Fight Night: Barack Obama versus Australian Prime Minister....

[Damocles]

Bingo. Spot on.

I'm fed up with this democrats are terrorist-lovers bullshit. I won't support any candidate who acts like a pussy and allows this slander to go unanswered.

Once again, the answer does not mean one has to get in the puddle with the kids. One can simply point out the fact that Americans do not respond well to outsiders attempting to press their political agenda in the US and he would be wise to keep such to himself.

So, one can answer, it is just unnecessary to pretend that one wouldn't say that it was irresponsible from the other side so we can all feel good and defend "their" guy.

It's all good, the "they did it first" defense is holding strong and steady. It will even sit well on a bumper sticker.

 

[Cypress]

Right... Doing nothing. He presented the idea that he was a war hero, he constantly objected to the "swiftboating" and what I suggested was not "doing nothing". Instead of both of them looking juvenile, only one would.

You were in the Navy right?

If a partisan group of liars ran TV ads saying you were not only a coward in the military, but that that you shirked from service and ran from battles, that you lied to get medals , and that you collaborated with american enemies, you would stand by in silence?

 

[OrnotBitwise]

No, my argument is that it is always foolish. Especially when you are applying for the job of actually handling foreign relations. When Bush stated many things in the Press we constantly heard how irresponsible he was, but heck... It's all good, he's "your" guy... If he won the Presidency it would at least be entertaining tabloid fun, we get to see who he would get into another insult contest with because pointing out the childishness of another is "doing nothing" it is far better to just jump right in that puddle with them so you can be shown to be "doing something"...

You have a point, but I think you're overstating the effect of Obama's reaction. From the clip I saw, I'd say his reaction was clearly intended to be at least somewhat humorous. Along the lines of "Heh! Howard's kind of lost it again, hasn't he?"

I'm reading "Audacity of Hope" right now and, while I'm a long way from jumping on the Obama bandwagon yet, I admit that it's better than I expected. Basically, he agrees with you, Damo, rather than with cypress and myself, on the question of tone in political debate.

 

[Damocles]

what you proposed was doing nothing to address the accusations that he has a flawed policy philosophy with regards to Iraq which is going to be the center stage of the 08 elections. Yes. It makes perfect sense to ignore detractors on that subject /sarcasm off

Actually it took Kerrry a while to respond.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/23/bush.kerry/index.html

"While Bush has called on Kerry to criticize the harsh campaign ads of 527s in general, the Democratic nominee has not done so. He did recently, however, criticize one MoveOn.org ad that charged Bush used family connections to get into the Texas National Guard and then failed to fulfill his obligations."

There are plenty of homegrown detractors that do not become silly insult media-fights with foreign dignitaries. One points out that foreigners really have no say in our elections then speaks to the detractors at home, the answers get their day, and one isn't dragged into the Aussies foolish attempt at fumbling Foreign Relations through insults...

It is pretense again to say that the only way he can answer is the way that he did.

So far we have three, "They did it first!" supporters. I hope the "fight" escalates. I do not believe that the majority of Americans will agree that the best way to conduct foreign relations is through such a means.

 

[Damocles]

You were in the Navy right?

If a partisan group of liars ran TV ads saying you were not only a coward in the military, but that that you shirked from service and ran from battles, that you lied to get medals , and that you collaborated with american enemies, you would stand by in silence?

He didn't and I wouldn't. However, no Foreign Dignitary was presenting any such case. This is a hypothetical, and a silly one. Answering American detractors I expect, even in the same tone. I do not believe that the best form of Foreign relations can be done by entering a verbal "slap-fight" with a Foreign Dignitary. And as I said before, "He started it!" is the defense of a two year old.

Point out that you will not answer him and why then answer the detractors here, there are plenty enough to go around without entering such a demeaning foolishness.

 

[Damocles]

You have a point, but I think you're overstating the effect of Obama's reaction. From the clip I saw, I'd say his reaction was clearly intended to be at least somewhat humorous. Along the lines of "Heh! Howard's kind of lost it again, hasn't he?"

I'm reading "Audacity of Hope" right now and, while I'm a long way from jumping on the Obama bandwagon yet, I admit that it's better than I expected. Basically, he agrees with you, Damo, rather than with cypress and myself, on the question of tone in political debate.

Cool.

I actually liked some of what I heard when he began to officially enter the race.

 

[Cypress]

He didn't and I wouldn't. However, no Foreign Dignitary was presenting any such case. This is a hypothetical, and a silly one. Answering American detractors I expect, even in the same tone. I do not believe that the best form of Foreign relations can be done by entering a verbal "slap-fight" with a Foreign Dignitary. And as I said before, "He started it!" is the defense of a two year old.

Point out that you will not answer him and why then answer the detractors here, there are plenty enough to go around without entering such a demeaning foolishness.

Howard is a major world political figure. If Howard had said "Obama's strategy won't work, and its doomed to fail"...fair enough. No need to get in a fight over that.

But, when Howard said that Al qaeda was "praying for Obama and the Democrats to win", that was way over the line, and deserved a reponse. You yourself admitted that if prominent people pubically accused your Naval service as being treasonous and cowardly, you would respond.

 

[Damocles]

Howard is a major world political figure. If Howard had said "Obama's strategy won't work, and its doomed to fail"...fair enough. No need to get in a fight over that.

But, when Howard said that Al qaeda was "praying for Obama and the Democrats to win", that was way over the line, and deserved a reponse. You yourself admitted that if prominent people pubically accused your Naval service as being treasonous and cowardly, you would respond.

Right. So point out that it was foolish. The best way to answer would be as I said above. It points out his foolishness, answers it, and likely shuts him up at the same time. There are plenty here making the same case, answer them. Thus you are not conducting foreign relations by "slap-fighting" verbally on the news cycle and you don't lower yourself to the same level.

I expect better than Bush, and I bet Obama is regretting his answer but now can't back off from it. If truly his book talks about the rhetoric of current politics as I do, then he definitely is regretting it.

 

[LadyT]

No, my argument is that it is always foolish. Especially when you are applying for the job of actually handling foreign relations. When Bush stated many things in the Press we constantly heard how irresponsible he was, but heck... It's all good, he's "your" guy... If he won the Presidency it would at least be entertaining tabloid fun, we get to see who he would get into another insult contest with because pointing out the childishness of another is "doing nothing" it is far better to just jump right in that puddle with them so you can be shown to be "doing something"...

Damo, you're being completely obtuse. Elections are based on policy ideas. The 2008 election in the US will be centered around Iraq. He'd be a fool to let accusations fly and go unanswered that claim his ideas are bad. Its unbeliebably stupid on every level and ridiculous for you think that its okay to ignore someone who publicly denounces what they will be a cornerstone to their election.

You're comparisons to Bush are completely baseless. You're pulling $hit out of your arse that has no basis to what the issue at hand is. Let me be clear on what we're talking about:responses to accusations of flawed policies. Yes. I've said Bush is a lot of things, but when have any of us said that his responding to dissent of flawed policies or offering advise on how someone is free to respond was ridiculous.

 

[LadyT]

There are plenty of homegrown detractors that do not become silly insult media-fights with foreign dignitaries. One points out that foreigners really have no say in our elections then speaks to the detractors at home, the answers get their day, and one isn't dragged into the Aussies foolish attempt at fumbling Foreign Relations through insults...

It is pretense again to say that the only way he can answer is the way that he did.

So far we have three, "They did it first!" supporters. I hope the "fight" escalates. I do not believe that the majority of Americans will agree that the best way to conduct foreign relations is through such a means.

Actually damo, YOU'RE the only one with a pretense of saying the only way he could have answered is the way you feel is appropiate. I'm saying his response was more than appropiate. So far you have one: "it was just as bad as what howie said"

And I think you're absolutely incorrect in thinking that most American's would want to see where candidates clearly stand on the issues and that's what Obama gave us.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, you're being completely obtuse. Elections are based on policy ideas. The 2008 election in the US will be centered around Iraq. He'd be a fool to let accusations fly and go unanswered that claim his ideas are bad. Its unbeliebably stupid on every level and ridiculous for you think that its okay to ignore someone who publicly denounces what they will be a cornerstone to their election.

You're comparisons to Bush are completely baseless. You're pulling $hit out of your arse that has no basis to what the issue at hand is. Let me be clear on what we're talking about:responses to accusations of flawed policies. Yes. I've said Bush is a lot of things, but when have any of us said that his responding to dissent of flawed policies or offering advise on how someone is free to respond was ridiculous.

No, you are being obtuse. Answering people here is different than "slap-fighting" with foreign dignitaries. If they are childish point that out and move on, no need to get right into the puddle with them. I already stated he didn't have to "just let it stand" and even gave an example of what I believe would be a better answer, that is deliberate obtuseness. It directly ignores what one says and begins to attempt to build a silly strawman to argue with by attempting to state what I have not stated and argue that.

Either admit that if Bush got into a verbal slap-fight with one of our allies you would be all over him like flies on excrement, or continue in this obtuse argument where you pretend I said he should say nothing at all.

If Bush and Company can see this and not answer such, so too can Obama. There is plenty of opportunity to answer the same questions from here without giving the tabloids fodder and without just being silent.

My comparisons to Bush are mostly hypothetical. If there was a real way to tell, in a vacuum, to have Bush do much the same with another dignitary and see all your responses I'd even bet about it, but we cannot. I will tell you that if Bush entered such a dialogue with an ally I would definitely be on him about it.

Just saying I'm being obtuse doesn't make me so. It's just an attempt to buttress the strawman that I said he shouldn't say anything at all... It isn't true, you know it, but you might get others to believe it if you keep repeating it.

 

[Damocles]

Actually damo, YOU'RE the only one with a pretense of saying the only way he could have answered is the way you feel is appropiate. I'm saying his response was more than appropiate. So far you have one: "it was just as bad as what howie said"

And I think you're absolutely incorrect in thinking that most American's would want to see where candidates clearly stand on the issues and that's what Obama gave us.

No, I think it was less bad, but still jumping in the puddle. So, you are once again pretending I haven't already answered that above...

Strawmen seem to be coming out often today. It is a sign that the argument I have made is persuasive if everybody needs to avoid it and pretend I said something else.

 

[LadyT]

No, you are being obtuse.... I already stated he didn't have to "just let it stand" and even gave an example of what I believe would be a better answer, that is deliberate obtuseness. It directly ignores what one says and begins to attempt to build a silly strawman to argue with by attempting to state what I have not stated and argue that.

No. You're being obtuse and pretending that I'm not saying:

to let accusations fly and go unanswered that claim his ideas are bad

You're 1 solution does not address the political issue at hand. Was Howie out of place? Yes. Was it really any of his concern to but his nose in a US election? No. But did he put forth a polical challenge that Obama is running on in the spotlight? Yes. I'll say it again. By simply tossing you're hands up at him like he's some irrelevent blogger and NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE AT HAND is not going to win an election, in addition to solidifying Howie's assertions.

Either admit that if Bush got into a verbal slap-fight with one of our allies you would be all over him like flies on excrement, or continue in this obtuse argument where you pretend I said he should say nothing at all.

Well, as the subject of this hypothetical, I think I'm the best position to say what I would or wouldn't do, so you're assertions here are really a non-issue.
I won't admit it, because its a stupid hypothetical without even the slightest mention of the topic at hand.

If Bush and Company can see this and not answer such, so too can Obama. There is plenty of opportunity to answer the same questions from here without giving the tabloids fodder and without just being silent.

Can I have a link to what you're referring to?

My comparisons to Bush are mostly hypothetical. If there was a real way to tell, in a vacuum, to have Bush do much the same with another dignitary and see all your responses I'd even bet about it, but we cannot. I will tell you that if Bush entered such a dialogue with an ally I would definitely be on him about it.

Super.

Just saying I'm being obtuse doesn't make me so. It's just an attempt to buttress the strawman that I said he shouldn't say anything at all... It isn't true, you know it, but you might get others to believe it if you keep repeating it.

And just saying he's "in the puddle" doesn't make it so. Got it?
Talk about strawmen, I've stated over and over again that I'm refering to a response to the policies issues that were at hand. With regards to that, you're response is doing nothing.

 

[LadyT]

No, I think it was less bad, but still jumping in the puddle. So, you are once again pretending I haven't already answered that above...

Strawmen seem to be coming out often today. It is a sign that the argument I have made is persuasive if everybody needs to avoid it and pretend I said something else.

Please. Don't flatter yourself. You're argument is tantamount to my boss asking me to do something, I shrug in response and consequently get accused of doing nothing and me coming back with, "hey.....I shrugged"....that's something.....I was breathing after the request......that's something right?

 

[Damocles]

No. You're being obtuse and pretending that I'm not saying:

You're 1 solution does not address the political issue at hand. Was Howie out of place? Yes. Was it really any of his concern to but his nose in a US election? No. But did he put forth a polical challenge that Obama is running on in the spotlight? Yes. I'll say it again. By simply tossing you're hands up at him like he's some irrelevent blogger and NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE AT HAND is not going to win an election, in addition to solidifying Howie's assertions.

The political issue at hand can be dealt with without entering the slap-fight, I have addressed this several times yet you still pretend I have not and repeat the same strawman. There are plenty of people here stating the same thing that there is no need to enter this with this particular person. Instead, showing restraint and pointing out how out of line he was without the silly retort would have been better IMO.

Well, as the subject of this hypothetical, I think I'm the best position to say what I would or wouldn't do, so you're assertions here are really a non-issue.
I won't admit it, because its a stupid hypothetical without even the slightest mention of the topic at hand.

Other than specifically dealing in Foreign relations slap-fights it doesn't... But wait, that IS the topic at hand.

Can I have a link to what you're referring to?

You need a link to the Venezuelan President saying Bush was Satan? Come on, you truly are being obtuse. Bush could have entered a slap-fight right there... Yet they showed restraint.

Super.



And just saying he's "in the puddle" doesn't make it so. Got it?
Talk about strawmen, I've stated over and over again that I'm refering to a response to the policies issues that were at hand. With regards to that, you're response is doing nothing.

No, but pointing out how he got there and showing a nice verbal picture of it certainly does. "Got it?"

Talk about strawmen, the "stating it over and over again" simply doesn't actually speak to my point and pretends the point doesn't exist over and over again and is exactly what I pointed to as your strawman.

So, build away. It just shows me again that my point has been made well.

 

[Cypress]

I went back and looked at obama's reponse. He suggested Australia send more troops, if they thought the surge and the occupation of Iraq was such a swell idea.

That doesn't seem like a bitch slap to me. That's a policy response.

What the PM did, was a highly personal, and slanderous bitchslap on Obama and the Democratic party.

 

[Damocles]

I went back and looked at obama's reponse. He suggested Australia send more troops, if they thought the surge and the occupation of Iraq was such a swell idea.

That doesn't seem like a bitch slap to me. That's a policy response.

What the PM did, was a highly personal, and slanderous bitchslap on Obama and the Democratic party.

If their "lives are wasted" it certainly is more than just a policy suggestion....

 

[Cypress]

If their "lives are wasted" it certainly is more than just a policy suggestion....

I don't see those words anywhere in Obama's response to the australian PM.

Are you cruising the internet, looking for other statments obama made, and trying to tie them into the specific issue at hand: the repsonses between the PM and Obama?

 

[LadyT]

It wasn't a "slap-fight" as you like to call it period. that's a bit melodramatic for what happened. Had Obama all but called him as terrorist collaborator, you'd be able to argue they were in "the puddle" together, however they weren't. Howard challenged his stance on Iraq, insulted him and Obama followed up with a viable suggestion and solidified his stance that we should pull out as soon as humanly possible.

 

[Damocles]

I don't see those words anywhere in Obama's response to the australian PM.

Are you cruising the internet, looking for other statments obama made, and trying to tie them into the specific issue at hand: the repsonses between the PM and Obama?

No, it was remarks he made and then apologized for. Obama doesn't live in a vacuum, his past remarks, especially in context of this campaign, do put into context other remarks.

I will bet that Obama will not wade into that again in the future. I think he is smarter than this.