Americans Favor President Meeting With U.S. Enemies
That’s very very bad news for BB’s theory about independents eventually favoring McCain for his foreign policy views.
100meters wrote:
Actually in the wacky world of republican politics, even this will be cited that Obama is out of touch with the mainstream.
or Boston will defer back to “marxist preachers” or something.
No, the only thing one needs to point out is that this was a survey of adults, not of likely voters, and it was also a very broad question, which won’t really impact the actual discussion, which was focused on the “without preconditions” part of Obama’s statements, not the possibility of a meeting. Nice try though.[/quote]
The “without preconditions” part is essential to the discussion. Right now, Washington’s attitude is “you give us what we want before we can sit down and talk about it”. That is, they want Iran to stop enriching before they talk about enrichment.
[/quote]
Obviously preconditions is built into the question. It’s a tremendously stupid thing to say I want the results of any potential meeting before the meeting!
Obama’s postition is yes you have to be willing to have serious discussions, but I’m not afraid to talk to you. It so non-controversial that nearly everbody agrees with it.
And to be clear Bush/McCain have no credibility on this issue anyway. For an example: see Iran.
The “without preconditions” part is essential to the discussion. Right now, Washington’s attitude is “you give us what we want before we can sit down and talk about it”. That is, they want Iran to stop enriching before they talk about enrichment.
Obviously preconditions is built into the question. It’s a tremendously stupid thing to say I want the results of any potential meeting before the meeting!
…
[/quote]
The question specifically states “without preconditions” and you interpret this as meaning there are obviously preconditions?
As opposed to likely voters - you know how it works: adults is the big circle, registered voters is the smaller circle within adults, and likely voters is the smaller circle within registered voters - and the only one that matters is likely voters.
The “without preconditions” part is essential to the discussion. Right now, Washington’s attitude is “you give us what we want before we can sit down and talk about it”. That is, they want Iran to stop enriching before they talk about enrichment.
100meters wrote:
Obviously preconditions is built into the question. It’s a tremendously stupid thing to say I want the results of any potential meeting before the meeting!
…
Zap Branigan wrote:
The question specifically states “without preconditions” and you interpret this as meaning there are obviously preconditions?
Amazing.[/quote]
Yeah, right there in the question, and the crux of the argument: reality is such a bite in the @$$…
Speaking of reality being a bite in the @$$, the warm fuzzies from the Democratic primary continue:
[i]Clinton Supporters Offer To Help McCain
04 Jun 2008 09:39 am
Matt Burns, the spokesman for the GOP convention in St. Paul e-mails to say that the RNC’s convention office in St. Paul has received numerous telephone calls in the last few hours from people who identify themselves as Clinton supporters asking how they can help Sen. McCain.[/i]
The “without preconditions” part is essential to the discussion. Right now, Washington’s attitude is “you give us what we want before we can sit down and talk about it”. That is, they want Iran to stop enriching before they talk about enrichment.
Obviously preconditions is built into the question. It’s a tremendously stupid thing to say I want the results of any potential meeting before the meeting!
…
The question specifically states “without preconditions” and you interpret this as meaning there are obviously preconditions?
Amazing.[/quote]
I meant without preconditions. Hence the second sentence. My Bad!
As opposed to likely voters - you know how it works: adults is the big circle, registered voters is the smaller circle within adults, and likely voters is the smaller circle within registered voters - and the only one that matters is likely voters.[/quote]
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Speaking of reality being a bite in the @$$, the warm fuzzies from the Democratic primary continue:
[i]Clinton Supporters Offer To Help McCain
04 Jun 2008 09:39 am
Matt Burns, the spokesman for the GOP convention in St. Paul e-mails to say that the RNC’s convention office in St. Paul has received numerous telephone calls in the last few hours from people who identify themselves as Clinton supporters asking how they can help Sen. McCain.[/i][/quote]
No shit?
Look, unless a major terrorist attack takes place, oil prices drop by 25% or the thousands of Iraqi and Americans who died in because of Bush’s war are resurrected, Republicans are toast in this election.
[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Speaking of reality being a bite in the @$$, the warm fuzzies from the Democratic primary continue:
[i]Clinton Supporters Offer To Help McCain
04 Jun 2008 09:39 am
Matt Burns, the spokesman for the GOP convention in St. Paul e-mails to say that the RNC’s convention office in St. Paul has received numerous telephone calls in the last few hours from people who identify themselves as Clinton supporters asking how they can help Sen. McCain.[/i]
No shit?
Look, unless a major terrorist attack takes place, oil prices drop by 25% or the thousands of Iraqi and Americans who died in because of Bush’s war are resurrected, Republicans are toast in this election.[/quote]
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Speaking of reality being a bite in the @$$, the warm fuzzies from the Democratic primary continue:
[i]Clinton Supporters Offer To Help McCain
04 Jun 2008 09:39 am
Matt Burns, the spokesman for the GOP convention in St. Paul e-mails to say that the RNC’s convention office in St. Paul has received numerous telephone calls in the last few hours from people who identify themselves as Clinton supporters asking how they can help Sen. McCain.[/i]
No shit?
Look, unless a major terrorist attack takes place, oil prices drop by 25% or the thousands of Iraqi and Americans who died in because of Bush’s war are resurrected, Republicans are toast in this election.
Why do you call it “Bush’s war” ? [/quote]
It is my belief that he had taken the decision to attack Iraq as early as 2001. He then asked his aides to make the case.
I can’t help it, I have to post this joke. It’s got turtles in it:
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, a doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.
Eventually the topic got around to Barack Obama and his bid to be our President. The old rancher said, “Well, ya know, Obama is a ‘post turtle.’”
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a “post turtle” was.
“When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top,” The old rancher said, “that’s a ‘post turtle.’”
The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face so he continued to
explain.
“You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there and you just wonder what kind of idiot put him up there to begin with.”
BostonBarrister wrote:
As opposed to likely voters - you know how it works: adults is the big circle, registered voters is the smaller circle within adults, and likely voters is the smaller circle within registered voters - and the only one that matters is likely voters.
100meters wrote:
Who will still agree.[/quote]
Or so you guess - what you don’t have is any evidence of this from the posted link.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Speaking of reality being a bite in the @$$, the warm fuzzies from the Democratic primary continue:
[i]Clinton Supporters Offer To Help McCain
04 Jun 2008 09:39 am
Matt Burns, the spokesman for the GOP convention in St. Paul e-mails to say that the RNC’s convention office in St. Paul has received numerous telephone calls in the last few hours from people who identify themselves as Clinton supporters asking how they can help Sen. McCain.[/i]
lixy wrote:
No shit?
Look, unless a major terrorist attack takes place, oil prices drop by 25% or the thousands of Iraqi and Americans who died in because of Bush’s war are resurrected, Republicans are toast in this election.[/quote]
There’s more:
Your opinions to the contrary notwithstanding, this is going to be a fight at the presidential level. A lot of people who feel this way will vote for Obama, but some will vote for McCain and some will stay home - and in a country as evenly divided as the U.S. is, the election outcome will be largely influenced by those decisions…
Obama Backs Away From Comment on Divided Jerusalem
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 6, 2008; 9:30 AM
Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city “must remain undivided.”
Obama’s statement, made during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
“This statement is totally rejected,” Abbas told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. “The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”
The Bush administration’s official position is that the status of Jerusalem must be decided by the parties. Before he left office, President Bill Clinton proposed a formula under which “Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city,” including locating the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.
Obama quickly backtracked yesterday in an interview with CNN.
“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.
[/i]
He really is a rookie. He still doesn’t understand that his words now matter and he cannot just speak to satisfy the audience sitting in front of him.
Obama Backs Away From Comment on Divided Jerusalem
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 6, 2008; 9:30 AM
Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city “must remain undivided.”
Obama’s statement, made during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
“This statement is totally rejected,” Abbas told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. “The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”
The Bush administration’s official position is that the status of Jerusalem must be decided by the parties. Before he left office, President Bill Clinton proposed a formula under which “Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city,” including locating the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.
Obama quickly backtracked yesterday in an interview with CNN.
“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.
[/i]
He really is a rookie. He still doesn’t understand that his words now matter and he cannot just speak to satisfy the audience sitting in front of him.[/quote]