I have been lost in the cyber wilderness as of late. It is good to see that Mr. Town and Mr. Galt are still going at it somewhere.
I have been lost in the cyber wilderness as of late. It is good to see that Mr. Town and Mr. Galt are still going at it somewhere.
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
Tex;
You mentioned the sinister left media.
A partial definition of the word sinister is left handed.
Therefor do two lefts make a right?
Sign me
no left turns in Ardmore!
Very Interesting. I guess I'll have to be more careful with my double negatives.Originally Posted by sooner6600
My daughter and son-in-law just finished living in Oklahoma City for a year, so I spent a lot of time there. I didn't see much that was sinister or otherwise left in Oklahoma.
Even the Democrats seem pretty tame and halfway civilized there.
HOFer
Thank you Tarlam! for the fine heartfelt comment. I have enjoyed our discussion very much. I am very much in favor of healthy debate, I think it solves a lot.
I don't typically participate in the political discussions here, as they accomplish little. The left call the right "Christian wackos" and the right call the left "liberal athiests" and it pretty much ends there. (Yes I realize that there are many more acronymns but lets leave it at the 1st two "G" rated ones I could think of.)
I respect you and your point of view Tarlam. I want you to know that I listened to you and heard where you're coming from and I hope likewise.
I agree with this. Yes, we are the defacto world leader. I'm not sure that most of us want this role, but accept that someone needs to do it, and we believe we're pretty damn prepared to try.
That being said, we do make mistakes. In a way, we contributed to the current spat of terrorism many years ago. (My belief)
As you recall, back when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we played a large role in providing weapons and funding and training for the Afghan's to defend themselves. Then, when it got political, we bailed on them. We bailed. My President. Our President. A President and a Congress that I voted for. We left them with more chaos than they would have had, had they been under Soviet rule. Can you imagine what it would feel like to be left with a largely bombed out country, no money, no jobs, no economy, no hope for the future? Hell, Tarlam, if I was Afghani, I'd hate us too.
Then came many years of dissarray, followed by the Taliban, and worse oppression than the Soviets could've imagined inflicting on them. This, I believe, is the main reason we cannot find Obama. People that absolutely despise us are giving him sanctuary, and see him as a leader. Can you really blame them? I can't. He rails against the same "Western Society" that abandoned them.
So, what are some of us prepared to do now? Leave the Iraqi's in the same situation. We bombed their country back to the stone age, arrested, jailed and helped execute most of their leaders, and now we're about to say "Well, go fix it yourself".
If we do this, we'll raise ANOTHER generation of people that justifiably hate America. As long as we REFUSE to learn from our mistakes we are destined to repeat them. Eventually, those mistakes will destroy us.
I don't care if you agree with the Iraq war or not, leaving will not make it "right". It'll just make us look like selfish, wimpy people who are incapable of "getting" the big picture.
My prayers continue... It'll take a power much much greater than me to fix this mess.
Oh, lord. Have you actually ever looked in the mirror.
double post
So if the Iraqi government demands a timetable for foreign troop withdraw do we refuse?
C.H.U.D.
Tar..i love ya...you are NOT losing me as a friend...but I could give two flying shits about what the "free world" wants for MY president. WE have to live with his policies and the damage he can do to this country. WE have to overcome his overbearing tax policy. WE have to strive to overcome his nanny state politics.
That is one of the funniest things I have ever read on PR. And everyone knows how I feel about sheepdip, so I aint lying!
But in terms of the election in November;
The Free World, as it has been put, wants Obama. We are sick to death of people like George W. Bush. Why? Well, as rightly pointed out, your President is the leader of the ENTIRE free world. That's not just because of the military might of the United States of America. And, if you think you are the leaders of the free world, just because you have great aircraft carriers and invisible bombers, you are selling yourself very cheaply.
No, it's not just your military. It is also your hamburgers, your proms, your football, your schools, your PTA's, Hollywood, Nashville, Maine Lobsters, Chicago Steaks, Halloween, Thanks Giving Day, in fact, almost everything you do. You people are simply good. The world loves to hate you (but not me). But, the begrudgingly respect your achievements. You leave us little choice. You are simply the best. We even have Halloween in Germany these days. Blieve me, that was not the case 15 years ago.
But being the best means you need to lighten up on the not so goods. You beat the rest of the world in leadership, but you mustn't be arrogant about it. W. Bush has been. Reagan was a Prince among men. We had a good laugh with Clinton. But, W. Bush has been a nightmare.
If McCain is deemed to be anything like W. or his father, it would not surprise me to see Obama's coffers filled with money funnelling in from outside the US of A.
The world is sick of your President today. We have been for many years.
But back to my original point. The Free World wants Obama. And, if indeed he has only had 143 days of experience, we want him even more, because maybe, just maybe he will lead the Free World and not just America. He won't be indoctrinated with some of the drivel that The Free World has had to swallow.
Boy, I hope I don't lose any friends here posting this. I should learn when to keep my mouth shut.
Bush has irked me plenty with several of his policies and approaches. We are mired in trying to stabalize a region that has resisted stabilization for thousands of years. He has devalued the dollar something fierce. Maybe Obama is the chemo that our country needs to show us the way...but a good president?? Not a chance in hell.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
1. Of the state with extremely limited powers. How much experience do you really think he gained.I'm not going to defend how Bush turned out. But he was chief executive of the third largest state, I think for 5 years. That's serious management experience.
So has Oprah.
Oh come on, he managed the War in Europe. That ain't exactly running a Dairy Queen. Generals can have good management preparation, and the military is very political. He served in a political role.
Good Lord! Don't you think his efforts to fanangle a seperation from Britian involved a little leadership and political skill? This one is ridiculous.
On paper, this comparison presents your strongest case. But Lincoln was a freak. Those Lincoln-Douglass debates were 4 years before his presidential run. He was already a mature and brilliant thinker at that point.
I watched Obama in the debates. He got better throughout the primaries, but he is shallow. Very glib. Don't talk to me about Lincoln.
Ya, I see this as a potential advantage of an OBama presidency. He is admired around the world because he is black, charismatic, sends the signal that the U.S. is an evil force in Iraq and he aims to extract the evil, and he has a cute smile. What's not for a foreigner to like?
2. Sure, that is management. And, do you not think that running the harvard law review, being on boards, etc. isn't management. Not of the same scale, but management nonetheless. And, Ike wasn't having others question him or needing to make compromises...that is what you do in the real world...not in the military. Political..interpersonal, perhaps, but you can't even compare it to illinois politics..or being a senator.
3. Washington..didn't question leadership. We are talking exeperience relevant to running a country. So, not really. He had little to do with the politics...that would be jefferson, franklin. Washingon was hardly a worldly man. Nor a man of letters. Nor a man of education. Good fighter and a man smart enough to marry a wealthy widow.
4. Lincoln. Your personal opinion. Brilliant thinker..i'd have to say yes. You don't get to harvard and then basically run the show without being that. And, you don't windup teaching constituional law at U of Chitown without being a thinker.
5. Rebranding. If that is how you choose to frame it..so be it.
I see it as Sullivan sees it. That we aren't Bush/Cheney. That we are among the most culturally, racially and religiously diverse countries in the world. That we are for civil rights..not torture and not executive tyranny.
That we are about what is good for the world as it's partner..not boss. That we arent' perfect and that we do make mistakes..not imperiousness. Recognizing that everyone is important and equal..and not as tex would have it..that we are more important. Not a good stance to have if we want to lead.
That our leader is one of brains, thoughfullness...and here is the kicker...a little bit of humility. Something that we have missed with our current leadership.
THat we arent' a country that ships prisoners off to other countries to be tortured. that arrests people without ever telling them what they are arrested for.
That we can't be talking sideways about compassion and justice while doing the opposite here.
HOFer
Freak, that's not what is going on. NO ONE has asked us to leave. The Iraqi people need and want our help defending THEIR country from foreigners who are illegally in their country creating/planning/executing terrorist threats. Obama believes we should pull out in spite of that danger because it's the "politically popular" thing to do, and "he's always opposed the war". I vehemently disagree with that.So if the Iraqi government demands a timetable for foreign troop withdraw do we refuse?
That's not what happened in Afghanistan either. We left, they expected us not to leave and to help them. We left anyway and didn't help them with work or with money. We abandoned them.
I don't understand your point, except to divert the discussion away from my point, and to justify backing your candidate. Vote for him Freak, but when you pull the lever or check the box, just understand what your vote REALLY means. All of it, both the good and the bad. Every candidate has "warts". Don't ignore Obama's. This is a BIG wart.
Ahhh the ol' "I know you are but what am I?" comeback again. I'll just move on and ignore your mindless rants. It's one thing to not be up on a sports team it's quite another not to have any idea how your country is run and profess to know otherwise.Oh, lord. Have you actually ever looked in the mirror.
Lombardi told Starr to "Run it, and let's get the hell out of here!" - 'Ice Bowl' December 31, 1967
I guess your not paying attention to some recent comments coming from Iraqi government officials. There is a debate going on over the dreaded "timetable"...and it does not involve Hussein Obama. Good or bad does it ever become the Iraqi's decision? This has nothing to do with Obama. When did Hussein become my candidate? I'm not aware of ever had made that determination.Freak, that's not what is going on. NO ONE has asked us to leave. The Iraqi people need and want our help defending THEIR country from foreigners who are illegally in their country creating/planning/executing terrorist threats. Obama believes we should pull out in spite of that danger because it's the "politically popular" thing to do, and "he's always opposed the war". I vehemently disagree with that.So if the Iraqi government demands a timetable for foreign troop withdraw do we refuse?
That's not what happened in Afghanistan either. We left, they expected us not to leave and to help them. We left anyway and didn't help them with work or with money. We abandoned them.
I don't understand your point, except to divert the discussion away from my point, and to justify backing your candidate. Vote for him Freak, but when you pull the lever or check the box, just understand what your vote REALLY means. All of it, both the good and the bad. Every candidate has "warts". Don't ignore Obama's. This is a BIG wart.
C.H.U.D.
Obama reminds me of an empty suit.
Who Knows? The Shadow knows!
My mistake. Asking you to do some self examing is foolish. Of course you can't..that would require some analysis and deep thougt..not parroting rhetoric.Ahhh the ol' "I know you are but what am I?" comeback again. I'll just move on and ignore your mindless rants. It's one thing to not be up on a sports team it's quite another not to have any idea how your country is run and profess to know otherwise.Oh, lord. Have you actually ever looked in the mirror.
Don't you get tired of being told you are a jerk?
Name calling now? swell
Lombardi told Starr to "Run it, and let's get the hell out of here!" - 'Ice Bowl' December 31, 1967
Thank god I never get into any stupid fights.
HOFer
:P
HOFer
Well, Freak, I stay pretty plugged in but I miss things from time to time. When the Iraqi officials are ready, they'll tell us, I'd think, and we should act accordingly. (At least that seems reasonable to me).
When we start to pull out, don't we owe the willingness to move back in should they need (and request) us to do that? Don't you think if we move out on their timetable as opposed to ours, that "feelings" are less likely to be hurt, and the perceptions of us are much better rather than listening to the empty suit (Thanks, Shadow!) tell us we should step up the timetable. Additionally, don't you think that makes for a "safer" transfer of power? After all, we're a pretty good war machine.
That's what I was referring to, and I thought I was pretty clear about that. I see Obama's position as political pandering to the popular opinion at best case, and at worst case he believes the crap he's spewing. That, in my mind, makes him dangerous because it suggests he's either a fool, or willing to take the "popular" path at the risk of disaster, neither of which are acceptable to me.
Freak, I don't read much of your political posting, so I guess I can't point to a place where you've said you support Obama. I'd find it difficult to believe that you'd support McCain, however, Harlan's on board so it isn't out of the question, I guess.
In any event, if you agreed with me, I'd hardly see the need to pose the question that you did. Nowhere did I even hint that we should overstay our welcome, nor that we should tell the Iraqis how to run their country. We owe them as much safety as we can provide in the transfer, and as much education as they want. We also owe them to not abandon them and make them fend for themselves because that makes them vulnerable, as happened in Afghanistan.
Now playing the aggrieved poster. Rich.
And there is the hallmark of the left in this country (and the left around the world for that matter). Absolute moral relativism - No one is any better. We're all equal. Yet such thinking quickly leads to floating abstractions - concepts disconnected from perception. A leader somehow should both know that no one is any better or worse, yet still think that they can 'lead.' How can one justify leading anything if they don't believe they have better ideas, or aren't themselves better than the next guy? Why should anyone vote for Obama if he isn't 'better' than McCain? Isn't Obama considered 'better' than say Bush (who was only a governor without any power) or Eisenhower (who was only the Allied commander during WWII). Clearly, Obama, with his experience as head of the law review at Harvard is more accomplished, right? Or perhaps the editor of the school yearbook is equally qualified, since he too is equal and important. Since we are all equal and no one is more important, surely the head Janitor at Harvard, with his management and scheduling expertise, is just as qualified as Obama to run the country.
By what logic should the U.S. be a world leader if all countries are important and equal?
Are all people in the world equal too? Should Osama bin laden, should he be captured, get a trial in U.S. civilian courts? Should all non-uniformed violators of the geneva convention get the same treatment? If so, should U.S. soldiers under indictment get the same - or continue to be dealt with by military court martial. With everyone being equal and important, how can we judge anyone, or anything?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote