Bush Godwins on Obama

[Upchurch]

Bush Compares Obama To Nazi Appeasers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/bush-compares-obama-to-na_n_101859.html)
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

:rolleyes: Why doesn't he hire someone to keep him from saying stupid things? It's been over seven years now.

[BPSCG]

Why doesn't he hire someone to keep him from saying stupid things? It's been over seven years now.Huh? Obama hasn't even been in the Senate for a full term yet; how could he have been saying stupid things there for seven years?

Although I agree with you, saying the president should sit down and have a nice chat with Iran's leaders is stupid. You don't negotiate with tyrants, because tyrants never - never - negotiate in good faith.

[joobie]

Huh? Obama hasn't even been in the Senate for a full term yet; how could he have been saying stupid things there for seven years?

he's not talking about obama.

[BPSCG]

he's not talking about obama.psssst... I know...

[DaChew]

Did Bush mention Obama specifically or is this a case of the shoe fitting a little too well?

And about these aides. One of them is apparently not Dana Perino:

White House spokesperson Dana Perino was asked if Bush's line was a slam against Obama and she insisted, "It is not."

"I understand that when you are running for office sometimes you think the world revolves around you. That is not always true and it is not true in this case," Perino added, though the White House is keenly aware of how such statements might play during a heated political season and has steadfastly avoided commenting on the 2008 race.

Nor Dick Cheney:

When asked if he was talking about any candidate in particular, Cheney said, "I am talking about any candidate for high office who believes the solution for our problem in that part of the world is to walk away from the commitments that we've made in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere."

Yeah, the shoe fits. Too bad Democrats are falling for it.

[CFLarsen]

Huh? Obama hasn't even been in the Senate for a full term yet; how could he have been saying stupid things there for seven years?

Although I agree with you, saying the president should sit down and have a nice chat with Iran's leaders is stupid. You don't negotiate with tyrants, because tyrants never - never - negotiate in good faith.

Who is a tyrant, then - and why?

What do you do with tyrants, if not negotiate?

[Dr Adequate]

Did Bush mention Obama specifically ... No, the gutless wonder has people to do that for him ... anonymously, of course. With the courage so characteristic of the man, he's hiding behind people who are themselves in hiding.

[Tricky]

Although I agree with you, saying the president should sit down and have a nice chat with Iran's leaders is stupid. You don't negotiate with tyrants, because tyrants never - never - negotiate in good faith.
Well, first of all, discussing can be but is not necessarily negotiating, but even if it is, what is the harm? Provided you have a reasonably competent negotiator, you simply say "You will do A and I will do B". You have to make sure that "A" is something that is easily verifiable. If they don't do "A", then you do whatever you were going to do if you didn't negotiate with them. If you discover that they haven't negotiated in good faith, then you are free to treat the negotiation agreements as revoked. Frankly, I see no downside to sitting down with them.

Maybe cooties.

[BPSCG]

Well, first of all, discussing can be but is not necessarily negotiating, but even if it is, what is the harm? Provided you have a reasonably competent negotiator, you simply say "You will do A and I will do B". You have to make sure that "A" is something that is easily verifiable. If they don't do "A", then you do whatever you were going to do if you didn't negotiate with them. If you discover that they haven't negotiated in good faith, then you are free to treat the negotiation agreements as revoked. Frankly, I see no downside to sitting down with them.Yes, it all sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? And it is reasonable, when you're negotiating with Mexico over water rights, or France over food import/export regulations. Because those are reasonable countries, that negotiate in good faith.

"If you discover that they haven't negotiated in good faith, then you are free to treat the negotiation agreements as revoked."

Yes, that sounds lovely. But in practice, it doesn't work out that way. People's exhibit A: North Korea. Their nuclear program is a long history of fraud, deceptions, lies, and bad-faith negotiations. And yet, for some reason known only to the diplomats at the State Department, we keep sitting down and talking with them as if it's all been one silly misunderstanding, until Syria ends up with a Korean-built nuclear reactor that Israel then has to go and blow up.

And you say there's no downside?

Maybe cooties.That, too, probably.

[Tricky]

Yes, that sounds lovely. But in practice, it doesn't work out that way. People's exhibit A: North Korea. Their nuclear program is a long history of fraud, deceptions, lies, and bad-faith negotiations. And yet, for some reason known only to the diplomats at the State Department, we keep sitting down and talking with them as if it's all been one silly misunderstanding, until Syria ends up with a Korean-built nuclear reactor that Israel then has to go and blow up.
That's where the part I mentioned about "A" being easily verifiable, and that is why you need a good negotiator. If you cannot find something verifiable upon which you can agree, then you simply leave the negotiations in the same condition as you arrived. You have lost nothing.

I simply cannot understand why anyone would say, "I'm not going to talk to you because you're eeeeevil."

But maybe that's just me. I never put anybody on "ignore" either.

[BPSCG]

Did Bush mention Obama specifically or is this a case of the shoe fitting a little too well?

No, the gutless wonder has people to do that for him ... anonymously, of course. With the courage so characteristic of the man, he's hiding behind people who are themselves in hiding.:)

This reminds me of a passage from Profiles in Courage (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031107.html), in the chapter about Missouri's wonderfully irascible antebellum Senator Thomas Hart Benton:One day, bitterly reading and commenting upon the names of each member of the Legislature, he stopped when he came to the "D's" and said he smelled a Nullifier. A legislator named Davies having arisen to protest, Benton scowled: "I never called your name, sir. Turn your profile to the audience....[Like a fool, Davies complied]...Citizens, that is not the profile of a man; it is the profile of a dog."

[Dr Adequate]

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. Sheesh, what a moron he is.

Listen, chimp-boy, if you know so frickin' much about foreign policy, then why is it that history will remember you solely for what a complete pig's breakfast you made of it?

[BPSCG]

That's where the part I mentioned about "A" being easily verifiable, and that is why you need a good negotiator. If you cannot find something verifiable upon which you can agree, then you simply leave the negotiations in the same condition as you arrived. You have lost nothing.Again, that's not what happens in practice. The negotiations with North Korea are ostensibly, "You give up nuclear weapons, we give you food and oil." What happens in practice is we catch them cheating, and instead of telling them, "Deal's off," we decide we need to re-negotiate, I suppose on the grounds that having been caught lying three or four or five times, they wouldn't dare do it again. So NK gets nuclear weapons and food and oil.

I simply cannot understand why anyone would say, "I'm not going to talk to you because you're eeeeevil."Can you understand why anyone would say, "I'm not going to talk to you because you're a tyrannical regime and history has shown repeatedly, almost without exception, that negotiating with tyrants is a waste of time at best, and catastrophic at worst"?

But maybe that's just me. I never put anybody on "ignore" either.Me too neither (but there are people whose posts I refuse to respond to any more...).

[NobbyNobbs]

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Bush's analogy works against him.

1) Senator laments "If only we talked to Hitler, this may have been avoided."
2) We didn't talk to Hitler.
3) Look what happened.

Wouldn't this build a case for talking to radicals, in hopes of avoiding what has gone before, since not talking to them obviously has had undesirable results?

[Dr Adequate]

Absolutely. If, for example, back in 1939, some American had thought to say to Hitler: "Try any tricks and we'll pwn your ass, boy", then I believe that a great deal of fuss and unpleasantness could have been avoided.

[BPSCG]

Bush's analogy works against him.

1) Senator laments "If only we talked to Hitler, this may have been avoided."
2) We didn't talk to Hitler.
3) Look what happened.

Wouldn't this build a case for talking to radicals, in hopes of avoiding what has gone before, since not talking to them obviously has had undesirable results?No. It's not like no one was talking to Hitler. You may recall the Brits did. That worked out poorly, for precisely the reasons I've been saying: Hitler never negotiated in good faith. Very few people recognized that at the time; Neville Chamberlain said he believed he could "do business" with Hitler. He was terribly mistaken. He believed Hitler was speaking truthfully when he said he had no more territorial claims in Europe (after the Sudetenland and Munich), and found out in September, 1939, that he'd been lied to.

Cost: Upwards of fifty million dead and a shattered Europe.

[Dr Adequate]

Can you understand why anyone would say, "I'm not going to talk to you because you're a tyrannical regime and history has shown repeatedly, almost without exception, that negotiating with tyrants is a waste of time at best, and catastrophic at worst"? Yes, I can understand why someone would say that. Some sort of blow to the head in early infancy, for example.

Though I would be a little puzzled if he should go on to add: "Unless, of course, you're a Saudi, in which case I'm going to romp through flower-filled meadows holding hands with you."

[BPSCG]

Absolutely. If, for example, back in 1939, some American had thought to say to Hitler: "Try any tricks and we'll pwn your ass, boy", then I believe that a great deal of fuss and unpleasantness could have been avoided.Ultimatums are not negotiations.

[kallsop]

1) Senator laments "If only we talked to Hitler, this may have been avoided."
2) We didn't talk to Hitler.



"Peace in our time" Chamberlain did talk to Hitler in Munich, 1938. Fat lot of good that did.

This thread could be subtitled "Bush gets his mojo back". It's about 8 years too late.

[BPSCG]

Yes, I can understand why someone would say that. Some sort of blow to the head in early infancy, for example.That translates to "You're stupid."

Stop it.

[CFLarsen]

No. It's not like no one was talking to Hitler. You may recall the Brits did. That worked out poorly, for precisely the reasons I've been saying: Hitler never negotiated in good faith. Very few people recognized that at the time;

How do you determine if someone negotiates "in good faith"?

[Jimbo07]

Cost: Upwards of fifty million dead and a shattered Europe.

This has always made me a little curious... If Chamberlain had not said, "Peace in our day," would nobody have died, or just fewer? Would he have avoided a war by threatening war?

ETA: That's "Peace for our time" apparently...

[Dr Adequate]

Ultimatums are not negotiations. Why on Earth not? I daresay, for example, that somewhere in his negotiations with Hitler, Chamberlain did mention that he'd declare war on Germany if Hitler invaded Poland. Y'know, as part of his cowardly policy of appeasement.

[Dr Adequate]

That translates to "You're stupid." Actually, it translates to: "That statement is stupid".

[DaChew]

My goodness, the Democrats are just in a lather about this:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Biden_Bushs_comments_were_********.html

Sounds like someone's feeling guilty.

[skeptical]

Yes, it all sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? And it is reasonable, when you're negotiating with Mexico over water rights, or France over food import/export regulations. Because those are reasonable countries, that negotiate in good faith.

True, which is why those negotiations are easy.


"If you discover that they haven't negotiated in good faith, then you are free to treat the negotiation agreements as revoked."

Yes, that sounds lovely. But in practice, it doesn't work out that way. People's exhibit A: North Korea. Their nuclear program is a long history of fraud, deceptions, lies, and bad-faith negotiations. And yet, for some reason known only to the diplomats at the State Department, we keep sitting down and talking with them as if it's all been one silly misunderstanding, until Syria ends up with a Korean-built nuclear reactor that Israel then has to go and blow up.

And you say there's no downside?


I disagree with your characterization. Continuing to communicate with someone doesn't mean you pretend they haven't been acting in bad faith. In practical terms, if you are going to suspend ALL diplomatic relations, the only alternative is war or some very significant use of force. Anything less than that, including sanctions, involves some ongoing communication to get the regime to perform whatever actions it is you are trying to get them to perform in exchange for suspending sanctions. If you don't communicate with a regime, it is hard to understand how you can ever get them to do what you want except force.

I simply don't see how saying "we are not going to negotiate" is ever going to accomplish anything productive. IMO, leaders are like anyone else, if you want them to do what you want you either offer a carrot or a stick over the head or some combination of both. If you simply say "no carrots", there doesn't seem to be any other option on the table except force.

Assuming we take the approach you are suggesting and not ever "negotiate" with any unpalatable regimes, what alternatives are available to us to get what we want other than war or at least some significant use of force? How would we get Iran to do what we want, for example?

[DaChew]

My goodness, the Democrats are just in a lather about this:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Biden_Bushs_comments_were_********.html

Sounds like someone's feeling guilty.

Baaaaahhhaaaahahahahahahahhaha. The obsenity filter deleted a direct quote from a sitting U.S. Senator!!

You'll just have to look for Joe Biden and the long version of BS over at Politico.

[Lurker]

Huh? Obama hasn't even been in the Senate for a full term yet; how could he have been saying stupid things there for seven years?

Although I agree with you, saying the president should sit down and have a nice chat with Iran's leaders is stupid. You don't negotiate with tyrants, because tyrants never - never - negotiate in good faith.


Hmm, I recall us negotiating with Saddam not too long ago. Perhaps he was not a tyrant back in the Reagan years.

[DaChew]

Hmm, I recall us negotiating with Saddam not too long ago. Perhaps he was not a tyrant back in the Reagan years.

Or perhaps that's a good example of why we shouldn't.

[Tricky]

Again, that's not what happens in practice. The negotiations with North Korea are ostensibly, "You give up nuclear weapons, we give you food and oil." What happens in practice is we catch them cheating, and instead of telling them, "Deal's off," we decide we need to re-negotiate, I suppose on the grounds that having been caught lying three or four or five times, they wouldn't dare do it again. So NK gets nuclear weapons and food and oil.

Can you understand why anyone would say, "I'm not going to talk to you because you're a tyrannical regime and history has shown repeatedly, almost without exception, that negotiating with tyrants is a waste of time at best, and catastrophic at worst"?
The truth is, you're negotiating with them anyway. Now you can make the argument that our negotiations should have been, "We are going to cut off food and water from you because we don't trust you", but whether you said that to their face or conveyed it to them in a speech is not the point. You have still assumed a negotiating position. Your beef seems to be with the result of the negotiation, not that negotiation occurred. What you seem to be suggesting is that being in the same room affects your negotiating position. What's the big deal about sitting down with them? (cooties? :D)

What will you do differently if you sit down and talk with a "tyrannical regime" that you wouldn't do if you simply shouted at them from across the globe? If the answer is "give them what they want", then I suggest that you have crappy negotiators.

But my experience is that face-to-face negotiation has a greater potential for workable solutions than distant, hostile negotiations. To those who say you can never negotiate with terrorists, I have two words. Northern Ireland.

[Praktik]

Or perhaps that's a good example of why we shouldn't.

Really? He was servicing US interests quite well - keeping a lid on islamic radicals, and being a HUGE thorn in the side of Iran. Only when his megalomania resulted in actions contrary to US interest was he then put on the "baddie list". So all that talking to Saddam - and arming of Saddam - actually paid off quite well for a time, when the US saw containing the Shiites as a major cornerstone of their Middle East policy (which it continues to be today). (EDIT: I should have said "service US policy goals" rather than "US interest", since I do not think the policy actually helped the American self-interest all that much, but I will not expand much further at risk of derailing the thread)

Only in the mind of the 101st Keyboard Brigade and the bloc they enable are negotiations a code-word for being "soft".

Carrots AND sticks people... Carrots AND sticks...

Yes, that sounds lovely. But in practice, it doesn't work out that way. People's exhibit A: North Korea. Their nuclear program is a long history of fraud, deceptions, lies, and bad-faith negotiations. And yet, for some reason known only to the diplomats at the State Department, we keep sitting down and talking with them as if it's all been one silly misunderstanding, until Syria ends up with a Korean-built nuclear reactor that Israel then has to go and blow up.
...

The negotiations with North Korea are ostensibly, "You give up nuclear weapons, we give you food and oil." What happens in practice is we catch them cheating, and instead of telling them, "Deal's off," we decide we need to re-negotiate, I suppose on the grounds that having been caught lying three or four or five times, they wouldn't dare do it again. So NK gets nuclear weapons and food and oil.

This history of NK negotiations is sadly lacking. I can only guess that the sources you've read on this are shallow in detail.

May I point you to a few facts regarding the negotiations going back to clinton ->

From Foreign Affairs: (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040701fareviewessay83415/scott-snyder/the-fire-last-time.html)

There were two critical flaws with the American approach in 1993 and 1994, however, as the book -- not to mention the intervening years -- makes clear. First, although U.S. officials did convince the North Koreans to "can" and store their spent nuclear fuel, they were unable to persuade them to give up their nuclear components entirely, as they did with Kazakhstan and Ukraine. This failure gave the North Koreans easy access to spent nuclear fuel that could be reprocessed, which has proved to be their most significant source of leverage in the current standoff.

The Clinton administration also erred by allowing North Korea to delay its return to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) by more than five years. This ambiguity in Pyongyang's status under the NPT made it much easier for North Korea to later declare, in January 2003, that it was no longer a party to that treaty and to exclude the International Atomic Energy Agency (which administers the NPT) from any role in the standoff. Wit, Poneman, and Gallucci assert that North Korea would not have accepted a return to full compliance with the NPT in 1994, but subsequent events have shown that these concessions were nonetheless a mistake; the Clinton administration should have pushed harder for subsequent revisions. Instead, within a year of the signing of the Agreed Framework, Washington had put the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), which administered the deal, on autopilot, and KEDO officials were left complaining that it was harder to get sign-offs from the United States than from Japan or South Korea. By 1998, under pressure from Congress, the Clinton administration reluctantly named former Defense Secretary William Perry as a special coordinator for policy toward North Korea in an attempt to salvage the process. But Perry's efforts only deferred the collapse of the framework until the end of the Clinton administration.

...

[The Bush Admin] has not been able to secure a working consensus on exactly what CVID would require North Korea to do, or how to get there. China, Russia, and South Korea favor signing a second agreed framework based on negotiations with North Korea. But the Bush administration seems uninterested in such an approach, convinced as it is that Pyongyang will dishonor its promises at every opportunity. If Washington truly opposes negotiation with North Korea, however, it needs to offer an alternative, such as coercive diplomacy. But so far, it has done little on that front either.

...

The Bush administration apparently would rather that North Korea follow the example of Libya, which announced its intention in December 2003 to voluntarily give up its unconventional weapons and allow outside verification. (If Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi can take such a bold step, some in Washington have reasoned, it should be even easier for a "general" such as Kim Jong Il.)

...

the authors argue that negotiation remains the most effective way to secure U.S. interests in the region. The Bush administration's failure thus far to take such talks seriously enough has allowed the steady expansion of North Korea's nuclear program


So what's the lesson here? That negotiations are "bad" in principle and should be avoided... in favour of what exactly? I think the real lesson here is not that negotiations are "bad", or that "negotiating with Dictators risks us looking like Chamberlain when we should look like Churchill" - but rather that the approach and methods used in negotiating with North Korea failed. The answer therefore, is to negotiate more effectively, not fail to negotiate at all - especially when looking at the strategic picture, using military force risks unknown but probably severe consequences for key US allies.

Of course - and this is a key blind spot in the 101st Keyboard Brigade - should all avenues be exhausted "other options" could be pursued. To advocate for negotations is not to say that other more coercive measures should not be pursued down the line, in fact, most effective negotiations are thus precisely because those "other options" are hanging in the background...

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Hardball has spent the first half hour on this. Biden totally kicked Bush's ***. And then the Republican they had on made a complete fool of himself.

[moon1969]

Bush wants to bomb everybody. Well so how would mr Bush stop what Hamas is doing in Sderot? Hamas is a problem and somebody needs to stop them. Hamas has no rigth to bomb the city of Sderot with Kassam rockets. Obama needs to tell Hamas to stop that. Bush hasn"t done anything for the people in Sderot. Jimmy Carter just blames Israel but never talks about what is happening in Sderot.

[Cleon]

Jimmy Carter just blames Israel but never talks about what is happening in Sderot.

Well, except for the part where he went to Sderot, met with the mayor and some other folks, and talked about it to the media.

But don't let facts get in the way of your slander. Carry on.

[The Painter]

Ultimatums are not negotiations.

To which The Big A says;

Why on Earth not?

Hmm. The word "Ultimatum". Webster; "... end negotiations..." An ultimatum is not a negotiation. It is the end. I'm shocked that a supposed word-smith didn't know that. Edited for civility

I didn't hear Hussein Obama's name in Bush's speech. I did hear the description of a person or people who appease the enemies of the USA. Now if Hussein Obama heard the description and thought it was him, well if the shoe fits...

Maybe Hussein Obama should have kept his mouth shut. No, he's not that smart.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

To which The Big A says;



Hmm. The word "Ultimatum". Webster; "... end negotiations..." An ultimatum is not a negotiation. It is the end. I'm shocked that a supposed word-smith didn't know that. Edited for civility

I didn't hear Hussein Obama's name in Bush's speech. I did hear the description of a person or people who appease the enemies of the USA. Now if Hussein Obama heard the description and thought it was him, well if the shoe fits...

Maybe Hussein Obama should have kept his mouth shut. No, he's not that smart.

:dl:

[BPSCG]

Actually, it translates to: "That statement is stupid".Yeah. Knock it off anyway.

[chipmunk stew]

Hmm, I recall us negotiating with Saddam not too long ago. Perhaps he was not a tyrant back in the Reagan years.

Or perhaps that's a good example of why we shouldn't.
Yes, because he was stockpiling WMDs against the negotiated agreement, and he never would have stopped and Iraq wouldn't have the great, stable democracy it has today if we hadn't preemptively struck with almost no support from our allies.

We definitely did the right thing.

[Redtail]

To which The Big A says;



Hmm. The word "Ultimatum". Webster; "... end negotiations..." An ultimatum is not a negotiation. It is the end. I'm shocked that a supposed word-smith didn't know that. Edited for civility

I didn't hear Hussein Obama's name in Bush's speech. I did hear the description of a person or people who appease the enemies of the USA. Now if Hussein Obama heard the description and thought it was him, well if the shoe fits...

Maybe Hussein Obama should have kept his mouth shut. No, he's not that smart.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12044467af2cd27d18.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6485)

[Dr Adequate]

Hmm. The word "Ultimatum". Webster; "... end negotiations..." An ultimatum is not a negotiation. It is the end. I'm shocked that a supposed word-smith didn't know that. Edited for civility. There are many things you don't know, one of which, apparently, is that since other people besides you have access to Webster, it is therefore pointless to try to deceive people about its contents:
Ultimatum: a final proposition, condition, or demand; especially : one whose rejection will end negotiations and cause a resort to force or other direct action.
I didn't hear Hussein Obama's name in Bush's speech. This was doubtless why Bush had his anonymous hirelings tell the media that it was directed at Obama.

I did hear the description of a person or people who appease the enemies of the USA. Now if Hussein Obama heard the description and thought it was him, well if the shoe fits... I think the bit where Bush's aides told the media that Bush was talking about him kinda gave him a clue that Bush was talking about him. He's quite bright, you know.

But of course if you pretend really hard that this didn't happen, you can dance around saying "well if the shoe fits", and by a stroke of good fortune denying reality is what you're best at.

I should warn you, however, that you may not succeed in deceiving anyone else.

[Daylight]

Hardball has spent the first half hour on this. Biden totally kicked Bush's ***. And then the Republican they had on made a complete fool of himself.

That was sweet when that screaming republican mouth piece idiot they had after Biden got schooled. He was a perfect demonstration of how clueless the Republicans are.

[Praktik]

I didn't hear Hussein Obama's name in Bush's speech. I did hear the description of a person or people who appease the enemies of the USA. Now if Hussein Obama heard the description and thought it was him, well if the shoe fits...

Maybe Hussein Obama should have kept his mouth shut. No, he's not that smart.

Nothing substantive here...

So you don't like Obama - that's cool - why don't you push yourself and work your opposition into something of a respectable argument? Taking the low road might be fun and easy, but it's not all that impressive a thing to witness...

[Pookster]

Whether or not Bush meant Obama, this is McCain's worst nightmare -- Bush being in the middle of this. It was an excellent move by Obama's campaign. Being able to frame this as him versus Bush will only hurt the Republicans even more. McCain can't be happy about any of this.

[The Painter]

There are many things you don't know, one of which, apparently, is that since other people besides you have access to Webster, it is therefore pointless to try to deceive people about its contents:

Ultimatum: a final proposition, condition, or demand; especially : one whose rejection will end negotiations and cause a resort to force or other direct action.

.


Yes that's the whole definition. A non negotiation. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

This was doubtless why Bush had his anonymous hirelings tell the media that it was directed at Obama.

I thought he was talking about ex-president Jimmy Carter, not Hussein Obama. Go figure.

Bush had his anonymous hirelings tell the media that it was directed at Obama

Do you have direct evidence of this or did you make it up?? I think it's the latter.

[The Painter]

Whether or not Bush meant Obama, this is McCain's worst nightmare -- Bush being in the middle of this. It was an excellent move by Obama's campaign. Being able to frame this as him versus Bush will only hurt the Republicans even more. McCain can't be happy about any of this.


McCain is a boob . If he wins I will be shocked.

[The Painter]

Nothing substantive here...

So you don't like Obama - that's cool - why don't you push yourself and work your opposition into something of a respectable argument? Taking the low road might be fun and easy, but it's not all that impressive a thing to witness...


Bite me!

Please remember to be civil and polite.

[T.A.M.]

Do you get a thrill out of calling Barack Obama, Hussein Obama? Are you a racist? your posting and behavior sure seem like it?

You should also try to be more civil.

TAM:)

[Dr Adequate]

Yes that's the whole definition. A non negotiation. Thanks for proving yourself wrong. Again, I suspect that the only person you're deceiving is yourself.

You see, the same defect that makes you wish to lie also prevents you from ever being any good at it.

I thought he was talking about ex-president Jimmy Carter, not Hussein Obama. Go figure.

Do you have direct evidence of this or did you make it up?? I think it's the latter. As usual, you are wrong. Perhaps you should try reading the story in the OP, though of course this would interfere with your fatuous attempts to shut out reality.

[The Painter]

Do you get a thrill out of calling Barack Obama, Hussein Obama? Are you a racist? your posting and behavior sure seem like it?

You should also try to be more civil.

TAM:)

It's his name. I didn't make it up. Barack Hussein Obama. See? Do you have a problem with his name? His middle name? Do you? You seem to have a bad connotation to it. Your own racist tendencies perhaps?. I'm just saying his name.

[Dr Adequate]

It's his name. I didn't make it up. Barack Hussein Obama. See? Do you have a problem with his name? His middle name? Do you? You seem to have a bad connotation to it. Your own racist tendencies perhaps?. I'm just saying his name. Once more, one has to wonder whom you hope to deceive.

[The Painter]

the story in the OP

And you take the Huffington Post blog as a credible news source? Keep dreaming.

Once more, one has to wonder whom you hope to deceive.

No one. It's his name. The real question is, who do you want to deceive by hiding it?


You see, the same defect that makes you wish to lie also prevents you from ever being any good at it.

In your own back handed way, you called me truthful. How sweet.

[Texas]

Do you get a thrill out of calling Barack Obama, Hussein Obama? Are you a racist? your posting and behavior sure seem like it?

You should also try to be more civil.

TAM:)
TAM you have to admit that there is something almost Biblical about a man named Hussein having a good chance of succeeding this particular president. The irony is breathtaking on multiple levels.

[gnome]

It's his name. I didn't make it up. Barack Hussein Obama. See? Do you have a problem with his name? His middle name? Do you? You seem to have a bad connotation to it. Your own racist tendencies perhaps?. I'm just saying his name.

Do you think you're fooling anybody? Everyone's well aware of the negative associations America has with the name Hussein. Can there be any reason to highlight it besides to make use of that emotional effect?

[Tricky]

Maybe Hussein Obama should have kept his mouth shut. No, he's not that smart.

Interesting. In a way this valdates what I said here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3704188#post3704188). Simple people need nothing more than a name to decide whether they are for or against a person.

[Dr Adequate]

And you take the Huffington Post blog as a credible news source? Keep dreaming. What an interesting fantasy.

The claims that Bush officials confirmed that Obama was his target come from CNN and NBC news.

No one. Really? If I lied as much as you do, I'd want to fool someone.

I guess in many ways we are very different people.

It's his name. The real question is, who do you want to deceive by hiding it? Tell me more about this fantasy. Where do you imagine that I have hidden his name, and how?

In your own back handed way, you called me truthful. This is another lie that's not going to deceive anyone.

Why do you lie when it's certain that you're going to get caught?

[T.A.M.]

It's his name. I didn't make it up. Barack Hussein Obama. See? Do you have a problem with his name? His middle name? Do you? You seem to have a bad connotation to it. Your own racist tendencies perhaps?. I'm just saying his name.

No, it is his MIDDLE name. he goes by "Barack Obama". Given he does not go by "Hussein" Obama, care to clarify why YOU call him "Hussein" Obama???

Please, you sound like Bill Cunningham, and that is not a good thing.

TAM:)

[The Painter]

Do you think you're fooling anybody? Everyone's well aware of the negative associations America has with the name Hussein. Can there be any reason to highlight it besides to make use of that emotional effect?

No, not fooling anyone. Why do you love the man, but hate his name? Is there a law against using his middle name? I use my middle name all the time. It's the one people call me. If his policies are so great and commanding attention, why would the name Hussein take away from that. Just for a minute, lets say his name was Hussein Barak Obama. Would you use his first name or middle name? What if his name was just Hussein Obama, no Barak. Why are you afraid of the name Hussein? Maybe you should take a nice long look in the mirror and ask yourself why you don't like that name. I have no problem with it and will continue to use it.

[Texas]

Do you think you're fooling anybody? Everyone's well aware of the negative associations America has with the name Hussein. Can there be any reason to highlight it besides to make use of that emotional effect?
"I Barrack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear etc." I have never heard a president elect that did not incorporate his middle name into his oath of office. If you think Americans will recoil at that the he has no chance of election. This man is a candidate the likes of which this nation has never known. He is a very young mixed raced man with little or no record beyond his own life's narrative looking to gain the highest office in the country. Part of that narrative is his worldview shaped as a child in Indonesia and Kenya. His other oddity is a name that, even without his middle name, is almost jarring to American ears when preceded by President. To date, while his novel candidacy, has propelled him to the likelihood of his party's nomination his support is not that of a prohibitive favorite in the general election. Obama is going to have to re-focus his primary campaign of talking about how he will change the world to how Americans can trust him to make those changes while protecting their country's interests as his major concern.

[Tricky]

When I was in the second grade, one of my classmates was a boy who apparently was from a family just as respected as the Ewells in To Kill a Mockingbird. He wasn't terribly bright, but within only a few months time, he found out that he could rhyme my name with a very dirty word (or at least dirty for a second-grader). After he made that discovery, he decided that he would continue to use the bad word as my name every time he saw me, as was his right.

I should see if I can google him. Is there a site where you can get the names of prison inmates?

[Texas]

When I was in the second grade one of my classmates was a boy who apparently was from a family just as respected as the Ewells in To Kill a Mockingbird. He wasn't terribly bright, but within only a few months time, he found out that he could rhyme my name with a very dirty word (or at least dirty for a second-grader). After he made that discovery, he decided that he would continue to use the bad word as my name every time he saw me, as was his right.

I should see if I can google him. Is there a site where you can get the names of prison inmates?

So all 2nd graders that rhyme names even with "dirty" words are more than likely going to end up in prison? Hmmm. The super max prisons must be over flowing with Bush rhymers.

[The Painter]

What an interesting fantasy.

The claims that Bush officials confirmed that Obama was his target come from CNN and NBC news.

Really? If I lied as much as you do, I'd want to fool someone.

I guess in many ways we are very different people.

Tell me more about this fantasy. Where do you imagine that I have hidden his name, and how?

This is another lie that's not going to deceive anyone.

Why do you lie when it's certain that you're going to get caught?


I really expected more from you. This is third rate at best. So sad

[The Painter]

When I was in the second grade, one of my classmates was a boy who apparently was from a family just as respected as the Ewells in To Kill a Mockingbird. He wasn't terribly bright, but within only a few months time, he found out that he could rhyme my name with a very dirty word (or at least dirty for a second-grader). After he made that discovery, he decided that he would continue to use the bad word as my name every time he saw me, as was his right.

I should see if I can google him. Is there a site where you can get the names of prison inmates?


So you had a normal childhood. As for your other request, try this;


http://www.prisonpenpals.com/

[Tricky]

So all 2nd graders that rhyme names even with "dirty" words are more than likely going to end up in prison? Hmmm. The super max prisons must be over flowing with Bush rhymers.
That was just one interesting but perhaps illustrative facet of his personality. Have you ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?

[Dr Adequate]

I really expected more from you. This is third rate at best. So sad So you're not even going to try to defend any of your silly lies?

Aw ... but that's the funny part.

Oh well.

[Texas]

That was just one interesting but perhaps illustrative facet of his personality. Have you ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?
Yes I have read the book and watched the movie when it first came out and I catch it every time it is on TV.. It is a masterpiece. I still don't get the reference to a 2nd grader though since it was Ewell's grown daughter that falsely accused Tom Robinson.

[The Painter]

So you're not even going to try to defend any of your silly lies?

Aw ... but that's the funny part.

Oh well.

Sorry, no lies, but you don't get it. You're just a silly Brit trying to make a difference in American policy. Maybe you should move here and fulfill your fantasy of being an American. Hurry before we close our borders.

[Tricky]

Yes I have read the book and watched the movie when it first came out and I catch it every time it is on TV.. It is a masterpiece. I still don't get the reference to a 2nd grader though since it was Ewell's grown daughter that falsely accused Tom Robinson.
You don't remember the scene (in the book only, not the movie) where one of Ewell's sons comes to school? That character would have been a dead ringer for my ol' school chum.

[Texas]

So you're not even going to try to defend any of your silly lies?

Aw ... but that's the funny part.

Oh well.

Why is it that every time I have seen you debate it usually ends up it multiple accusations of "lies", "Liar", "Lying liar" and all other variations on the theme?

[The Painter]

You don't remember the scene (in the book only, not the movie) where one of Ewell's sons comes to school? That character would have been a dead ringer for my ol' school chum.

I read that book somewhere around 40 years ago. How the hell do remember that kind of detail? I guess it must have been an important part to you.

[Texas]

You don't remember the scene (in the book only, not the movie) where one of Ewell's sons comes to school? That character would have been a dead ringer for my ol' school chum. I guess not. I remember the kid that Scout had the fight with at school. When Atticus invited the kid to lunch Scout had a fit when he poured syrup over his meat. Scout was the "bad guy" in that instance.

[Dr Adequate]

No, not fooling anyone. Why do you love the man, but hate his name? Is there a law against using his middle name? I use my middle name all the time. It's the one people call me. If his policies are so great and commanding attention, why would the name Hussein take away from that. Just for a minute, lets say his name was Hussein Barak Obama. Would you use his first name or middle name? What if his name was just Hussein Obama, no Barak. Why are you afraid of the name Hussein? Maybe you should take a nice long look in the mirror and ask yourself why you don't like that name. I have no problem with it and will continue to use it. The word "disingenous" could have been invented for drivel like this.

One more time, who on earth do you suppose would think for a moment that you were sincere?

[Dr Adequate]

Why is it that every time I have seen you debate it usually ends up it multiple accusations of "lies", "Liar", "Lying liar" and all other variations on the theme? I can only imagine that this is because you have, for some strange reason, only watched me debate with liars.

[The Painter]

The word "disingenous" could have been invented for drivel like this.

One more time, who on earth do you suppose would think for a moment that you were sincere?


Certainly not someone with their Head up their ass. Like you.

PS the word is spelled d-i-s-i-n-g-e-n-u-o-u-s

[Tricky]

I guess not. I remember the kid that Scout had the fight with at school. When Atticus invited the kid to lunch Scout had a fit when he poured syrup over his meat. Scout was the "bad guy" in that instance.
Right, that was Walter Cunningham. The Cunningham family turned out to be somewhat heroic in the end. The Ewell family was trash from start to finish. Yeah, it was a novel and characters tend to be one-dimensional, but I was trying to give you a picture of the fellow. He used to beat up little kids and steal their lunch money too. Not a nice guy. Changing names nto dirty words was really one of the least of his faults, but one that might give you a clue about his character.

[Texas]

I can only imagine that this is because you have, for some strange reason, only watched me debate with liars.

Well it certainly appears that anyone that disagrees with you, in other words debates you, are liars after a few posts. It is of no real import it just struck me as odd.

[Texas]

Right, that was Walter Cunningham. The Cunningham family turned out to be somewhat heroic in the end. The Ewell family was trash from start to finish. Yeah, it was a novel, but I was trying to give you a picture of the fellow. He used to beat up little kids and steal their lunch money too. Not a nice guy.

There is always one in the crowed. Bullies are an age old phenomenon.

[Dr Adequate]

I read that book somewhere around 40 years ago. How the hell do remember that kind of detail? Having a well-functioning brain would obviously help, as would reading the book less then 40 years ago, because, please try to remember, Tricky and you are two different people, and therefore the date at which he last read TKaMB, and, indeed, the number of times he has done so, is not necessarily the same as for you. Is there any other really really obvious thing that you need explaining to you?

I guess it must have been an important part to you. Can you ever resist the impulse to look like a silly twat? I mean, if you were placed in front of a huge vat of custard, could you manage not to dive in?

[Dr Adequate]

Well it certainly appears that anyone that disagrees with you, in other words debates you, are liars after a few posts. I can, again, only suppose that I have read far more of my posts than you have, and less selectively.

[Tricky]

There is always one in the crowed. Bullies are an age old phenomenon.
Indeed. But one learns to recognize them by some of their characteristics, one of which includes taunting people about their names.

[Tricky]

I read that book somewhere around 40 years ago. How the hell do remember that kind of detail? I guess it must have been an important part to you.
Yes, it was important. It was one of the most significant and well-written anti-racist books ever written. Also, I grew up in Alabama and a lot of the things she said really hit home with me. It's a real favorite with us stoopid liberals.

[Dr Adequate]

Certainly not someone with their Head up their ass. Like you. So you can't think of anyone?

PS the word is spelled d-i-s-i-n-g-e-n-u-o-u-s Oh, look, I made a typo!

You must be thrilled to finally find something I said that was in some way wrong. Enjoy. Hug it to yourself like a teddy bear or a comfort blanket.

[Praktik]

Do you have a problem with his name? His middle name? Do you? You seem to have a bad connotation to it. Your own racist tendencies perhaps?. I'm just saying his name.

Ya you're right, I guess you're just shootin' straight there. Why would we think it strange that you insist on calling him Hussein Obama? After all, it's commonplace for people to be addressed by their middle name first.

You know, like all the times you read about Luther King Jr., the civil rights icon - or the history books referring to the ravenous appetite for gold in Randolph Hearst. I can't count the number of times I've seen references to Quincy Adams and the beginning of the Monroe Doctrine.

Then there's the big music and movie stars. They're always called by their second name first. Turn on ET and it's all about country and western star Ray Cyrus and his daughter with her risky business in Vogue magazine. Earl Jones - with his signature, earth trembling voice - brought his gravitas to the Lion King. I'm ashamed to admit it - but I actually moistened up when Simba's dad died under the trampling herd.

So silly of us to remark upon you using Hussein Obama in this typical and standard way.

Allow me to apologize on behalf of the group...

[Texas]

Indeed. But one learns to recognize them by some of their characteristics, one of which includes taunting people about their names.
That is silly. Kids have taunted each others names since Cain and Able. You are really stretching the, I can't even call it an analogy, point.

His first 2 names are Arabic/Hebraic in origin. The first means " a blessing from God" or "lightning" and the second is associated with Arabic royalty in Jordan. It is perfectly legitimate to use his name as given to and used by him in any context. Obama supporters are too materialistic towards their candidate. He decided to run for president after 2 years in the senate, the same novelties of name and life history that has propelled him to the nomination are the same novelties that give many in the country pause when thinking about voting for him.

[gnome]

No, not fooling anyone. Why do you love the man, but hate his name? Is there a law against using his middle name? I use my middle name all the time. It's the one people call me. If his policies are so great and commanding attention, why would the name Hussein take away from that. Just for a minute, lets say his name was Hussein Barak Obama. Would you use his first name or middle name? What if his name was just Hussein Obama, no Barak. Why are you afraid of the name Hussein? Maybe you should take a nice long look in the mirror and ask yourself why you don't like that name. I have no problem with it and will continue to use it.

I don't hate his name. I hate people using his name as a childish cheap shot.

Forgetting the what ifs and go with what is. Are you able to say with a straight face that you meant nothing by using mainly his middle name?

You couldn't be any more plain than if you were saying "AAAh! Aaaah! His middle name's HUSSEIN! And his first name rhymes with OSAMA! He can't be trusted because his name sounds like terrorists!" ... just because you're a little more subtle about it (though not very much) doesn't mean I can't see what you're doing.

At the best, you're PRETENDING you might think this just to agitate. That doesn't prove anything except that you're being an ass.

[Dr Adequate]

That is silly. Kids have taunted each others names since Cain and Able. You are really stretching the, I can't even call it an analogy, point.

His first 2 names are Arabic/Hebraic in origin. The first means " a blessing from God" or "lightning" and the second is associated with Arabic royalty in Jordan. "Barack" does not mean "lightning". It means "blessing". "From God" is not part of it.

The second name is "associated with royalty in Jordan" but this is a bit like saying that "Elizabeth" is "associated with royalty in England". True, but deeply uninformative. It means "happy" in both the modern sense of "happy" and in the old-fashioned sense of "fortunate, lucky". It's a very common name.

It is perfectly legitimate to use his name as given to and used by him in any context. And what is his name "as used by him"?

If you want a hint, look at some of his campaign posters.

Obama supporters are too materialistic towards their candidate. What does that even mean?

He decided to run for president after 2 years in the senate, the same novelties of name and life history that has propelled him to the nomination are the same novelties that give many in the country pause when thinking about voting for him. They do indeed. Now, wouldn't you say that anyone "given pause" by his name is a frickin' idiot? Someone who'd think --- "Well, I'd vote for him if he was called Joe"? Sheesh.

[Texas]

"Barack" does not mean "lightning". It means "blessing". "From God" is not part of it.

The second name is "associated with royalty in Jordan" but this is a bit like saying that "Elizabeth" is "associated with royalty in England". True, but deeply uninformative. It means "happy" in both the modern sense of "happy" and in the old-fashioned sense of "fortunate, lucky". It's a very common name.

And what is his name "as used by him"?

If you want a hint, look at some of his campaign posters.

What does that even mean?

They do indeed. Now, wouldn't you say that anyone "given pause" by his name is a frickin' idiot? Someone who'd think --- "Well, I'd vote for him if he was called Joe"? Sheesh.

The word should have been maternal. His supporters protect him like a mother with a small child. He uses his first and last name, so what? His name still is Hussein, if he is ashamed of it get it legally dropped if his supporters are any guide he must be very ashamed. He is a big boy and hey is inevitable isn't he? Relax and enjoy. :)

[Texas]

"
They do indeed. Now, wouldn't you say that anyone "given pause" by his name is a frickin' idiot? Someone who'd think --- "Well, I'd vote for him if he was called Joe"? Sheesh.

No it would be that beyond the novelty of his being the first Black candidate with a Muslim 1st and 2nd name, why should they vote for a man whose only policy is to CHANGE the world and HOPE for the best.

[Texas]

"Barack" does not mean "lightning". It means "blessing". "From God" is not part of it.

.

Before I am called a liar:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_name_Barack

Barack or Barak means 'lightning' in Hebrew. The name Barak is also mentioned in the Bible in the book of Judges. Barak was part of the story of the prophetess Deborah.


Regardless of how one spells the name, it gives two possible and not contradictory meanings. One is "a blessing from God," and another is "a blessing from God that the individual may pass on to others as a benefit to them." (The second meaning is very clear in the Sufi tradition in which the searcher for Allah, or as Jesus would have called Him Alaha, receives from his or her teacher a transmission of some key to seeing what Meister Eckhard called the "divine spark" within each of us. )


If you pray to Allah you may choose to call your child Barak. If you pray to Alaha you may choose to call your child Berek. If you think you are praying to different gods or bestowing names with different meanings you may benefit from further study.

[Dr Adequate]

Before I am called a liar:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_name_Barack I am sure that's what you've been told, and that you believe it. That doesn't stop it from being a bunch of ignorant nonsense.

Let me put it this way. Only one of us is currently holding his Arabic-English dictionary, and I'll bet any money it isn't you.

[Praktik]

His name still is Hussein, if he is ashamed of it get it legally dropped if his supporters are any guide he must be very ashamed.

Hey I think you're onto something. It is very strange that "Barack" Hussein Obama leaves out his middle name like that and insists on calling himself only Barack Obama. Maybe he is ashamed of it...

...and come to think about it, I don't seem to remember seeing many Walker Bush campaign posters either... could it be that Bush also suffers from this malady?

I think you've put your finger on a current here that touches more than just Barack, er, HUssein...

It's definitely worthy of further study - these shameful feelings regarding middle names may be affecting more politicians than we suspect!

[Dr Adequate]

No it would be that beyond the novelty of his being the first Black candidate with a Muslim 1st and 2nd name, why should they vote for a man whose only policy is to CHANGE the world and HOPE for the best. I think that with careful research you will find that he has other policies.

The man has a website, you know.

[Dr Adequate]

Hey I think you're onto something. It is very strange that "Barack" Hussein Obama leaves out his middle name like that and insists on calling himself only Barack Obama. Maybe he is ashamed of it...

...and come to think about it, I don't seem to remember seeing many Walker Bush campaign posters either... could it be that Bush also suffers from this malady?

I think you've put your finger on a current here that touches more than just Barack, er, HUssein...

It's definitely worthy of further study - these shameful feelings regarding middle names may be affecting more politicians than we suspect! Aw ... I was going to do this one.

[Praktik]

I think that with careful research you will find that he has other policies.

The man has a website, you know.

No no! Don't divert the man! He has much more important research to do! How many other politicians are hiding from their middle names? What about Dale Delay?

I know he's always hiding away and calling himself simply "Tom"... why hide it?

What else could these deviants be hiding??

[Cleon]

Hey I think you're onto something. It is very strange that "Barack" Hussein Obama leaves out his middle name like that and insists on calling himself only Barack Obama. Maybe he is ashamed of it...

...and come to think about it, I don't seem to remember seeing many Walker Bush campaign posters either... could it be that Bush also suffers from this malady?

I think you've put your finger on a current here that touches more than just Barack, er, HUssein...

It's definitely worthy of further study - these shameful feelings regarding middle names may be affecting more politicians than we suspect!

In fairness, Texas has already made up his mind to vote for Sidney McCain.

[Texas]

In fairness, Texas has already made up his mind to vote for Sidney McCain.
Only against Obama, otherwise I will vote for Hillary. It's best not to assume.

[Dr Adequate]

The word should have been maternal. His supporters protect him like a mother with a small child. I think that the nearest translation of this into fact is: "His supporters feel disgust and contempt for halfwitted partisan attacks on him, as indeed do many people who don't support him but dislike the more disgusting elements of American politics."

He uses his first and last name, so what? So you tried to defend calling him "Hussein Obama" by saying that that was his name "as used by him".

His name still is Hussein ... His middle name is Hussein.

His name is not Hussein.

You know this, we know this, you know we know this ...

His name still is Hussein, if he is ashamed of it get it legally dropped if his supporters are any guide he must be very ashamed. The fact that the most malignant and stupid of his opponents are hateful about it does not imply that he or anyone else is ashamed of it.

He is a big boy and hey is inevitable isn't he? Relax and enjoy. That was kind of my plan already, but thank you, I shall.

If you would like to continue to make a fool of yourself, that will pass the time nicely.

[Texas]

I am sure that's what you've been told, and that you believe it. That doesn't stop it from being a bunch of ignorant nonsense.

Let me put it this way. Only one of us is currently holding his Arabic-English dictionary, and I'll bet any money it isn't you.

Are you also holding your Hebrew to English dictionary? Ignorance is voting for a blank slate. Ignorance is not demanding that a run of the mill politico explain to the American people exactly what he is planning to offer to Iran. Ignorance is not asking why he has promised to end the war and bring all troops home having never visited Iraq to discuss those plans with the elected government of the country. Ignorance is not asking how he is going to bring Hamas to the table when their charter already calls all negotiations a waste of time.
If Obama were running for President of the world he would win going away. His problem is that he is running for the POTUS and he has some ground to cover before that happens. Maybe he could be appointed Secretary General of the UN. That's what he appears to be running for anyway.

[CHF]

Yes, I can understand why someone would say that. Some sort of blow to the head in early infancy, for example.

Though I would be a little puzzled if he should go on to add: "Unless, of course, you're a Saudi, in which case I'm going to romp through flower-filled meadows holding hands with you."

This needs to be repeated again and again until more Bush supporters confront this sad reality.

Saudi Arabia is a vile regime where women are treated as scum, all other faiths are banned, and where wahabbism is the official state religion.

The kingdom's rulers pump millions of oil dollars into the construction of radical mosques and the preaching of wahabbism around the world - from the far east, to the streets of Europe to right here in North America - making them one of the biggest (if not the biggest) supporter of Islamic radicalism.

And what do they get for this? A hand-held tour of some flower patch by America's "war on terror" president.

It truly is stunning how so many people can remain focussed on Saddam's "contacts" with terror groups while ignoring the fact that 15 of 19 Sept 11 hijackers were Saudis. Oh and that bin Laden guy we used to be interested in? He's Saudi as well.

As for negotiating with terrorist-supporting states, the Bush administration certainly seems to have no problem with that.

They send WOT detainees to Hezbollah's backers in Syria for "interrogation," negotiated with Libya (the folks who used to blow up airplanes) over WMD programs and have held nuclear talks with North Korea.

So what can be gained from negotiating with terror-supporting dictatorships? I don't know, Republicans - you tell me.

[Dr Adequate]

Only against Obama, otherwise I will vote for Hillary. Why don't you call her Rodham? Isn't that "her name"?

[Hokulele]

Just to add some fuel to the flames, Obama did go by "Barry" when he was in high school out here. I can't imagine why the voters in Illinois weren't put off by the change back to Barack. :rolleyes:

[Dr Adequate]

Are you also holding your Hebrew to English dictionary? I was going to, just for kicks, but I can't find it right now, and why the **** should I put myself out even to annoy you? I'm right, you're wrong, bite it.

Ignorance is voting for a blank slate. Ignorance is not demanding that a run of the mill politico explain to the American people exactly what he is planning to offer to Iran. Ignorance is not asking why he has promised to end the war and bring all troops home having never visited Iraq to discuss those plans with the elected government of the country. Ignorance is not asking how he is going to bring Hamas to the table when their charter already calls all negotiations a waste of time.
If Obama were running for President of the world he would win going away. His problem is that he is running for the POTUS and he has some ground to cover before that happens. Maybe he could be appointed Secretary General of the UN. That's what he appears to be running for anyway. No. No he isn't. You should read the news more often.

[Tricky]

That is silly. Kids have taunted each others names since Cain and Able.
LOL. Maybe not the best example to use. You know how that turned out, don't you.:D
(BTW its "Abel", but that's a common mistake, and this is not an insult, just FYI.)

But yes, children do call names when they are angry. But only a few do it as a continual onslaught. The ones who do are almost invariably bullies. Eddie was one. (That was his name). There were a few others, but they were by no means the majority.

Eddie was bigger than most kids because the second grade was his fourth year in school. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he was sensitive about it and that's what made him torment littler, smarter kids.

But most kids grow out of it. I work with a lot of people, but not a single one of them behaves like Eddie did, even though my name hasn't changed. What would you think if somebody at work started using an embarassing variety of your name that was not what you called yourself? Suppose your name were Brandon Smith, and somebody decided to always call you B.S. because, after all, those are your initials, right? They're not saying anything incorrect, right? Would you be inclined to question the judgment of a person who used someone's name, something that is not their fault, to belittle them?

So you can perhaps understand that repeatedly mentioning Obama's middle name in an attempt to disparage him is not regarded as one of the actions of an intelligent adult. If you want to be regarded as an intelligent adult, I'd advise you not take this tack. You are free to ignore my advice, but it is my opinion that you are an intelligent person with whom I disagree on many issues. But you are not presenting yourself in the best light with this kind of argument.

Now flaming, that's a different thing. That's for fun, and all rules are off. I have a couple of dozen embarassing variations on "Hokulele", which, as we all know, is Hawaiian for "lava lump".;)

[Texas]

Why don't you call her Rodham? Isn't that "her name"? Why? I haven't called any other candidate by their middle name. I think you have me confused with someone else. All I have argued is that candidates have full names. Obama has, even you have to admit, an ironic middle name given the president he is trying to replace. If you think that irony is going to be missed both in the United States but in the Islamic world then you are not the intellect you appear to fancy yourself.

The WORLD, especially the Islamic world, will be orgasmic, the United States maybe not so much. Obama should be 15 points ahead given the GOP candidates age and health and national mood yet he is in a statistical tie. Keep the UN job warm for Obama he has a very tough battle ahead and he doesn't appear to like a fight.

[Dr Adequate]

Why? I haven't called any other candidate by their middle name. I think you have me confused with someone else. No, I can distinguish between you perfectly well. The Painter is The Painter, and was being a twat. You, by contrast, are Texas and are blathering out disingenuous bullcrap to defend the twat.

All I have argued is that candidates have full names. No, that is not all you have argued.

Obama has, even you have to admit, an ironic middle name given the president he is trying to replace. If you think that irony is going to be missed both in the United States but in the Islamic world then you are not the intellect you appear to fancy yourself. I guess that's why I in no way said anything of the kind.

The WORLD, especially the Islamic world, will be orgasmic, the United States maybe not so much. Obama should be 15 points ahead given the GOP candidates age and health and national mood yet he is in a statistical tie. Keep the UN job warm for Obama he has a very tough battle ahead and he doesn't appear to like a fight. Oddly enough, the first delusion on this thread involved the idea that Obama was wading into a fight unprovoked. Now apparently he's shying away from a fight ... as shown by Bush's aides saying in public: "No, no, we didn't want to start a fight" (I pharaphrase).

[CHF]

Obama has, even you have to admit, an ironic middle name given the president he is trying to replace. If you think that irony is going to be missed both in the United States but in the Islamic world then you are not the intellect you appear to fancy yourself.

The WORLD, especially the Islamic world, will be orgasmic, the United States maybe not so much.

It says a lot about the mentality of many Republicans when after eight years of Bush's train-wreck we find them betting on Obama's middle name as being what saves their party from being turfed.

Sadly, it will be a persuasive argument to a lot of, shall we say, rural folk.

[Dr Adequate]

His name still is Hussein. I haven't called any other candidate by their middle name. Pray continue with your most interesting narrative.

[Texas]

No, I can distinguish between you perfectly well. The Painter is The Painter, and was being a twat. You, by contrast, are Texas and are blathering out disingenous bullcrap to defend the twat.

No, that is not all you have argued.

I guess that's why I in no way said anything of the kind.

Oddly enough, the first delusion on this thread involved the idea that Obama was wading into a fight unprovoked. Now apparently he's shying away from a fight, as shown by Bush's aides saying in public: "No, no, we didn't want to start a fight" (I phraphrase).


You use a strange debate technique. You don't read the lines your debate opponent types. You read between those lines. I guess you think by doing that you can't lose since you can project onto the debate opponent any view that fits the view you hold of the person you are allegedly talking with. It is very odd but it does wear down the other poor slob. I should at least count myself lucky in that you haven't directly accused me of being a lying liar so I will quit while ahead.

[Dr Adequate]

You use a strange debate technique. You don't read the lines your debate opponent types. You read between those lines. I guess you think by doing that you can't lose since you can project onto the debate opponent any view that fits the view you hold of the person you are allegedly talking with. It is very odd but it does wear down the other poor slob. I should at least count myself lucky in that you haven't directly accused me of being a lying liar so I will quit while ahead. Your fantasies about me are odd, the fact that you are willing to reveal them in public is odd, your belief that you are "ahead" is odd ... but your desire to quit is perfectly reasonable. I hope that you are the happier for this wise decision.

Go forth, my child, and do something that isn't gut-wrenchingly stupid.

[Texas]

It says a lot about the mentality of many Republicans when after eight years of Bush's train-wreck we find them betting on Obama's middle name as being what saves their party from being turfed.

Sadly, it will be a persuasive argument to a lot of, shall we say, rural folk. LOL Yep the supporters of the candidate of the people strike again. Keep it up guys you are writing Mccain's campaign ads for him.

[Texas]

Go forth, my child, and do something that isn't gut-wrenchingly stupid.

Well I admit that I am not the most intelligent person in the room.

[Hokulele]

Now flaming, that's a different thing. That's for fun, and all rules are off. I have a couple of dozen embarassing variations on "Hokulele", which, as we all know, is Hawaiian for "lava lump".;)


Et tu, Tricky? At least I know how to spell "embarrassing". :p

[Tricky]

Et tu, Tricky? At least I know how to spell "embarrassing". :p
Because you NEED to know it. It probably comes up all the time in your conversations. :boxedin:

[Hokulele]

Because you NEED to know it. It probably comes up all the time in your conversations. :boxedin:


Only when I am discussing Walker Bush. :cool:

[Daylight]

Only when I am discussing Walker Bush. :cool:

Wouldn't that be Walker Bush, Texas Ranger? :D

[Hokulele]

Wouldn't that be Walker Bush, Texas Ranger? :D


Nah, he sold his share of that team years ago.

[mrbaracuda]

Mh this last page was very disappointing to read, even compared to the 2nd.

[Oliver]

Bush Godwins on Obama (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3706565#post3706565)


I think it is pretty funny that someone who invaded a sovereign country while ranting about it being a Terrorstate has the balls to critisize Hitler for invading sovereign Poland while ranting about Poland being a Bolshevik Terrorstate. :boggled:

Not to mention that the Nazis surely weren't liberals. *hint* ;)

[Praktik]

Mh this last page was very disappointing to read, even compared to the 2nd.

Ya - there was a chance for a substantive policy discussion on negotiation approaches, foreign policy approaches and the like.

And instead we get a page of arguing about "Hussein Obama".

Oh well, perhaps my hope of a more meaningful discussion was irrational in the first place. At least I had fun here on the 3rd page..;)

[Praktik]

Not to mention that the Nazis surely weren't liberals. *hint* ;)

Tell that to Jacob Goldberg...;)

[Cleon]

Only against Obama, otherwise I will vote for Hillary. It's best not to assume.

Hillary? Who's Hillary?

You must mean Diane.

[skeptical]

We have a huge and rising debt, a military stretched far too thin on a fool's errand in Iraq, a reconstituting Taliban in Afghanistan, an Iran intent on gaining nuclear weapons, an increasingly hostile Russia and an economy going down the toilet. With all this, some people's primary concern is on a candidate's middle name. Thanks to the Painter and Texas for reminding me that the length of our presidential elections are matched only by their banality.

To say that focusing on a candidate's middle name as an actual issue is beyond asinine would be an insult to other asinine issues like his favorite color of underwear and whether he puts his pants on left leg or right leg first. If five year olds could elect a President, I'm sure this would be on the top of their list of qualifications.

[EBU]

"I Barrack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear etc." I have never heard a president elect that did not incorporate his middle name into his oath of office.

When James Earl Carter was sworn in as president, he took the oath as "Jimmy Carter."

[Texas]

When James Earl Carter was sworn in as president, he took the oath as "Jimmy Carter."
Well that's Jimmy for ya. I'm surprised he didn't wear a sweater.

[corplinx]

We thought we could talk with Stalin instead of conquering him. I still think we owe eastern europe an apology for letting them be puppet states for that whole cold war era thing.

[Dr Adequate]

We thought we could talk with Stalin instead of conquering him. And possibly "we" were right, since, after all, "we" did avert World War III, but alternatively I should love to hear your plan for "conquering" the USSR. Hitler couldn't conquer Russia, Napoleon couldn't conquer Russia, but perhaps you have a more successful variety of megalomania.

[Damien Evans]

I really expected more from you. This is third rate at best. So sad

given what you're serving up is 7th rate at best, 3rd rate is looking pretty good.