Hillary/Obama Name Calling

Hummmm....

Runyon said:
Why do you believe that Obama is stronger?
Click to expand...



is this a trick question? Stronger than what??? Oh never mind, I see you are comparing Obama to Hillary...well in that case I find both of them to be weak candidates for the general...however I also believe that a Hillary/Obama ticket will transpire...so no problemo the conservatives will remain in power...albeit I haven't seen a strong candidate emerge from them as of yet...time will tell!
 
Battleborne said:
is this a trick question? Stronger than what??? Oh never mind, I see you are comparing Obama to Hillary...well in that case I find both of them to be weak candidates for the general...however I also believe that a Hillary/Obama ticket will transpire...so no problemo the conservatives will remain in power...albeit I haven't seen a strong candidate emerge from them as of yet...time will tell!
Click to expand...
I don't think either of them will get the nomination.
 
doniston said:
how much more articulate could I be. repeat your words and then say I disagreed?
Click to expand...
It is not an argument, it does little to progress the thread. So far your addition has been, "I disagree" and then a whine about my answer where I repeated your words and said that they were profound.
 
Damocles said:
Rubbish. Even Bush is talking to them, as I said earlier you have to ignore the news to not know that talks have surpassed the lower levels and are getting into the higher level talks. You have to only go to blogspots for your news in order to believe that Bush's Admin isn't talking to them, or that your Candidate is the only choice who would. In fact, he is the only choice that would without conditions, and that is not a good thing.
Click to expand...

The notion that Obama would talk to anyone without conditions is a strawman which detracts from the real crux of the issue of should talks take place. Conditions for talks are assumed. The answer to should talks take place is a resounding hell to the fucking YES they should.

The US won't talk unless you kiss the royal ass has proven to be nothing short of miserable failure and again, I point to the crisis of North Korea and the total failure of invading Iraq as examples.
 
blackascoal said:
The notion that Obama would talk to anyone without conditions is a strawman which detracts from the real crux of the issue of should talks take place. Conditions for talks are assumed. The answer to should talks take place is a resounding hell to the fucking YES they should.

The US won't talk unless you kiss the royal ass has proven to be nothing short of miserable failure and again, I point to the crisis of North Korea and the total failure of invading Iraq as examples.
Click to expand...

I just think talks don't occur until there's some indication of a real change in position. Otherwise, there's no point. Things don't really depend on the personal rapport between lovestruck agendaless ambassadors, thank god.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. Well, at least you know that diplomacy with Iran is happening. Pretending it is only about Iraq is pretense and foolish. Of course there is dialogue about their nuclear program happening.

Just as multi-lateral talks worked with NK, they can work here. Even Bush will talk with Iran, it is only the inexperienced that would say they would do it with no conditions.

And you know the libertarians would have driven away before the storm hit...
Click to expand...

You can call talks with Iran "diplomacy" if you choose, I'll call them talking out of both sides of your head as the Bush Administration is looking for help in Iraq and at the same time sending out its minions to blame Iran for the continued failure in Iraq.

The success of multi-lateral talks with NK isn't a product of the Bush Administration or its cowboy machoism. They came through the level-headed approach of those who wished to engaged in talks before the shooting started.

Libertarians wouldn't have a clue what to do about any foreign policy crisis. They seem to believe that "see no evil" and "its' not my problem" is all the foreign policy this country needs.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I just think talks don't occur until there's some indication of a real change in position. Otherwise, there's no point. Things don't really depend on the personal rapport between lovestruck agendaless ambassadors, thank god.
Click to expand...

Talks should take place at any time when the possibility of resolution exists. One of the glaring failures of US foreign policy that we must get rid of, and there are many, is the notion that unless you kiss our ass, we won't talk to you. Iran, Cuba, Syria, and everwhere else there is conflict should be met with level-headed discussions.

Time to send the cowboys back to the old west and into history.
 
blackascoal said:
Talks should take place at any time when the possibility of resolution exists. One of the glaring failures of US foreign policy that we must get rid of, and there are many, is the notion that unless you kiss our ass, we won't talk to you. Iran, Cuba, Syria, and everwhere else there is conflict should be met with level-headed discussions.

Time to send the cowboys back to the old west and into history.
Click to expand...

From a position of stalemate, resolution can only occur when one party is willing to change. Hence, absent a change, the meeting will be fruitless. Symbolic meetings rarely are a catalyst, they are the public expression of the decisions made behind the scenes. You're all backwards in your thinking.
 
AssHatZombie said:
From a position of stalemate, resolution can only occur when one party is willing to change. Hence, absent a change, the meeting will be fruitless. Symbolic meetings rarely are a catalyst, they are the public expression of the decisions made behind the scenes. You're all backwards in your thinking.
Click to expand...

North Korea was rising to the level of a potential historic crisis until level-heads who are far from your thinking stepped in and resolved it.

Time to send the cowboys back to the old west.
 
blackascoal said:
North Korea was rising to the level of a potential historic crisis until level-heads who are far from your thinking stepped in and resolved it.

Time to send the cowboys back to the old west.
Click to expand...

Your one factoid about NK doesn't forever justify pointless meetings. I'm against pointlessness. When positions are known and there are no changes, there is no reason to meet.
 
blackascoal said:
You can call talks with Iran "diplomacy" if you choose, I'll call them talking out of both sides of your head as the Bush Administration is looking for help in Iraq and at the same time sending out its minions to blame Iran for the continued failure in Iraq.

The success of multi-lateral talks with NK isn't a product of the Bush Administration or its cowboy machoism. They came through the level-headed approach of those who wished to engaged in talks before the shooting started.

Libertarians wouldn't have a clue what to do about any foreign policy crisis. They seem to believe that "see no evil" and "its' not my problem" is all the foreign policy this country needs.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, it was a condition set by the Admin to continue talks. I know you hate that this time it worked, and that there are more regional checks than before when Clinton's deal was going....

You are letting Bush hatred get in the way of reality. The more 'level-headed' got together because of Bush's insistence that there would be no bilateral talks with the NK government and that it must have regional multilateralism for the talks to work. In this case, he was right.
 
blackascoal said:
The notion that Obama would talk to anyone without conditions is a strawman which detracts from the real crux of the issue of should talks take place. Conditions for talks are assumed. The answer to should talks take place is a resounding hell to the fucking YES they should.

The US won't talk unless you kiss the royal ass has proven to be nothing short of miserable failure and again, I point to the crisis of North Korea and the total failure of invading Iraq as examples.
Click to expand...
Twice you write that it was a "strawman" when it was part of the question and part of the answer directly. It is no strawman.

And you act as if I am some sort of Bush cheerleader. That is also total garbage emoting all over. When I state that I liked somebody like Hillary's answer to Obama's it certainly doesn't mean I think Bush has done some great job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top