Is Barack Obama an Idiot?

[Deadeye]

Quote by: oades11 Is that what you consider the proper criterion for whether or not war is justified? Whether an individual in this country, in and of themselves, has been adversely affected? You're unbelievably shortsighted. This is about far more than whether my life has been affected by the war in Iraq- but if that were my only reason to object to it, not only that would be terribly selfish of me, but it would also show how little I know about international relations. I have a few friends over there. And they have close friends who've died. That's a personal enough view for me to see that the cost of this war isn't worth whatever alleged benefit there might be, notwithstanding the major issues I have with preemption as a foreign policy measure in a country that posed no real threat to us. It is evident now that the reasons to invade Iraq were political, for a regime change and to secure Iraqi oil contracts for Big Business. Deals with Iraq are set to bring oil giants back - International Herald Tribune How can you justify sending four thousand Americans to their deaths for this? An illegal war?

I thought that as I read the first part of you post that I was going to read a thoughtful perceptive evaluation of the Iraq War. But when I got to the end I realized that you are just another Bush hater.

[Morality Games]

Let's see......inexperienced doctors are better than experienced ones? Noooooo.

Referencing a field (medicine) where it is impossible for inexperience to function anywhere near as well as rationality and good counsel doesn't make me look bad. It makes you look dishonest. The processes and procedures of the medical and political domains are incomparable -- rationality and good counsel can save a politican from making bad decisions, but rationality and good counsel cannot prevent a non-doctor from screwing up during brain surgery. Pick up some books on these topics before talking to me again.

How about inexperienced engineers are better than experienced ones?....usually not.

Same. No amount of rationality and good counsel can make up for experience in that field.

How bout fighter pilots? inexperienced ones are better than experienced ones? Definitely not.

The dishonesty continues. Same.

All your examples portray men dealing with crafts -- machinery and organic variants like the human body (aka, doctors). In short, technics. Politics isn't a craft. It doesn't deal with technics. It is more psychological and logical than technical. Rationality and good counsel can help a person deal with psychological and logical matters, but rationality and good counsel cannot help a person deal with technics.

I'll tell you want, you simpleton.......what we learn and what we know from what we learn is maybe the most important thing in our lives.

That doesn't even deserve a condescending, sarcastic response, and it doesn't relate to my point, which is that a fine intellect and good advice can make up for where experience is lacking.

Obama doesn't know jack shit.

I've started a convincing case that you don't know "jack shit".

Can he learn? Yes he can. Do we want him to learn while he is our president? Absolutely NOT.

An experienced politician might know 'instinctively' what choices from among many are the most appropriate ones when implementing their policies.

An inexperienced one would lack that automatic response, but if they are rational they would be able to make up for it with critical assessments of their options. Might take somewhat longer, but they would be able to reduce the number of potential decisions down to the same number as an experienced politican. An additional help would be good counsel, from cabinet members who do have that the 'instinct' which can only be gained through experience.

So you want him to rely on skilled advisors? Well, better good advisors than bad, but the president leads.....got that? He LEADS. Without a strong personal sense of the American role in the World and in history a president just waffles. JFK is a classic example. A nice fellow who had no idea of what he was doing.

Obama has shown the public he has the charisma to lead -- well enough to defeat a better established, senior politician in primary season, anyway. He has also demonstrated he has the intellect, as he has been able to use it to get out of some tough spots and make use of technology to better his political position. If leading well means being in control of an organization that is winning, he is leading well.

There is no reason for me to take you on your word with JFK either, since historical consensus basically amounts to, "He delivered less than he said he would, but did delivered more than his critics claimed he could, and ultimately achieved some lasting, beneficial accomplishments." That is more than many other 'experienced' presidents can claim.

It's too dangerous to elect a relative political, foreign policy infant as our leader at this time. As a matter of fact, It has never been so.

Well, prove it. Plenty of senior politicians have publically endorsed him. What makes you word better than theirs? Or to hold you to your own mistaken conceptions, what political experiences of yours make you a better judge than the experienced politicians themselves?

Similar arguments can be made against taking a career soldiers straight from the army and into the White House -- success in wars does not translate into domestic and foreign policy success, but that didn't prevent them from using reason. Eisenhower was an effective president in spite of his unfamilarity with and wariness of politcs.

[xyzer]

Surely you jest oades?

have a few friends over there. And they have close friends who've died. That's a personal enough view for me to see that the cost of this war isn't worth whatever alleged benefit there might be, notwithstanding the major issues I have with preemption as a foreign policy measure in a country that posed no real threat to us.

The death of a friend of a friend, of a friend has really impacted you? In your fertile imagination? In the absence of fantasies and indirect relationships answer the question? Are you sure you haven't been influenced by the critical media and political leftists?

Right on morality games..inexperienced doctors who have never even practiced are a sure bet for excellence!

Sure Obama can learn and already has. He has transparently changed his position on the war and "surge" several times? How could that posibly happen when he was as well informed, experienced and brilliant as many suggest? Could it be that he was somehow involved in directing the police in South Chicago in their armed conflict wih criminals?

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Morality Games Referencing a field (medicine) where it is impossible for inexperience to function anywhere near as well as rationality and good counsel doesn't make me look bad. It makes you look dishonest. The processes and procedures of the medical and political domains are incomparable -- rationality and good counsel can save a politican from making bad decisions, but rationality and good counsel cannot prevent a non-doctor from screwing up during brain surgery. Pick up some books on these topics before talking to me again. Same. No amount of rationality and good counsel can make up for experience in that field. The dishonesty continues. Same. All your examples portray men dealing with crafts -- machinery and organic variants like the human body (aka, doctors). In short, technics. Politics isn't a craft. It doesn't deal with technics. It is more psychological and logical than technical. Rationality and good counsel can help a person deal with psychological and logical matters, but rationality and good counsel cannot help a person deal with technics. That doesn't even deserve a condescending, sarcastic response, and it doesn't relate to my point, which is that a fine intellect and good advice can make up for where experience is lacking. I've started a convincing case that you don't know "jack shit". An experienced politician might know 'instinctively' what choices from among many are the most appropriate ones when implementing their policies. An inexperienced one would lack that automatic response, but if they are rational they would be able to make up for it with critical assessments of their options. Might take somewhat longer, but they would be able to reduce the number of potential decisions down to the same number as an experienced politican. An additional help would be good counsel, from cabinet members who do have that the 'instinct' which can only be gained through experience. Obama has shown the public he has the charisma to lead -- well enough to defeat a better established, senior politician in primary season, anyway. He has also demonstrated he has the intellect, as he has been able to use it to get out of some tough spots and make use of technology to better his political position. If leading well means being in control of an organization that is winning, he is leading well. There is no reason for me to take you on your word with JFK either, since historical consensus basically amounts to, "He delivered less than he said he would, but did delivered more than his critics claimed he could, and ultimately achieved some lasting, beneficial accomplishments." That is more than many other 'experienced' presidents can claim. Well, prove it. Plenty of senior politicians have publically endorsed him. What makes you word better than theirs? Or to hold you to your own mistaken conceptions, what political experiences of yours make you a better judge than the experienced politicians themselves? Similar arguments can be made against taking a career soldiers straight from the army and into the White House -- success in wars does not translate into domestic and foreign policy success, but that didn't prevent them from using reason. Eisenhower was an effective president in spite of his unfamilarity with and wariness of politcs.

You can knock me over with a feather! I cannot believe what I'm reading! You are obviously an articulate, educated, thoughtful person and you are arguing that it's better to be inexperienced than it is to be experienced.

Through experience one learns from one's mistakes. Learning is good. You want Obama who is totally inexperienced to make his mistakes as president. Kennedy did the same thing, hoping that the Soviets would take it easy upon him. As a matter of fact Jack said exactly those words to Nikita Kruschev. "Take it easy on me will ya?" He asked of the belligerent boisterous gnome. He did too. He sent missiles to Cuba.

We cannot afford to put an inexperienced man in the Oval Office and allow him to learn from the mistakes that he most surely will commit.

Malike is playing Obama like a fiddle now. Didn't you hear it?

Obama is a bright guy, so he must know his weaknesses. Why then does he want to foist them upon us? Maybe his ego and arrogance has overwhelmed his judgement. If that's the case then we'd be better off with dottering old McCain....least he's been around the block a few times. McCain would look Malike, and those like him, in the eye and they'd know that they are dealing with a grizzled, and hardened "I been there" kind of guy, who isn't going to take their BS. Obama's eyes are the eyes of a child. Open, yearning, innocent, and fallible. Our enemies can't wait for us to elect Obama. They shutter to think about facing McCain.

[xyzer]

By the way I remember somewhere in Obamas responses to reporters yesterday he stated in effect regardless of what the generals(on the scene) said... it was up to the president(by implication) that is president Obama, to make his own decisions on the war and occupation??
Isn't this a rather reckless, uninformed statement? It seems to me this was part of the prescription for the drawn out Vietnam war and occupation. President Johnson and his Defense Sec McNamara,did the same things. Pushing politics and "armchair" generalship in to override what the tacticians on the scene felt was the best way to fight the war.(e.g. Don't bomb Hanoi!) This was a decision that prolonged the war and resulted in more casualties.

I think it pays us all, particularly the troops who do the dying, to pay attention to what this demagogue is saying. And what he said a while back that the "surge" wouldn't work? Just think if he had been president when the the surge was approved, it wouuldn't have happened?

[Deadeye]

Quote by: xyzer By the way I remember somewhere in Obamas responses to reporters yesterday he stated in effect regardless of what the generals(on the scene) said... it was up to the president(by implication) that is president Obama, to make his own decisions on the war and occupation?? Isn't this a rather reckless, uninformed statement? It seems to me this was part of the prescription for the drawn out Vietnam war and occupation. President Johnson and his Defense Sec McNamara,did the same things. Pushing politics and "armchair" generalship in to override what the tacticians on the scene felt was the best way to fight the war.(e.g. Don't bomb Hanoi!) This was a decision that prolonged the war and resulted in more casualties. I think it pays us all, particularly the troops who do the dying, to pay attention to what this demagogue is saying. And what he said a while back that the "surge" wouldn't work? Just think if he had been president when the the surge was approved, it wouuldn't have happened?

How right you are!

Bush, to his credit has said all along he'd leave the fighting of the war up to the generals. They are, after all, skilled, experienced and trained to fight wars. Presidents are not...usually; Ike being an exception.

Obama somehow thinks he knows more about fighting wars than do the generals. This is scary, because it shows a degree of ignorance and lack of understanding that should give us pause.

Indeed JFK and Mcnameria didn't have a clue how to fight a war. Their failures as military leaders helped to orchestrate our defeat in Viet Nam. They sat around a big map in the Oval Office as if playing a giant game of "Risk". They should have been playing the real game and have allowed the generals and admirals in the Pentagon to fight the war.

Trumen gave us a viable North Korea, LBJ gave us a communist Viet Nam, JFK gave us a communist Cuba that has spread somewhat into South America, Obama is working to give the terrorists and Iran a strong foothold in the Mid-East. Fact is Democrats surrender and Republicans fight. If Obama takes over the Oval Office the long term effects would likely be like those of his infamous Democrat forefathers, and with similar dastardly results.

[Brian]

Quote by: Deadeye You can knock me over with a feather! I cannot believe what I'm reading! You are obviously an articulate, educated, thoughtful person and you are arguing that it's better to be inexperienced than it is to be experienced. Through experience one learns from one's mistakes. Learning is good. You want Obama who is totally inexperienced to make his mistakes as president. Kennedy did the same thing, hoping that the Soviets would take it easy upon him. As a matter of fact Jack said exactly those words to Nikita Kruschev. "Take it easy on me will ya?" He asked of the belligerent boisterous gnome. He did too. He sent missiles to Cuba. We cannot afford to put an inexperienced man in the Oval Office and allow him to learn from the mistakes that he most surely will commit. Malike is playing Obama like a fiddle now. Didn't you hear it? Obama is a bright guy, so he must know his weaknesses. Why then does he want to foist them upon us? Maybe his ego and arrogance has overwhelmed his judgement. If that's the case then we'd be better off with dottering old McCain....least he's been around the block a few times. McCain would look Malike, and those like him, in the eye and they'd know that they are dealing with a grizzled, and hardened "I been there" kind of guy, who isn't going to take their BS. Obama's eyes are the eyes of a child. Open, yearning, innocent, and fallible. Our enemies can't wait for us to elect Obama. They shutter to think about facing McCain.

I agree, however running this country is a lot more than perception. We cannot hope other foreign countries are frightened by the perception of McCain and just vote for him over Obama for that reason.

[oades11]

Quote by: Deadeye I would like for you to list all of the times that inexperience has benefitted over experience. Let's see......inexperienced doctors are better than experienced ones? Noooooo. How about inexperienced engineers are better than experienced ones?....usually not. How bout fighter pilots? inexperienced ones are better than experienced ones? Definitely not. I'll tell you want, you simpleton.......what we learn and what we know from what we learn is maybe the most important thing in our lives. Obama doesn't know jack shit. Can he learn? Yes he can. Do we want him to learn while he is our president? Absolutely NOT. So you want him to rely on skilled advisors? Well, better good advisors than bad, but the president leads.....got that? He LEADS. Without a strong personal sense of the American role in the World and in history a president just waffles. JFK is a classic example. A nice fellow who had no idea of what he was doing. It's too dangerous to elect a relative political, foreign policy infant as our leader at this time. As a matter of fact, It has never been so.

According to your flawed logic, we should have Presidents with no term limits so that they would grow more and more experienced each successive term. The only qualified Presidents are previous Presidents, right? After all, the position of President of the United States is in fact so unique that the only way to have experience in such a position is to have been in that position before. Because of course, we don't want a President to learn while he is in office! That would be the beginning of Armageddon, since it's obvious that one can only learn when one has made mistakes at others' expense.



If your arguments had any merit whatsoever, you wouldn't have ignored the likes of Abraham Lincoln, who, like Obama, had only one term in Congress under his belt before ran for President. Your criticisms of JFK are silly at best and not very substantial.

[oades11]

Quote by: xyzer Surely you jest oades? The death of a friend of a friend, of a friend has really impacted you? In your fertile imagination? In the absence of fantasies and indirect relationships answer the question? Are you sure you haven't been influenced by the critical media and political leftists? Right on morality games..inexperienced doctors who have never even practiced are a sure bet for excellence! Sure Obama can learn and already has. He has transparently changed his position on the war and "surge" several times? How could that posibly happen when he was as well informed, experienced and brilliant as many suggest? Could it be that he was somehow involved in directing the police in South Chicago in their armed conflict wih criminals?

You accuse me of ignoring the point, and when I address it, you ignore mine. Stop babbling vague nonsense. If you are going to argue that Obama was directing the police, provide a source to substantiate such an assertion or incline yourself to silence.

Quote by: me Is that what you consider the proper criterion for whether or not war is justified? Whether an individual in this country, in and of themselves, has been adversely affected?

Can you not avoid the question this time? When is War justified? Do you deny taht this war is for regime change and to secure oil contracts?

[Nono]

xyzer, ol' pal, it ain't a question of me "believing Ariana" whatshername. She is merely stating an opinion that is already mine.

And if you were gullible enough to fall for that stinking load of Swift Boat Vet Geschichtsverfälschung, my sympathies.

[Nono]

Quote by: maximde I'm sure all the Americans who died at Anzio and the rest of the hellish American campaign in Italy would be glad to hear that Italy was hardly a factor.

Don't twist my words, max. You know perfectly well what I meant by "factor". Shame on you.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Brian I agree, however running this country is a lot more than perception. We cannot hope other foreign countries are frightened by the perception of McCain and just vote for him over Obama for that reason.

The president does not "run the country". Far from it. Congress passes the laws and enacts taxation and spending bills. The president is the commander and chief. He does rule over the military, but to think that those savy generals are going to roll over for a president means that one does not understand what makes a general a general...or admiral an admiral.

Furthermore we do not want a president who "runs the country". God just think what we'd have now if Clinton "ran the country"!

As for the attitudes of Europeans....well, if they aline with what's in our interests I'm all for them, but if their ideas don't; then screw them.

[Clarence]

obama speaks in berlin tomorrow

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080724/...ama_germany_dc

BERLIN (Reuters) - Presidential candidate Barack Obama travels to Berlin on Thursday to give the only public speech of a week-long foreign tour, an outdoor address on transatlantic ties that is likely to draw tens of thousands. ADVERTISEMENT Highly popular in Germany, where he is often likened to former President John F. Kennedy, the Democratic senator will also meet for the first time Chancellor Angela Merkel, who opposed his initial plan to speak at the Brandenburg Gate.

what's wrong with the Brandenburg Gate? Why did Obama want to speak there anyhow?

Relations between the United States and Germany reached a post-war low under Merkel's predecessor Gerhard Schroeder, who strongly opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. But the conservative Merkel, who grew up behind the Wall in the communist East, has worked hard to repair ties and emerged as one of President George W. Bush's closest allies in Europe.

[xyzer]

Nono..

xyzer, ol' pal, it ain't a question of me "believing Ariana" whatshername. She is merely stating an opinion that is already mine. And if you were gullible enough to fall for that stinking load of Swift Boat Vet Geschichtsverfälschung, my sympathies.

Hey buddy mine, did or did not Huffy change your mind? Or did it reenforce your lack of actual knowledge of the war? I was there albeit way up north in the Danang TAOR. Doesn't make me an expert but did inform me enough to know that the Demiocrat political aspirant was a liar.

Though none of the SwiftBoaters were called to testify under oath neither was Kerry when he,and they, spoke out at election time. He had lied to Congress right after the war about his travels and about the so called atrocities that he couldn't have observed in his months ashore on a Swift Boat and on the waterways of South Vietnem. The good Senator and Democrat hopeful was an unmitigated liar, even under oath? You can imagine how wild his unsworn stories were? Kerrys war experience was from a few months of river crusing in a 30 or so foot boat?

Now we have another candidate Obama, who lies and distorts as well as changing his stories when confronted? A man completely without any leadership experience and devoid on knowledge on how the military operates telling us that he wont pay attention to the generals on the scene but will make his own decisions ...thus my aspersion about the police forces in South Chicago being his only experience i the strategies and tactics of armed combat?

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Clarence obama speaks in berlin tomorrow Obama to press Europe on security in Berlin - Yahoo! News what's wrong with the Brandenburg Gate? Why did Obama want to speak there anyhow?

Obama didn't want to pull off a similar "phoo paw" that Reagan committed when he spoke at a German cemetery where some Nazi's were buried.

The Brandenburg Gate was built to comemorate German victores over the French in the latter part of the 19th Century. So the gate salutes aggression.

So Obama's handlers didn't have the stones to have their boy speak there.

[Clarence]

rhetoric

why did he want to speak there in the first place, I wonder?

Obama and German leader discuss war and economics - Yahoo! News

BERLIN - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel discussed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as climate and energy issues at Germany's chancellery Thursday, part of a tour aimed at lifting the first-term senator's international standing.

Quote by: Deadeye The Brandenburg Gate was built to comemorate German victores over the French in the latter part of the 19th Century. So the gate salutes aggression.

Perhaps you might want to reconsider your "history" of the Brandenburg Gate. It was built in 1791 not a century later "in the latter part of the 19th century" and it was built as a sign of peace not to "comemorate German victores over the French" (sic). See Brandenburg Gate and The Brandenburg Gate.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: sdbest Perhaps you might want to reconsider your "history" of the Brandenburg Gate. It was built in 1791 not a century later "in the latter part of the 19th century" and it was built as a sign of peace not to "comemorate German victores over the French" (sic). See Brandenburg Gate and The Brandenburg Gate.

Thank you for the heads up. I heard what I wrote on the news last night. So I was wrong. Again thanks.

But does it make the theme of my post incorrect too? I think not.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Deadeye The president does not "run the country". Far from it. Congress passes the laws and enacts taxation and spending bills. The president is the commander and chief. He does rule over the military, but to think that those savy generals are going to roll over for a president means that one does not understand what makes a general a general...or admiral an admiral. Furthermore we do not want a president who "runs the country". God just think what we'd have now if Clinton "ran the country"! As for the attitudes of Europeans....well, if they aline with what's in our interests I'm all for them, but if their ideas don't; then screw them.

The Presidency goes beyond being commander-and-chief. He is the chief executive, and as such (through the power of veto especially) enjoys considerable power over congressional affairs.

As chief executive, he also has the authority (with the "advice and consent of the Senate") to make important judicial and ambassadorial appointments. The Senate can thwart his ambitions, but normally the President gets his way.

Commander-and-chief, while important, is only one capacity in which the president serves. He is the leader of the country, it is just a question if he is nominally the leader or truly the leader.

Also, Bill Clinton was a fine president. Disappointing he had to spend so much of his second term jousting with Congress.

[Clarence]

I heard what I wrote on the news last night

out of curiosity, which news source?