine. Seriously, he would never have started a shouting match with some loser at a campaign stop when he was running.