Obama's worst moment

[dogsgod]

Folks, the emperor has no clothes, Obama is a terrorist. At least now you have a president that speaks as eloquently as bin Laden.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Folks, the emperor has no clothes, Obama is a terrorist. At least now you have a president that speaks as eloquently as bin Laden.

Talk about meaningless rhetoric...

 

[dogsgod]

"Change we can live with" has turned out to be meaningless rhetoric.

 

[Watchmen]

Obama is a far more dangerous terrorist than Bush due to his ability to lead people further down that path. He's a very eloquent speaker, even when speaking from both sides of his mouth.

What's your definition of "terrorist" and how does Obama fit that definition?

 

[dogsgod]

What's your definition of "terrorist" and how does Obama fit that definition?

[SIZE=-1]"Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause."[/SIZE]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it depends on whether you can separate an act from its intent. If we focus on the intent to stop Hitler, the firebombing of Dresden may be seen as moral act. I tend to focus on what's being done to other people, and to see it as tens of thousands of acts of burning a person to death.

Wait one minute. I was talking about war as a general concept. I'm not about to excuse all actions that happen in war.

 

[Smoke]

Wait one minute. I was talking about war as a general concept. I'm not about to excuse all actions that happen in war.

But how many wars have there been that didn't include such atrocities?

 

[Sunstone]

"Change we can live with" has turned out to be meaningless rhetoric.

Granted. Obama is in the pocket of Wall Street and the corporations.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Can liberals here help me out?

Did Obama sell out because he said there is evil in the world?

Or was it terrible for Obama to say that we had to use force to defeat the Nazis?

Or was the scandal that he said that al-Qeada cannot be negotiated into laying down their arms?

Is this the bizarro world of liberalism? Where common sense is condemned.

 

[dogsgod]

Can liberals here help me out?

Did Obama sell out because he said there is evil in the world?

Nothing evil ever happens in the west. It's strictly a middle eastern thing.

Or was it terrible for Obama to say that we had to use force to defeat the Nazis?

The Nazis really did have so called WMDs and we're using them so we can understand US's hesitation to go and fight them.

Or was the scandal that he said that al-Qeada cannot be negotiated into laying down their arms?

The Taliban finally offered to hand over al-Queda's leaders including bin Laden but the troops amassed at the boarders didn't go there for nothing.

Is this the bizarro world of liberalism? Where common sense is condemned.

Do you honestly believe Afghanistan was a threat to any country? Do you believe Iraq had anything to do with 911?

 

[ChrisP]

Obama is potentially far more dangerous to America than Bush due to his ability to lead people further down that path. He's a very eloquent speaker, even when speaking from both sides of his mouth.

:bow: (bolded mine... inflammatory remarks take the objectivity out of the argument.)

 

[dogsgod]

:bow: (bolded mine... inflammatory remarks take the objectivity out of the argument.)

I agree with the 'potential', but US foreign policy effects people beyond the borders of America.

 

[Neo-Logic]

His acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I was deeply saddened to hear a man that I respect embarrass himself and his country with such a horrible, vile thing.

He mentioned himself along with other nobel prize winners - most notably Martin Luther King and Ghandi - and then talked about the notion of "just war," obviously talking about Afganistan.

I support Obama and I believe that war is necessary... but morally right?! Give me a break. That's the same argument that the Bush administration and their Christian goonies used for Iraq and Afganistan, and whatever else the Bush administration wanted to do.

How unfortunate to set aside the wisdom of King and Ghandi for a justification of war. And when accepting a peace prize. Obama didn't need to justify anything. Just say that the Bush administration got us into this mess and we're doing the best we can do clean it up.

Not your best, Obama.

I thought the speech was well balanced. We're obviously fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although the Obama, the person, got the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama the President is our representative in all foreign affairs, even acceptance of the prize. He can't scream for peace and talk peace then come home to two wars. What he said was spot on. America has to defend itself and will continue to do so because sometimes, war is the only answer. What is war, after all, but politics by other means?

 

[dogsgod]

I thought the speech was well balanced. We're obviously fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although the Obama, the person, got the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama the President is our representative in all foreign affairs, even acceptance of the prize. He can't scream for peace and talk peace then come home to two wars. What he said was spot on. America has to defend itself and will continue to do so because sometimes, war is the only answer. What is war, after all, but politics by other means?

War is the answer to what? Defend itself from what exactly? And why should politicians operate as a bunch of thugs?

 

[Amill]

I agree with the OP but it's kind of what I expected him to do. Not that big of a deal to me though.

 

[Darkness]

I thought his Nobel Acceptance speech was one of the best he has given so far. I merely wish he talked about our moral obligation to bring a secular humanist government to Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Quagmire]

But to say that when accepting a peace prize - THE peace prize?!

Exquisitely artless, and at least to me, unexpected.

I suspect there was artifice behind it that will become apparent later. And by suspect I mean fear.

 

[dogsgod]

I thought his Nobel Acceptance speech was one of the best he has given so far. I merely wish he talked about our moral obligation to bring a secular humanist government to Afghanistan and Iraq.

You don't have moral obligations other than to get out of Afghanistan and crawl back under your rocks.

 

[Darkness]

You don't have moral obligations other than to get out of Afghanistan and crawl back under your rocks.

I am sorry, but when a group like the Taliban pour acid on girls because they are not faithful to Islam, I tend to believe we have a moral obligation. Moral duty does not stop at a nation's boarders.

 

[Luminous]

His acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I was deeply saddened to hear a man that I respect embarrass himself and his country with such a horrible, vile thing.

He mentioned himself along with other nobel prize winners - most notably Martin Luther King and Ghandi - and then talked about the notion of "just war," obviously talking about Afganistan.

I support Obama and I believe that war is necessary... but morally right?! Give me a break. That's the same argument that the Bush administration and their Christian goonies used for Iraq and Afganistan, and whatever else the Bush administration wanted to do.

How unfortunate to set aside the wisdom of King and Ghandi for a justification of war. And when accepting a peace prize. Obama didn't need to justify anything. Just say that the Bush administration got us into this mess and we're doing the best we can do clean it up.

Not your best, Obama.

I agree, they are pondering to much too the fallacious right.