Condoleeza Rice Takes On Obama

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, since you reject my contention, tell me the presidents who had worse foreign policies than Bam.[/quote]

Say something negative about the organiser in chief and all the libs come out of the woodwork. They just can’t help themselves. It’s like Obama has control over their minds. You’ve got to hand it to the guy. He knows how to work a crowd.[/quote]

I find this ironic.

Of the two of us, one is a knee-jerk partisan, a card-carrier, a consumer of prepared narrative. The other is a liberal here, a conservative there, a libertarian over yon.

Or do you embody a more eclectic politics than I’m describing? Because as far as I can tell, your beliefs are far-right and only that. That I call mind control.[/quote]

A knee-jerk, partisan card carrier? Not at all. I’m a (classical) liberal here, a conservative there and a libertarian over yon.

242

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

…as far as I can tell, your beliefs are far-right and only that. That I call mind control.[/quote]

Far left; far right: two sides of the same coin as far as I’m concerned. I think for myself.

243

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

…as far as I can tell, your beliefs are far-right and only that. That I call mind control.[/quote]

Far left; far right: two sides of the same coin as far as I’m concerned.[/quote]

I couldn’t have said it better.

As do I.

And, thinking for myself, I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama’s FP, faults and all, hasn’t been near the disaster that that of his predecessor represents. That, in fact, compared with his (Obama’s own) record on domestic issues, FP is a relative bright spot.

This last point is borne out by the fact that Mitt Romney was told to go into the first debate like John McClain and the FP debate like a fat guy on a tightrope. I’m sure you know his FP advisory team was highly credentialed, and I’m sure that you can tell that they told him to do as little damage to himself as possible: Agree, agree, Benghazi, agree, agree, agree, agree. There is a reason why the first debate went as it did and the third went as it did. I’m not interested in defending this line of reasoning as evidence of anything–I’m simply explaining what I believe to be a particularly visible manifestation of the reality of Obama’s foreign policy.

Anyway, you can disagree. That is perfectly fine. But that I am saying the above is not evidence of anything other than that I’ve considered it and decided upon it.

244

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
and a libertarian over yon.[/quote]

I think most libertarians would disagree with this.

Often, we can pick and choose principles to adopt, but there are some positions that run so counter to the philosophical heart of libertarianism that, if you hold them, you are under no circumstance a libertarian.

Your stance on sodomy laws, I think, is one of these. The idea of the government reaching its long black-gloved arm into homes and doling out punishment for consensual homosexual sex, between adults, behind the closed door of a bedroom–this is an utter and outright assault on the very notion of small government, and it is my opinion that this kind of belief cannot be compensated for elsewhere. If you are in favor of anti-sodomy legislation, you are a statist to the fullest extent of the term–beyond, even, the extent to which the term applies to most big-government liberals.

245

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, since you reject my contention, tell me the presidents who had worse foreign policies than Bam.[/quote]

Bush II, Johnson, Nixon (the good is outweighed by a whole hell of a lot), and Carter, in recent memory.[/quote]

Let’s take one of those presidents - one who is remembered as weak, ineffectual and vacillating - and compare him with Obama.

Both came to power off the hot wind of an extremely unpopular Republican. Not a lot in common after that. Carter led the ‘anyone but McGovern’ faction of the party during the 72 primaries. By contrast, Obama started his political career in Bill Ayers’ house.

Carter led the Camp David Accords process leading to more than thirty years of peace and cooperation between Egypt and Israel that only came to an end when Obama cheered from the sidelines as the Muslim Brotherhood seized the control.

In his first year as president Carter invited Soviet dissidents to the Whitehouse against Kremlin objections. Obama’s first move as president is to fly to Saudi Arabia then give the famous ‘911 was our fault/Cairo speech.’

A favourable Jimmy Carter post from a ‘far-right, partisan card carrier?’

246

By the way, just as a general memo, here is a list of things smh has never mentioned or praised:

Obama’s Peace Prize–I laughed when he got it, and I laugh still

Obama ending the War in Iraq (he didn’t)

Obama as responsible for finding, or creating the policies which found, OBL

247

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, since you reject my contention, tell me the presidents who had worse foreign policies than Bam.[/quote]

Bush II, Johnson, Nixon (the good is outweighed by a whole hell of a lot), and Carter, in recent memory.[/quote]

Let’s take one of those presidents - one who is remembered as weak, ineffectual and vacillating - and compare him with Obama.

Both came to power off the hot wind of an extremely unpopular Republican. Not a lot in common after that. Carter led the ‘anyone but McGovern’ faction of the party during the 72 primaries. By contrast, Obama started his political career in Bill Ayers’ house.

Carter led the Camp David Accords process leading to more than thirty years of peace and cooperation between Egypt and Israel that only came to an end when Obama cheered from the sidelines as the Muslim Brotherhood seized the control.

In his first year as president Carter invited Soviet dissidents to the Whitehouse against Kremlin objections. Obama’s first move as president is to fly to Saudi Arabia then give the famous ‘911 was our fault/Cairo speech.’

A favourable Jimmy Carter post from a ‘far-right, partisan card carrier?’
[/quote]

I’m not going to entertain something as fatuous as the location of a speech as evidence of bad foreign policy. And “9/11 was our fault” is as nonsensical and Glenn Beckish as descriptors can get.

No one gives a quarter of a fuck about a speech he made in 2009, and it has literally no bearing on anything whatsoever. The “apology tour” bullshit is just that, and you might have noticed, to look again back at the 2012 election, that Mitt Romney was advised against mentioning it as the campaigns went on, because it was making him look like a desperate clown.

I am serious when I say I’m not following this particular line of discussion. It is fatuous and an immense waste of time.

Also, I see that you chose two things you liked about Carter and two things you didn’t about Obama. So, is that it? What about Carter’s blunders? Or does that not fit the narrative.

248

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, since you reject my contention, tell me the presidents who had worse foreign policies than Bam.[/quote]

Bush II, Johnson, Nixon (the good is outweighed by a whole hell of a lot), and Carter, in recent memory.[/quote]

Can you give me hard data supporting this? I demand it![/quote]

What kind of “hard data” is there to measure the success or failure of President’s foreign policy?

Mufasa
[/quote]

Muf, you’ve got to play the game, my friend. Scroll back up. I think you missed several posts. You’ll get it if you read it all.[/quote]

I’ve read it all.

I’ll just keep reading, I guess.

Mufasa

249

Logical fallacy is a disease, and this thread is scrofulous.

Let’s take the most recent example:

Claim: Carter is better than Obama on FP.

Evidence: “Here are two things that Carter did, and I’m calling them good. Here are two things that Obama did, and I’m calling them bad, though one of them is ‘he made a speech in the Middle East and here is my Fox-News hyperbolic misrepresentation of what he said.’”

Problems:

–Each president did far more than two things.

–When cherry-picking a handful of small comparison-points from an ocean of possibilities, the cherry-picker chooses examples that fit his narrative. Allow me to analogize:

–“The Harry Potter series is better than The Brothers Karamazov. Potter is a fun page-turner, and it goes above and beyond the conventions of the genre in building a remarkably large and well-drawn fictional world. On the other hand, The Brothers Karamazov is sometimes bogged down by repetitive and long-winded asides, and the awkward phrasing makes it a slow and sometimes laborious read.”

–“Rotating your tires is better than sex. Rotating your tires extends their life and saves you money in the long run, whereas sex can result in STD’s and unwanted pregnancies.”

250

[quote]smh_ 23 wrote:

I’m not going to entertain something as fatuous as the location of a speech as evidence of bad foreign policy. And “9/11 was our fault” is as nonsensical and Glenn Beckish as descriptors can get.

[/quote]

The location had nothing to do with it. It’s the contents of the speech to which I am referring.

There are some things that run so counter to the very nature of conservatism that once you have said them, you have declared yourself not a conservative. I don’t know what your memory is like but I remember what he said in that speech.

Who gives a shit what advice Romney was given in 2012?

The apology tour made America look pathetic, weak and appeasing whilst emboldening and strengthening Islamic fundamentalists.

[quote]

Also, I see that you chose two things you liked about Carter and two things you didn’t about Obama. So, is that it? What about Carter’s blunders? Or does that not fit the narrative.[/quote]

Actually I posted three for each…then I got sick of making favourable references to Jimmy Carter.

251

So, the next time you’re feeling randy, head outside and rotate those tires instead. Your quality of life–your soul, even–will thank you for it.

252

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Who gives a shit what advice Romney was given in 2012?

[/quote]

Me, because he was given it by people who actually had to assess and respond to reality, rather than by people for whom fantasy would have no consequence. Presidential elections tell you much truth. The key is not to listen to what is said, but to note what is not said.

Anyway, like I said, the complaint about the speech is fatuous in a discussion of policy and terror and war. There are certainly people who will discuss that with you, but I am not one of them, because I don’t accept your interpretation and I wouldn’t accept it as something that is remotely relevant even if I did accept the interpretation.

Perhaps it is telling, that we are talking about this in the year 2014, and you are complaining about a speech made in 2009. Or perhaps not. Just a thought. Either way, please see my post about logical fallacy, because, if I’m good at anything, I’m good at identifying fallacious argument–and that’s a skill that is in shockingly short supply, not just around here, but, it seems, all over the country these days.

253

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Logical fallacy is a disease, and this thread is scrofulous.

Let’s take the most recent example:

Claim: Carter is better than Obama on FP.

[/quote]

It is you who has presented a logical fallacy. My post was never proffered as evidence of that claim nor any other.

254

BTW there’s a million things camp Romney decided to not mention in 2012. And for the most part it was for political considerations rather than realities.

255

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

There are some things that run so counter to the very nature of conservatism that once you have said them, you have declared yourself not a conservative. I don’t know what your memory is like but I remember what he said in that speech.
[/quote]

Hysterical and fantastical revisionism is not conservative, though, is it? And neither is logical fallacy (though the two seem to be getting a little too cozy these days).

256

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Logical fallacy is a disease, and this thread is scrofulous.

Let’s take the most recent example:

Claim: Carter is better than Obama on FP.

[/quote]

It is you who has presented a logical fallacy. My post was never proffered as evidence of that claim nor any other.
[/quote]

You’re kidding.

That post wasn’t intended to argue that Obama has a worse FP than Carter?

What exactly was it doing then?

257

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, just as a general memo, here is a list of things smh has never mentioned or praised:

Obama’s Peace Prize–I laughed when he got it, and I laugh still

Obama ending the War in Iraq (he didn’t)

Obama as responsible for finding, or creating the policies which found, OBL[/quote]

Claim: I’m not in love with Obama. Here are three proofs of that.

258

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
BTW there’s a million things camp Romney decided to not mention in 2012. And for the most part it was for political considerations rather than realities.[/quote]

In this case, it was clear-eyed reality.

People began rejecting the “apology tour” bullshit as fatuous piffle–because it is–and the (intelligent, in this regard) people running the campaign reacted accordingly.

What works inside the bubble of partisan rhetoric–what plays well to the ludicrously gullible and uninformed audiences of talk radio–is, happily, not what works among people who are at least marginally able to close their mouths for a moment and ask, “Wait, what is this that you’re stuffing down my throat? Is it good? Is it even edible?”

The same principle underlay the distancing the Obama camp did after the backlash against the “Romney is a murderer” ads.

259

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, just as a general memo, here is a list of things smh has never mentioned or praised:

Obama’s Peace Prize–I laughed when he got it, and I laugh still

Obama ending the War in Iraq (he didn’t)

Obama as responsible for finding, or creating the policies which found, OBL[/quote]

Claim: I’m not in love with Obama. Here are three proofs of that.
[/quote]

No, these are three things I’ve been accused of falsely in the last couple of days.

Just, you know, setting things straight, making sure facts are facts and fantasy is fantasy. Never hurts to keep the two apart.

260

You said:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Logical fallacy is a disease, and this thread is scrofulous.

Let’s take the most recent example:

Claim: Carter is better than Obama on FP.

[/quote]

It is you who has presented a logical fallacy. My post was never proffered as evidence of that claim nor any other.
[/quote]

But the post in question had said:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, since you reject my contention, tell me the presidents who had worse foreign policies than Bam.[/quote]

Bush II, Johnson, Nixon (the good is outweighed by a whole hell of a lot), and Carter, in recent memory.[/quote]

Let’s take one of those presidents - one who is remembered as weak, ineffectual and vacillating - and compare him with Obama.

Both came to power off the hot wind of an extremely unpopular Republican. Not a lot in common after that. Carter led the ‘anyone but McGovern’ faction of the party during the 72 primaries. By contrast, Obama started his political career in Bill Ayers’ house.

Carter led the Camp David Accords process leading to more than thirty years of peace and cooperation between Egypt and Israel that only came to an end when Obama cheered from the sidelines as the Muslim Brotherhood seized the control.

In his first year as president Carter invited Soviet dissidents to the Whitehouse against Kremlin objections. Obama’s first move as president is to fly to Saudi Arabia then give the famous ‘911 was our fault/Cairo speech.’

A favourable Jimmy Carter post from a ‘far-right, partisan card carrier?’

[/quote]

To borrow a phrase from myself, if your thesis was not a refutation of my own, then I am a bowl of pea soup.