Cohen Scolds McCain for Mudslinging - Page 2

Texas · 13th May 2008, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Here's another angle to consider: I speculate with some confidence that if polled, a vast majority of countries in the world -- maybe every country -- would favor Obama over McCain. Does that more or less synch with your world view? (The reasons/motivations are irrelevant to my point and I'm hoping you don't go there.)

In which case, a fuss is being made that Hamas shares the opinion of the entire world. Ye gads.

Yeah that is such a surprise. The vast majority of the world has hated every Republican President since Lincoln. The hate the world has for GWB is only matched by Ronald Reagan. When it comes to Hamas then the entire world is also insync with them regarding Israel except maybe, just maybe, the Hamas view that Israel should not exist. Are you seeing a pattern here?

KoihimeNakamura · 13th May 2008, 08:32 PM

.. that you're drawing conclusions where none exist?

Texas · 13th May 2008, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Tokorona

.. that you're drawing conclusions where none exist?

Such as? Obama is taking a decidedly European view of the world. That worldview is decidedly in sympathy with the Palestinian situation. That worldview is decidedly for diplomacy at all costs. he even describes it as "a SURGE of Diplomacy" Ain't that just precious? Obama is hitting on all cylinders with the world but unfortunately he is having a few more problems with the provincials.

Here is Obama's problem upon getting the nomination. He is going to be sitting across from a guy that is going to insist that he answer some basic questions. Like, before you surrender the field, why have you not visited Iraq since you became a Senator to talk to the Iraqi Government about your coming withdrawl if elected? McCain has been at least 5 tomes Hillary twice and there are dozens of Senators that have made the trip. They may have some questions also. He is then going to have to answer what he intends to offer the Mullahs in Iran not to take over Iraq or to build their bombs. Exactly how big are the carrots he will be offering them. He sure has no sticks. So my response was on point, Obama IS favored by the world because he thinks like them, his next task is to convince Americans that he thinks like them too. He is doing fine with the world, with the country ? Not so much just yet.

KoihimeNakamura · 13th May 2008, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Texas

Such as? Obama is taking a decidedly European view of the world. That worldview is decidedly in sympathy with the Palestinian situation. That worldview is decidedly for diplomacy at all costs. he even describes it as "a SURGE of Diplomacy" Ain't that just precious? Obama is hitting on all cylinders with the world but unfortunately he is having a few more problems with the provincials.

Okay. Let me give you a few problems with this. Has he said this? And can you quantify this?

Quote:

Here is Obama's problem upon getting the nomination. He is going to be sitting across from a guy that is going to insist that he answer some basic questions. Like, before you surrender the field, why have you not visited Iraq since you became a Senator to talk to the Iraqi Government about your coming withdrawl if elected? McCain has been at least 5 tomes Hillary twice and there are dozens of Senators that have made the trip. They may have some questions also.

As has been posted elsewhere, this isn't his view. Additionally, I believe I've said this, he is capable of reading

Quote:

He is then going to have to answer what he intends to offer the Mullahs in Iran not to take over Iraq or to build their bombs. Exactly how big are the carrots he will be offering them. He sure has no sticks. So my response was on point, Obama IS favored by the world because he thinks like them, his next task is to convince Americans that he thinks like them too. He is doing fine with the world, with the country ? Not so much just yet.

So.. he needs to tell you everything ahead of time?

Texas · 13th May 2008, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Tokorona

Okay. Let me give you a few problems with this. Has he said this? And can you quantify this?

As has been posted elsewhere, this isn't his view. Additionally, I believe I've said this, he is capable of reading

So.. he needs to tell you everything ahead of time?

Said what" "Surge of Diplomacy" yes that's on his own website.

What isn't his view? He has stated he will upon election end the war and begin immediate withdrawal. If you haven't heard it you haven't been paying attention. Yes reading about i so much better than going there and putting boots on the ground. Geeze you have low standards.

Hell yes. He is about to throw 30 years of foreign policy with Iran into the crapper and shower them with his goodness so the American public has every right to know just what the hell he is going capitulate on. In Iraq we will be able to see the results of his genius every night but it may take a few years to find out all that Iran has in store.

KoihimeNakamura · 13th May 2008, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by Texas

Said what" "Surge of Diplomacy" yes that's on his own website.

What isn't his view? He has stated he will upon election end the war and begin immediate withdrawal. If you haven't heard it you haven't been paying attention. Yes reading about i so much better than going there and putting boots on the ground. Geeze you have low standards.

Yes, but that a) takes time and b) he has stated if events happen that require troops, he'll deploy them. Of course, you can just summarize it into an convient soundbyte.

Quote:

Hell yes. He is about to throw 30 years of foreign policy with Iran into the crapper and shower them with his goodness so the American public has every right to know just what the hell he is going capitulate on. In Iraq we will be able to see the results of his genius every night but it may take a few years to find out all that Iran has in store.

Uh. .yes. Washington vis a vis ITehran has had a rather stupid policy. Secondly, the events now are probably different from election, and anyone sane knows it.

Texas · 13th May 2008, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Tokorona;3701794]Yes, but that a) takes time and b) he has stated if events happen that require troops, he'll deploy them. Of course, you can just summarize it into an convient soundbyte.

Deploy them from where. Once we boggie out there is not another friendly in the area that will have us. Stop rationalizing what he is doing. He is surrendering the damned war! If he deigns to talk to him his Generals are not going to stand still for a slow withdrawal if we are going to retreat you do it while you can still protect your troops.

Quote:

Uh. .yes. Washington vis a vis ITehran has had a rather stupid policy. Secondly, the events now are probably different from election, and anyone sane knows it

Yes poor misunderstood Mullahs. They are just waiting for the sky to open and the brilliance of Obama to shine down and only then will they stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas an they will invite Israel over for tea.

KoihimeNakamura · 13th May 2008, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Texas

Deploy them from where. Once we boggie out there is not another friendly in the area that will have us. Stop rationalizing what he is doing. He is surrendering the damned war! If he deigns to talk to him his Generals are not going to stand still for a slow withdrawal if we are going to retreat you do it while you can still protect your troops.

uhm.. Got a question for you. Israel is in the area, right? We have long range planes, right? I'm sure Iraq wouldn't mind, right?

Why am I asking such stupid questions?

Quote:

Yes poor misunderstood Mullahs. They are just waiting for the sky to open and the brilliance of Obama to shine down and only then will they stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas an they will invite Israel over for tea.

You need to tone down the sarcasm. And stop strawmanning my position.

Texas · 13th May 2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Tokorona;3701835]uhm.. Got a question for you. Israel is in the area, right? We have long range planes, right? I'm sure Iraq wouldn't mind, right?

Why am I asking such stupid questions

Ok, I will give you a not sarcastic answer. We can NEVER allow our troops to be based in Israel I don't care who the POTUS is. For one its is so small we couldn't keep enough of them there to be an effective force. More importantly Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia go ballistic. If you really want an explosion in the region the basing attack troops in Israel is just the ticket. We went out of our way in the first Gulf War to keep Israel from retaliating to Saddam's nightly Scud Attacks and they bit the bullet and absorbed the missiles for us.

Texas · 13th May 2008, 10:02 PM

One other reason is if Obama starts pressing for Ireal to sit down with Hamas against their own interests then they would probably deny permission anyway. Israel has shown in the past that they are willing to go it alone if required and even if Obama was willing to isolate them I can promise you, democratic control of Congress or not, he would be impeached.

KoihimeNakamura · 13th May 2008, 10:17 PM

Okay, the first made sense. I was actually thinking a refueling base, but there you go

As for the second, I actually don't think it'd be that bad, then again... see, as long as we sell stuff to Israel..

Texas · 13th May 2008, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Tokorona

Okay, the first made sense. I was actually thinking a refueling base, but there you go

As for the second, I actually don't think it'd be that bad, then again... see, as long as we sell stuff to Israel..

Yes and that is what worries me about Obama. I don't think he thinks it would be bad. I don't believe he understands what would happen in that region if he makes a single miscalculation with his reliance on being the world's Ambassador. Israel is on the edge of destruction every single day. They have 2 main cards to keep the wolves at bay and that is the widely held belief that they posses enough nuclear weapons to destroy a determined enemy and the perception in the region and worrld that the US would come to its aid in the case of such an attack, hence Hillary's "obliterate" comment.

If Israel becomes convinced that an Obama administration would not come to its aid or pressure it into negotiations with Hamas then it WILL act on its own. They are convinced that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and they have better regional intelligence than we do. Just like Syria and its penny-ante North Korean reactor that they bombed last year Israel will go after Iran. My concern with Obama is throughout this campaign it feels like he is playing to another audience outside of the United States and that audience is appearing more and more geared to Iran, Syria, Hamas and Europe.

Puppycow · 14th May 2008, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

DOH! This seems like a parody, but it's apparently legit and if it gets around, Obama could lose New York:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Aw, that's touching. True, if they are having any effect at all it is probably to scare off the people they call from voting for Obama. Oh well.

I seriously doubt it would be enough to lose New York.

Peretz had this, BTW:

Quote:

Judging by the latest Gallup Poll, the rewards for McCain's efforts will be slim. In a one-on-one race, Obama outperforms McCain among Jewish voters 61 percent to 32 percent--a margin that has grown by six percent over the past month. Once Jews hear more from Obama, I predict this margin will grow at a brisk clip.

BPSCG · 14th May 2008, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

If Americans were logical, yes he should be proud. But since they tend more to be xenophobic, vengeful and bigoted,

Quote:

So do you think we should abandon evolution because Hitler liked Darwinism? If not, please explain why the argument that "Obama is not a good candidate because Hamas wants him to be president," is a logical argument.

Tricky, you really need to drop this line of argument; it is way below your usual standards.

The Hitler analogy is fatally flawed, because we know why Hitler liked Darwin; he twisted Darwin's findings into something Darwin never suggested - that some races were superior to other races and therefore deserved to rule or exterminate other races as a matter of "survival of the fittest."

We don't know why Hamas prefers Obama. It could be, as you suggest, because they perceive that Obama would be the best man to broker a genuine peace between Palestinia and Israel, though the evidence that that is what Hamas wants is microscopic, at best. Or it could be because Obama is some kind of secret jihadist mole who will, as president, force Congress to cut off all aid to Israel; the evidence for that is even more microscopic. It could be because they perceive Obama as being weak, inexperienced, naive, or some combination of all three, and they'll be able to take advantage of that. It could be because Obama has been doing some kind of back-channel discussions with Hamas; as Brainster points out, he's done it before with Canada regarding NAFTA, and one of his Middle East policy advisors got caught having discussions with Hamas (and then dutifully fell on his sword when word got out). Interesting that the story about that advisor doesn't say anything about what he discussed. So what does Hamas know about Obama that the rest of us don't?

You also set up a straw man by saying the position is that "Obama is not a good candidate because Hamas wants him to be president." If you read my posts again, you'll see that I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that Hamas's endorsement should raise questions about why they prefer him.

Again, way below your usual standards.

Tricky · 14th May 2008, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

The Hitler analogy is fatally flawed, because we know why Hitler liked Darwin; he twisted Darwin's findings into something Darwin never suggested - that some races were superior to other races and therefore deserved to rule or exterminate other races as a matter of "survival of the fittest."

We don't know why Hamas prefers Obama. It could be, as you suggest, because they perceive that Obama would be the best man to broker a genuine peace between Palestinia and Israel, though the evidence that that is what Hamas wants is microscopic, at best. Or it could be because Obama is some kind of secret jihadist mole who will, as president, force Congress to cut off all aid to Israel; the evidence for that is even more microscopic. It could be because they perceive Obama as being weak, inexperienced, naive, or some combination of all three, and they'll be able to take advantage of that. It could be because Obama has been doing some kind of back-channel discussions with Hamas; as Brainster points out, he's done it before with Canada regarding NAFTA, and one of his Middle East policy advisors got caught having discussions with Hamas (and then dutifully fell on his sword when word got out). Interesting that the story about that advisor doesn't say anything about what he discussed. So what does Hamas know about Obama that the rest of us don't?

You also set up a straw man by saying the position is that "Obama is not a good candidate because Hamas wants him to be president." If you read my posts again, you'll see that I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that Hamas's endorsement should raise questions about why they prefer him.

If the position were that we should find out why Obama is preferred by Hamas, then that would all be well and good, but this is not the tone set by anybody (other than you) who I have heard make this connection. It is most definitely phrased to cast Obama in a negative light, and it does so with exactly the same logical fallacy that Ben Stein used.

If you believe that this issue is not couched to present Obama as "buddies with Hamas", then your examination of this issue is far below your usual standards.

BPSCG · 14th May 2008, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

If the position were that we should find out why Obama is preferred by Hamas, then that would all be well and good, but this is not the tone set by anybody (other than you) who I have heard make this connection. It is most definitely phrased to cast Obama in a negative light, and it does so with exactly the same logical fallacy that Ben Stein used.

Well, at least you've given up on the Hitler analogy...

If it is a logical fallacy, then Obama should expose it as such by showing how his positions on the issues are better for everyone in the Middle East, including Hamas, than McCain's, instead of whining that he's being smeared.

It looks like The Onion has also noticed that there are things you can't talk about on the campaign trail any more. There are now only four acceptable things a candidate can say:

"Thank you all for coming."
"God bless America."
"These pancakes are great."
"Death to the infidels."

Tricky · 14th May 2008, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by Texas

Yeah that is such a surprise. The vast majority of the world has hated every Republican President since Lincoln. The hate the world has for GWB is only matched by Ronald Reagan. When it comes to Hamas then the entire world is also insync with them regarding Israel except maybe, just maybe, the Hamas view that Israel should not exist. Are you seeing a pattern here?

The majority of the world hated Eisenhower? Ford? Calvin Coolidge? Theodore Roosevelt? Gosh, that's news to me.

No, Texas, the decline of the Republican party, at least in the eyes of the world, started with Nixon. (As for Ford, I think they didn't like that he pardoned Nixon, but other than that, I'm not familiar with any widespread animosity toward him.) That's not really surprising because Nixon's legacy was that he was a deeply dishonest, bigoted and paranoid man. I know a lot of people in other countries didn't like Reagan because he insisted on elevating the arms race, scaring the living bejabbers out of them. I don't think GHW Bush was that reviled, though not especially beloved either.

chipmunk stew · 14th May 2008, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

The majority of the world hated Eisenhower? Ford? Calvin Coolidge? Theodore Roosevelt? Gosh, that's news to me.

No, Texas, the decline of the Republican party, at least in the eyes of the world, started with Nixon. (As for Ford, I think they didn't like that he pardoned Nixon, but other than that, I'm not familiar with any widespread animosity toward him.) That's not really surprising because Nixon's legacy was that he was a deeply dishonest, bigoted and paranoid man. I know a lot of people in other countries didn't like Reagan because he insisted on elevating the arms race, scaring the living bejabbers out of them. I don't think GHW Bush was that reviled, though not especially beloved either.

Junior was positively adored by much of the world before he invaded Iraq.

13th May 2008, 08:28 PM	#41
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by varwoche Here's another angle to consider: I speculate with some confidence that if polled, a vast majority of countries in the world -- maybe every country -- would favor Obama over McCain. Does that more or less synch with your world view? (The reasons/motivations are irrelevant to my point and I'm hoping you don't go there.) In which case, a fuss is being made that Hamas shares the opinion of the entire world. Ye gads. Yeah that is such a surprise. The vast majority of the world has hated every Republican President since Lincoln. The hate the world has for GWB is only matched by Ronald Reagan. When it comes to Hamas then the entire world is also insync with them regarding Israel except maybe, just maybe, the Hamas view that Israel should not exist. Are you seeing a pattern here?
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

13th May 2008, 08:32 PM	#42
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,856	.. that you're drawing conclusions where none exist?
	__________________ Don't mind me.

13th May 2008, 08:57 PM	#43
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by Tokorona .. that you're drawing conclusions where none exist? Such as? Obama is taking a decidedly European view of the world. That worldview is decidedly in sympathy with the Palestinian situation. That worldview is decidedly for diplomacy at all costs. he even describes it as "a SURGE of Diplomacy" Ain't that just precious? Obama is hitting on all cylinders with the world but unfortunately he is having a few more problems with the provincials. Here is Obama's problem upon getting the nomination. He is going to be sitting across from a guy that is going to insist that he answer some basic questions. Like, before you surrender the field, why have you not visited Iraq since you became a Senator to talk to the Iraqi Government about your coming withdrawl if elected? McCain has been at least 5 tomes Hillary twice and there are dozens of Senators that have made the trip. They may have some questions also. He is then going to have to answer what he intends to offer the Mullahs in Iran not to take over Iraq or to build their bombs. Exactly how big are the carrots he will be offering them. He sure has no sticks. So my response was on point, Obama IS favored by the world because he thinks like them, his next task is to convince Americans that he thinks like them too. He is doing fine with the world, with the country ? Not so much just yet.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

13th May 2008, 09:15 PM	#44
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,856	Originally Posted by Texas Such as? Obama is taking a decidedly European view of the world. That worldview is decidedly in sympathy with the Palestinian situation. That worldview is decidedly for diplomacy at all costs. he even describes it as "a SURGE of Diplomacy" Ain't that just precious? Obama is hitting on all cylinders with the world but unfortunately he is having a few more problems with the provincials. Okay. Let me give you a few problems with this. Has he said this? And can you quantify this? Quote: Here is Obama's problem upon getting the nomination. He is going to be sitting across from a guy that is going to insist that he answer some basic questions. Like, before you surrender the field, why have you not visited Iraq since you became a Senator to talk to the Iraqi Government about your coming withdrawl if elected? McCain has been at least 5 tomes Hillary twice and there are dozens of Senators that have made the trip. They may have some questions also. As has been posted elsewhere, this isn't his view. Additionally, I believe I've said this, he is capable of reading Quote: He is then going to have to answer what he intends to offer the Mullahs in Iran not to take over Iraq or to build their bombs. Exactly how big are the carrots he will be offering them. He sure has no sticks. So my response was on point, Obama IS favored by the world because he thinks like them, his next task is to convince Americans that he thinks like them too. He is doing fine with the world, with the country ? Not so much just yet. So.. he needs to tell you everything ahead of time?
	__________________ Don't mind me.

13th May 2008, 09:25 PM	#45
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by Tokorona Okay. Let me give you a few problems with this. Has he said this? And can you quantify this? As has been posted elsewhere, this isn't his view. Additionally, I believe I've said this, he is capable of reading So.. he needs to tell you everything ahead of time? Said what" "Surge of Diplomacy" yes that's on his own website. What isn't his view? He has stated he will upon election end the war and begin immediate withdrawal. If you haven't heard it you haven't been paying attention. Yes reading about i so much better than going there and putting boots on the ground. Geeze you have low standards. Hell yes. He is about to throw 30 years of foreign policy with Iran into the crapper and shower them with his goodness so the American public has every right to know just what the hell he is going capitulate on. In Iraq we will be able to see the results of his genius every night but it may take a few years to find out all that Iran has in store.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

13th May 2008, 09:30 PM	#46
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,856	Originally Posted by Texas Said what" "Surge of Diplomacy" yes that's on his own website. What isn't his view? He has stated he will upon election end the war and begin immediate withdrawal. If you haven't heard it you haven't been paying attention. Yes reading about i so much better than going there and putting boots on the ground. Geeze you have low standards. Yes, but that a) takes time and b) he has stated if events happen that require troops, he'll deploy them. Of course, you can just summarize it into an convient soundbyte. Quote: Hell yes. He is about to throw 30 years of foreign policy with Iran into the crapper and shower them with his goodness so the American public has every right to know just what the hell he is going capitulate on. In Iraq we will be able to see the results of his genius every night but it may take a few years to find out all that Iran has in store. Uh. .yes. Washington vis a vis ITehran has had a rather stupid policy. Secondly, the events now are probably different from election, and anyone sane knows it.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

13th May 2008, 09:40 PM	#47
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Quote: Tokorona;3701794]Yes, but that a) takes time and b) he has stated if events happen that require troops, he'll deploy them. Of course, you can just summarize it into an convient soundbyte. Deploy them from where. Once we boggie out there is not another friendly in the area that will have us. Stop rationalizing what he is doing. He is surrendering the damned war! If he deigns to talk to him his Generals are not going to stand still for a slow withdrawal if we are going to retreat you do it while you can still protect your troops. Quote: Uh. .yes. Washington vis a vis ITehran has had a rather stupid policy. Secondly, the events now are probably different from election, and anyone sane knows it Yes poor misunderstood Mullahs. They are just waiting for the sky to open and the brilliance of Obama to shine down and only then will they stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas an they will invite Israel over for tea.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

13th May 2008, 09:45 PM	#48
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,856	Originally Posted by Texas Deploy them from where. Once we boggie out there is not another friendly in the area that will have us. Stop rationalizing what he is doing. He is surrendering the damned war! If he deigns to talk to him his Generals are not going to stand still for a slow withdrawal if we are going to retreat you do it while you can still protect your troops. uhm.. Got a question for you. Israel is in the area, right? We have long range planes, right? I'm sure Iraq wouldn't mind, right? Why am I asking such stupid questions? Quote: Yes poor misunderstood Mullahs. They are just waiting for the sky to open and the brilliance of Obama to shine down and only then will they stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas an they will invite Israel over for tea. You need to tone down the sarcasm. And stop strawmanning my position.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

13th May 2008, 09:55 PM	#49
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Quote: Tokorona;3701835]uhm.. Got a question for you. Israel is in the area, right? We have long range planes, right? I'm sure Iraq wouldn't mind, right? Why am I asking such stupid questions Ok, I will give you a not sarcastic answer. We can NEVER allow our troops to be based in Israel I don't care who the POTUS is. For one its is so small we couldn't keep enough of them there to be an effective force. More importantly Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia go ballistic. If you really want an explosion in the region the basing attack troops in Israel is just the ticket. We went out of our way in the first Gulf War to keep Israel from retaliating to Saddam's nightly Scud Attacks and they bit the bullet and absorbed the missiles for us.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Last edited by Texas; 13th May 2008 at 09:56 PM. Reason: atrocious spelling

13th May 2008, 10:02 PM	#50
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	One other reason is if Obama starts pressing for Ireal to sit down with Hamas against their own interests then they would probably deny permission anyway. Israel has shown in the past that they are willing to go it alone if required and even if Obama was willing to isolate them I can promise you, democratic control of Congress or not, he would be impeached.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

13th May 2008, 10:17 PM	#51
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,856	Okay, the first made sense. I was actually thinking a refueling base, but there you go As for the second, I actually don't think it'd be that bad, then again... see, as long as we sell stuff to Israel..
	__________________ Don't mind me.

13th May 2008, 10:55 PM	#52
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by Tokorona Okay, the first made sense. I was actually thinking a refueling base, but there you go As for the second, I actually don't think it'd be that bad, then again... see, as long as we sell stuff to Israel.. Yes and that is what worries me about Obama. I don't think he thinks it would be bad. I don't believe he understands what would happen in that region if he makes a single miscalculation with his reliance on being the world's Ambassador. Israel is on the edge of destruction every single day. They have 2 main cards to keep the wolves at bay and that is the widely held belief that they posses enough nuclear weapons to destroy a determined enemy and the perception in the region and worrld that the US would come to its aid in the case of such an attack, hence Hillary's "obliterate" comment. If Israel becomes convinced that an Obama administration would not come to its aid or pressure it into negotiations with Hamas then it WILL act on its own. They are convinced that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and they have better regional intelligence than we do. Just like Syria and its penny-ante North Korean reactor that they bombed last year Israel will go after Iran. My concern with Obama is throughout this campaign it feels like he is playing to another audience outside of the United States and that audience is appearing more and more geared to Iran, Syria, Hamas and Europe.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

14th May 2008, 04:56 AM	#54
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Tricky If Americans were logical, yes he should be proud. But since they tend more to be xenophobic, vengeful and bigoted, Quote: So do you think we should abandon evolution because Hitler liked Darwinism? If not, please explain why the argument that "Obama is not a good candidate because Hamas wants him to be president," is a logical argument. Tricky, you really need to drop this line of argument; it is *way* below your usual standards. The Hitler analogy is fatally flawed, because we know why Hitler liked Darwin; he twisted Darwin's findings into something Darwin never suggested - that some races were superior to other races and therefore deserved to rule or exterminate other races as a matter of "survival of the fittest." We *don't* know why Hamas prefers Obama. It could be, as you suggest, because they perceive that Obama would be the best man to broker a genuine peace between Palestinia and Israel, though the evidence that that is what Hamas wants is microscopic, at best. Or it could be because Obama is some kind of secret jihadist mole who will, as president, force Congress to cut off all aid to Israel; the evidence for that is even more microscopic. It could be because they perceive Obama as being weak, inexperienced, naive, or some combination of all three, and they'll be able to take advantage of that. It could be because Obama has been doing some kind of back-channel discussions with Hamas; as Brainster points out, he's done it before with Canada regarding NAFTA, and one of his Middle East policy advisors got caught having discussions with Hamas (and then dutifully fell on his sword when word got out). Interesting that the story about that advisor doesn't say anything about what he discussed. So what does Hamas know about Obama that the rest of us don't? You also set up a straw man by saying the position is that "Obama is not a good candidate because Hamas wants him to be president." If you read my posts again, you'll see that I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that Hamas's endorsement should raise questions about why they prefer him. Again, way below your usual standards.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

14th May 2008, 05:22 AM	#55
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,362	Originally Posted by BPSCG The Hitler analogy is fatally flawed, because we know why Hitler liked Darwin; he twisted Darwin's findings into something Darwin never suggested - that some races were superior to other races and therefore deserved to rule or exterminate other races as a matter of "survival of the fittest." We *don't* know why Hamas prefers Obama. It could be, as you suggest, because they perceive that Obama would be the best man to broker a genuine peace between Palestinia and Israel, though the evidence that that is what Hamas wants is microscopic, at best. Or it could be because Obama is some kind of secret jihadist mole who will, as president, force Congress to cut off all aid to Israel; the evidence for that is even more microscopic. It could be because they perceive Obama as being weak, inexperienced, naive, or some combination of all three, and they'll be able to take advantage of that. It could be because Obama has been doing some kind of back-channel discussions with Hamas; as Brainster points out, he's done it before with Canada regarding NAFTA, and one of his Middle East policy advisors got caught having discussions with Hamas (and then dutifully fell on his sword when word got out). Interesting that the story about that advisor doesn't say anything about what he discussed. So what does Hamas know about Obama that the rest of us don't? You also set up a straw man by saying the position is that "Obama is not a good candidate because Hamas wants him to be president." If you read my posts again, you'll see that I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that Hamas's endorsement should raise questions about why they prefer him. If the position were that we should find out why Obama is preferred by Hamas, then that would all be well and good, but this is not the tone set by anybody (other than you) who I have heard make this connection. It is most definitely phrased to cast Obama in a negative light, and it does so with exactly the same logical fallacy that Ben Stein used. If you believe that this issue is not couched to present Obama as "buddies with Hamas", then your examination of this issue is far below your usual standards.

14th May 2008, 05:57 AM	#56
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Tricky If the position were that we should find out why Obama is preferred by Hamas, then that would all be well and good, but this is not the tone set by anybody (other than you) who I have heard make this connection. It is most definitely phrased to cast Obama in a negative light, and it does so with exactly the same logical fallacy that Ben Stein used. Well, at least you've given up on the Hitler analogy... If it is a logical fallacy, then Obama should expose it as such by showing how his positions on the issues are better for everyone in the Middle East, including Hamas, than McCain's, instead of whining that he's being smeared. It looks like The Onion has also noticed that there are things you can't talk about on the campaign trail any more. There are now only four acceptable things a candidate can say: "Thank you all for coming." "God bless America." "These pancakes are great." "Death to the infidels."
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

14th May 2008, 07:22 AM	#57
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,362	Originally Posted by Texas Yeah that is such a surprise. The vast majority of the world has hated every Republican President since Lincoln. The hate the world has for GWB is only matched by Ronald Reagan. When it comes to Hamas then the entire world is also insync with them regarding Israel except maybe, just maybe, the Hamas view that Israel should not exist. Are you seeing a pattern here? The majority of the world hated Eisenhower? Ford? Calvin Coolidge? Theodore Roosevelt? Gosh, that's news to me. No, Texas, the decline of the Republican party, at least in the eyes of the world, started with Nixon. (As for Ford, I think they didn't like that he pardoned Nixon, but other than that, I'm not familiar with any widespread animosity toward him.) That's not really surprising because Nixon's legacy was that he was a deeply dishonest, bigoted and paranoid man. I know a lot of people in other countries didn't like Reagan because he insisted on elevating the arms race, scaring the living bejabbers out of them. I don't think GHW Bush was that reviled, though not especially beloved either.

14th May 2008, 10:06 AM	#58
chipmunk stew The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: SE PA Posts: 7,465	Originally Posted by Tricky The majority of the world hated Eisenhower? Ford? Calvin Coolidge? Theodore Roosevelt? Gosh, that's news to me. No, Texas, the decline of the Republican party, at least in the eyes of the world, started with Nixon. (As for Ford, I think they didn't like that he pardoned Nixon, but other than that, I'm not familiar with any widespread animosity toward him.) That's not really surprising because Nixon's legacy was that he was a deeply dishonest, bigoted and paranoid man. I know a lot of people in other countries didn't like Reagan because he insisted on elevating the arms race, scaring the living bejabbers out of them. I don't think GHW Bush was that reviled, though not especially beloved either. Junior was positively adored by much of the world before he invaded Iraq.
	__________________