I’ve been curious about what you all think of Barack Obama’s appearance in Europe. I’m not particularly a fan of Obama, but I suppose there’s some sense of historic impact in his visit and his rhetoric.
While I find him to be an intriguing figure, a smooth, articulate, respectable person — I believe he’s somewhat of a lightweight. I’m not sure he’s had the governing experience to lead the free world. I also have some concerns about his somewhat apologetic remarks about America.
Ninety-five per cent of the time he carries himself impressively. The other five per cent embarassingly illustrates his inexperience.
Will this trip be spoken of in history books twenty years from now? I’d like your thoughts.
Popularity: 16%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 90 comments… read them below or add one }
It is extremely premature to say that, twenty years from now, anyone will remember what Barack Obama said today in Berlin, or, indeed, that anyone will remember that he spoke today in Berlin at all.
What counts – and what makes exceptional rhetoric last beyond the echoes it makes as it rebounds – is what happens because of or despite of the rhetoric offered. To put it another way, Abraham Lincoln (in his Gettysburg Address) said: “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.” (Nicolay transcript) Lincoln’s statement is ironic in that his speech is one of the most memorable ever delivered in American politics. But it’s the context of the speech – dedication of a graveyard where were interred soldiers who fought in one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War (not to forget the Civil War itself) is what makes the speech memorable.
To take another example:
“There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev — Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
Had the Berlin Wall not fallen two years after Ronald Reagan gave this speech at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate in 1987, Reagan’s speech would have been just another speech, a footnote in history, forgotten because it did not have context with the events surrounding it, despite its rhetorical ring.
To take another example:
“Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades. All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words ‘Ich bin ein Berliner.’”
Kennedy’s Berlin speech is also a remarkable example of powerful rhetoric. But again, taken in context – delivered in a city, in a nation, only recently divided by a physical barrier and in a world that would see extraordinary tension rise becasue of these physical and political barriers – his speech is, and remains, meaningful.
Let us consider the context of Obama’s speech: The United States has increasingly alienated itself from Europe, indeed, some say, from much of the world. Obama’s rhetoric is full of hope, to use an overused word.
“People of the world, look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one. The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers, dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean. We cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats or escape responsibility in meeting them.”
But for this speech to be remembered twenty years from now, the context of world events will have to catch up with it.
Those keen on the beatification of Barack Obama will have to wait for history (and, indeed, the results of the November election) before they can chalk up his speech as one for the history books. His rhetoric and ideals are admirable; they hark back to the themes and memes of unity and freedom that Reagan, and John F. Kennedy before him, uttered at the Brandenburg Gate. But until events catch up with the rhetoric, Obama’s speech will remain historically unremarkable.
Obama is as qualified, experience wise, to be president as George W was when got elected. More so in fact since senators at least deal with foreign matters, especially in a time of war, from time to time whereas governors are all about the state. It was Dubya’s inexperience in foreign matters that led to the selection of the very experienced Cheney as his VP. Politics is always full of rampant hypocrisy and the inexperience bashing on Obama is just the latest example of it.
Nice comment, Bloop. I agree with you – this speech will not be remembered unless there are circumstances of historic precedence that occur in proximity.
But there are a couple of events on the horizon that might provide that context. First, the election of the first black as President of the US. Second, the election of a qualified person after Bush will be a factor. The president who fixes Bush’s disastrous mess will be seen through history’s viewpoint as much greater than he would have otherwise.
Neither of those will highlight this particular speech, however. It may be that the set of campaign speeches become historical in some way. Or that an “Ich bin ein berliner” statement is drawn from one of his other great speeches.
I was reading the main blog here, some of the comments, and other blogs in other places as well. Here’s my question: Why people in the United States think that its president will lead the free world? And what is your definition of free world? Because let’s face it, U.S. is not the best example of freedom nowadays. Even more, it became a threat for freedom and independence after the Irak invasion and with the current administration’s foreign (and internal) policy. Let’s face it, the United States of the early 21st century is not the United States of the end of the 20th century. There is no country that violates international law more than U.S. nowadays; starting with the non-proliferation treaty, the human rights issue and the interference in other countries affairs. I think whoever will be the next president of the U.S. will have to deal with all these issues and try to re-gain the trust of the other countries (and the trust of the people in general). Of course, there is no perfect place nor perfect foreign policies but for sure there is a better one than the implemented by the Bush administration.
Now THATs funny! You say, “There’s no country that violates international law more than the US”?? Are you kidding me?? How about North Korea? Darfur? Somalia? Afghanistan? Cuba? JUST to name a few.
Wake the %&*$ up! You’re in for a rude awakening if Obama gets into office. Don’t bash the US because our President has the cajones to stand up for what he believes in. He’s the ONLY one who had the nerve to put his neck on the line to fight terrorism. Tell me what other country would have done that?
None.
Carlos,
Thanks for the post. Are you a local?
You are right that we have lately become a greater threat to world peace and stability than average. But the fact is that since the late 19th century, America has thrown its weight around to get what we want. And we try to cloak it in terms of national security or foreign aid. Sometimes we’re not so bad. And sometimes we are even a very strong source for good in the world.
Even Bush isn’t 100% bad. The AIDS support to Africa(although that has recently faltered) and his moderate position on immigration issues were noteworthy, if ineffective.
I often wonder why people like Guest House don’t wake up and see something like what the rest of the world sees.
I DO see that our country has it’s problems. But I also don’t appreciate people bashing the US and the Bush administration. If you’re so unhappy with this country than leave. We’re still the greatest nation in the world even with all our problems. And even with our trillion dollar national debt, we still don’t have a problem sending aid to China and it’s earthquake victims, or the tsumani victims or the displaced people in a number or war torn countries. Instead people like you and carlos would rather focus on this countries faults. Well, I’m the glass is half full kind of person and you’re the glass is half empty. And guess what, there’s not a country or government in the world that is perfect.
“We’re still the greatest nation in the world even with all our problems” sounds like nationalism to me.
We are my FAVORITE country for sure, and I want us to be greater than we have been…so even though I think there are problems, I think they are fixable and I want to stay here in my homeland and help to fix them.
If I pretend my country has no faults (shed no light on them so they can’t be fixed) then I’m helping it decline. And I’m tired of it declining because of false pride, because of foolish nationalism. I want it to deal with its issues, shine its light and be a model the world can look up to.
Leave it to Nemesis to always put a label on somebody’s views. Typical response.
Yeah, Guest House – labeling people. Typical response.
You’re a riot.
Nemesis named the behavior you were displaying. Would you rather have a conversation without naming things? That would go great, I guess.
But you don’t label people. No way. Never.
Talk about typical response…..yeah, America is a terrible country…in fact, we are to blame for 9/11. It was the evil policies of Bill Clinton and George Bush that caused the terror attack. If we were just nicer and stopped pushing our weight around then people would leave us alone. In fact, if we just sit down and negotiate with Iran, Al Qaeda, and others, they will come to see that we are just misunderstood people and won’t attack us.
All those jingoistic and nationalistic types like Guest House are the real evil doers out there. With a “global citizen” like Obama trotting around I am sure that it will be no time before he gets elected, throws out the Constitution and has us join the UN to save the planet from evil American imperialism. Wow, I feel much better knowing that we can correct all the evil that America has done and would do in the world. Whew! What a load off my mind. Thank goodness for Obama. I sure am glad that the Germans and French respect him so much!!! They have always been so successful and stood up for themselves. They are great examples to emulate……….what? The French rolled over and let themselves be conquered repeatedly? The Germans let the Nazi’s take over and kill Jews because they also didn’t stand up for themselves? Well, just ignore all that. The UN, with cooperation from Obama, will fix all the problems in American and elsewhere.
What is wrong with you guys??? Can’t you stop with all the bickering back and forth and just talk about the topic? This post and the comments you’ve made back and forth are exactly why I don’t discuss politics. Like someone posted before, it turns into one big “pissing match”. Some of you are so condesending and think you’re completely without fault, it’s no wonder so many posters have left this site. Get over yourselves and get back on track already! Cheese N Rice!!!
Guest House and Bingo Bob -
Do you two see how your posts look when compared the other commenters? Seriously, take a fresh look. Or better yet, do an experiment: have an unbiased, disinterested person read through all the comments and tell you which posts they think are thoughtful, intelligent, and connected to reality, and which ones are a bit unhinged. Which ones add substance to the discussion, and which ones are meant to shut down the discussion.
Or was that your intention?
You just have to get the last word in dont you Idahogie?
Unbelievable. (are you sure this isn’t Crystal?)
No….seriously?
I think we can all afford to read comment 12. This poster hit the nail on the head imo. Sorry to have offended anyone. This will be my last comment on this topic. I think I’m going to follow some of the other regulars here who steer clear of the top 3 topics that get people absolutely nowhere.
Have a great night!
I have to agree somewhat with “Open Mind,” regarding Obama’s trip. I may be a little more of a fan than you perhaps?
However, I absolutely agree when you said, “Ninety-five per cent of the time he carries himself impressively. The other five per cent embarassingly illustrates his inexperience”
In comparrison to our current Prez. G.W….. It’s completey the other way around.
Also, Good ol’ G.W. has made many Republicans take a better look at what the Democratic Party has to offer!
We (USA) are in bad shape in many areas and we need a leader who will bring about change. The problem is we can really never know until they are elected, exactly how great of an impact they will make.
On another note. Am I alone in thinking what a historical event it would be to have a Black President! Even better a Female Vice/ or even President?
There seems to still be a lot of racism throughout our country! I hate to say it but even our State, County and City.
I think it stems from a lack of diversity, in Idaho Falls particularly.
That’s just me though! 20 years ago I gew up in “The Melting Pot” of the Country! There were more races & religons than you could imagine! Maybe every single one! Ha!
Yet, even where I grew up there was racism amongst every race.
I don’t know it would definetly be monumental! Having a Black President would bring about some change for some people.
Either way it goes,I am excited to see what happens and have a positive attitude about the future of this countrys leadership!
Rev
Hey, Rev.
I agree with you about 95%. The 5% that I don’t agree with is the 5% you mentioned. I’d like to hear what embarrassing things he’s done. In my mind, we’re so used to a bumbling idiot in the Presidency, that we’re not used to somebody doing as well. We think, “He can’t be perfect, can he?”
But in fact, he really hasn’t made a single misstep on this trip. I understand that in his Berlin speech (which I admit I haven’t heard or read) he said something like “America hasn’t always lived up to her ideals…” That’s hardly “apologetic” as Open Mind phrased it above.
I don’t want to imply that Obama is perfect. He certainly screwed up big time when he reversed himself on FISA. I only hope he will work to fix that abomination when he gets into office. In fact, that will be a true test of character for him – will he act to limit the powers of his office? He should, if those powers are unconstitutional.
Guest House:
(if you’re still reading) you sure have some nerve. You come in here and drop two bombs as comments, full of capitals, exclamation points, confusion, and invective, and insulting Nemesis. Whe two people point it out, your response is to call me “Unbelievable.” I do appreciate your apology – but do you have to insult people in the process of apologizing?
The argument “if you don’t like this country, then leave” is, in my understanding of logic, counter to what this country is about. We (citizens) are members of a democratic republic, which is to say, if we don’t like it – it’s our job to try to change it. I suppose we could “leave” too, if it’s within our desire realm to do so, but the argument “if you don’t like this country’s stand on X or Y – then leave”, well, to me that sounds downright un-citizenlike.
I’m a proud citizen who doesn’t “like” everything our administration does, but instead of leaving, I do my best to gather like-minded others and work to change what we don’t like. Leaving doesn’t enter my mind much, nor do I see why it should. I’m an American citizen, it’s my job to behave like one. That means working toward strangthening the America I envision for myself and those who come after me.
As for Obama’s appearances – I’m really rather glad he is having success worldwide. McCain suggested that Obama had too little worldly experience, Obama is working to alter that, and he’s doing a downright diplomatic job of it so far. Good going Obama!
#17, loud-proud-hippie, your comment is very thoughtful and better explains what I was trying to say in #8.
Great job, you said it very well. Please continue to comment!
We need more comments like loud-proud-hippies. Thanks for saying what I wanted to say, but couldn’t figure our how to do it as well as you.
loud-proud-hippie; I appreciate your comments too.
Guest house, I’ll be honest with you, I always thought you had better manners than this. You have the ability to argue a fair debate (I know because I’ve seen it) but I’m not seeing it in your recent posts.
Others have said it but I should have said it, too. Bloop #1 had a fabulous comment, great analysis and very thoughtfully written.
Great job.
Wow, what a great blog…..group think is alive and well. Looks like Guest House and Myself have to apologize or be put down for our “diverse” opinions. I thought you liberals touted diversity as being important…..apparently only when it is liberal thought that is espoused.
Guest House, don’t apologize for anything. Your comments were not rude….you stood up for the country without calling anyone names. There is absolutely nothing wrong. Don’t let this crowd make you believe different. Stick to your guns!
I just don’t understand why we need a “mother hen” on this site telling people whether or not their comments were “appropriate” or not. Seems like it happens on every post. The owner of this site is all for “free speech”. If a comment doesn’t appeal to you than dont bother to answer it. I just don’t feel that its up to certain people to criticize, critique or otherwise be condesending towards posters they don’t feel made a “proper comment”. Do you write or email Rush Limbaugh when he calls people “environmentalist wackos” or “tree huggers” or any number of things? I seriously doubt it. The point is, this site promotes free speech and if somebodys comment doesn’t appeal to you, it’s not your place to “scold” them. So enough with the “shame on you” comments from certain posters that feel like they need to be the “mother hen” of the site. I don’t post here to offend people, only to give my opinion and point of view just as everyone else does. If my opinion bothers certain people than dont bother to reply to my comment. It certainly won’t bother me one way or the other.
Good day!
So I guess good manners defer when warranted due to “freedom of speech”?
I wouldn’t listen to Rush although I know he loves messing with you guys then marching to the bank to cash in afterwards. The only thing I suggested was argue a fair debate without put downs. I had no idea it was asking so much!
So also sayeth the mother hen. Apparently unless I’m being argumentative and calling people names, my particular way of exercising free speech by stating my opinion that we are shredding the civility of reasonable discourse, is ANTI-free speech.
Enjoying a fight is what you watch pay-per-view boxing or WWF for, folks. I like this site for allowing commenters to express their individual opinions of topics posted…not a free-for-all UFC of clever or outrageous putdowns of others for having opposing opinions.
Maybe you think I’m off base? Do you think if attacks are allowed to be made, frequently, with gusto, or sneakily, with venom…that a great time will be had by all?
Where is the line? Is there any line at all? The rules say we have a line, but it’s not well defined, because we each perceive that line to be in a different place than the other commenters. Does that effectively nullify the rule?
I stated on the other thread that there is a place for passionate debate. Great emotions come into play with political positions, which are almost as personal as religious beliefs, so having very strong feelings about political things would be natural.
And just a note…I don’t have anything to do with those talk radio hosts because they have a job to do (and they’re doing it well). They have a job to rile up the populace with innuendos and half truths and outrageous swiftboat attacks…they aren’t interested in the truth even if they know it. It’s tabloid radio, and it’s not for those who want to participate in a free exchange of meaningful dialogue.
I’m just doing my best to try to steer the debate down a different path. I’m not sure what the owner has in mind, but I can’t imagine it was his intention to turn IdahoFallsToday into a tabloid website.
I agree, hmm #24. So also sayeth the mother hen. Apparently unless I’m being argumentative and calling people names, my particular way of exercising free speech by stating my opinion that we are shredding the civility of reasonable discourse, is ANTI-free speech.
Enjoying a fight is what you watch pay-per-view boxing or WWF for, folks. I like this site for allowing commenters to express their individual opinions of topics posted…not a free-for-all UFC of clever or outrageous putdowns of others for having opposing opinions.
Maybe you think I’m off base? Do you think if attacks are allowed to be made, frequently, with gusto, or sneakily, with venom…that a great time will be had by all?
Where is the line? Is there any line at all? The rules say we have a line, but it’s not well defined, because we each perceive that line to be in a different place than the other commenters. Does that effectively nullify the rule?
I stated on the other thread that there is a place for passionate debate. Great emotions come into play with political positions, which are almost as personal as religious beliefs, so having very strong feelings about political things would be natural.
And just a note…I don’t have anything to do with those talk radio hosts because they have a job to do (and they’re doing it well). They have a job to rile up the populace with innuendos and half truths and outrageous swiftboat attacks…they aren’t interested in the truth even if they know it. It’s tabloid radio, and it’s not for those who want to participate in a free exchange of meaningful dialogue.
I’m just doing my best to try to steer the debate down a different path. I’m not sure what the owner has in mind, but I can’t imagine it was his intention to turn IdahoFallsToday into a tabloid website.
From Mr. Guest “Don’t complain about my comments – if you don’t like them, just ignore them, what happened to tolerance?” House in post #7.
There are ways to make your point, and there are ways to make your point while insulting people. Finally there are ways to be completely hypocritical while making your point. You’ve done the latter two, and that’s what people complain about. You’ve now insulted Nemesis for ‘labeling,’ when that’s what you did in your first post on this thread. And you’ve complained about all the mother hens who object to your comments, when you did that in your second comment.
Just make your point. Like so:
“This is a great country. Sure we have some flaws, but we try to correct them as they happen. But Obama went way over the line when he said this…”
Not like this:
“You people don’t appreciate America – why don’t you leave? …”
See the difference? You too, Bingo Bob. Learn a lesson here.
So, how ’bout them Maple Leafs?
Hey, Bloop, them’s fightin’ words! .
Sports team fans are pretty loyal to their own team.
I prefer the Denver Broncos, myself. It’s time for them to shine (although, I’m thinking, the rest of the AFC West may have something to say about that, this year…) in the Super Bowl XLIII against the Vikings, 2009.
Oh, wait…you weren’t REALLY looking to talk sports, were you???
Wonder why Guest of a Guest’s comment was deleted. It wasn’t just edited, the whole thing was deleted like he was never here. I didnt see anything wrong with his comment. Merely stating his opinion like everyone else here does.
While I agree that the bickering has started to get out of hand again, I don’t feel it’s right from some posters to be allowed to keep their critical comments on the board, but others get theirs deleted. Joe Eagle has informed us that freedom of speech is alive and well on this site, but I’m not always seeing that. Sure some peoples feelings may get hurt, but that’s life. His comment wasn’t out to intentionally bait, put down or otherwise hurt anyones feelings. So why are some posters allowed to be critical of others, but some aren’t? And just for the record, I tend to side somewhat with comment 23. Why is it some people feel the need to critique and/or criticize everybody’s comments on every topic. If somebody’s view doesn’t appeal to you, why even bother responding.
We were doing so well there for awhile with our civil debates, hopefully things are starting to calm back down again. I just don’t agree with deleting peoples comments completely. If you’re going to edit them, edit them and tell the rest of us why they were edited but don’t completely delete them because you didn’t like what was said.
But hey…what do I know?
Have a great Sunday folks!
I think we were asking for what you stated Cr67, a civil debate. It was going really well for awhile. No need to have another boxing match.
Although, if you’re selling barbequed ribs, we may stick around for it.
I don’t know if I saw a different #23 than is here now (Guest House) so I’ll take your word for it, CR67.
Joe Eagle (or moderators, whoever you are)…PLEASE do not delete someone’s comment entirely! It’s really not free speech if your entire comment can go POOF! without everyone knowing what is going on.
I agree with CR67, please write something in to say you’re deleting it but LEAVE the placeholder.
Idahogie: “There are ways to make your point, and there are ways to make your point while insulting people” and insinuate that guesthouse has insulted others, which you deem inappropriate.
Yet you, Idahogie, on another site, had this to say:
Idahogie: “Agreed, Easterner. I’ll let the issue go. But the fact is, my last note to you (#95) was bait. I took your statement and blew it out of proportion with the intention of ridiculing you”.
so, you are here, providing unsolicited advice to two posters about remaining civil and phrasing disagreements appropriately, yet on another post, you freely admit to
1. baiting (a no-no here) and
2. deliberately ridiculing (also a no-no).
Interesting. Very interesting.
CR67 – could you give us the gist of what the deleted comment was discussing? I’d agree that it would be better to have a “post deleted by moderator” message put in place of any deleted comment. Better yet, the reason for the deletion. However, that’s an additional burden for Joe to take on. I can understand if he doesn’t have that kind of time.
And, it seems I have a troll following me around from another post.
how does pointing out your own words make me a troll, exactly?
or are you disputing your “civility” on another post?
isn’t that what you wrote?
Easterner, can we let it go?
hmmmm, I know you unfailingly support Idahogie on every post . . . . but that doesn’t mean anyone who questions what he writes needs to be scolded or reprimanded; please read his post #27 and you will see that he was the one raising the issue of the “proper” way to post on this site;
as such, I do think it is important to remind him that he has advocated “baiting” and “ridiculing” as methods of “discussion” and thus relevant to his own posting of advice on “how to” post civilly. calling me a “troll” underscores this point even more greatly.
have a great night, all!
Easterner, I don’t recall “scolding and reprimanding” anyone. I asked for some civility. I think it may be time to lighten up. I don’t “unfailingly” support much of any view on this site and Idahogie is aware that I do disagree with him on certain issues. That doesn’t mean that I’m going to treat him as a lesser human being for his opinions. I also disagree with you on certain issues, but I have not treated you with any less respect then I have treated him.
So, hmmm…..just a nice question for you. Where do you and Mr. Sandwich disagree?
I can’t answer that Bundy, I have no idea who Mr. Sandwich is. Sorry!
Hmmm, I have to disagree with you. You do often “scold” posters regarding their comments. Your most recent “scolding” in the Vulgarity post. But it happens quite often when you think someone’s sarcasm or off beat comment doesn’t align with your way of thinking. I say lets relax on the scolding of fellow posters as we’re all adults here and freedom of speech is encouraged on this site. If a comment isn’t up to par with your standards, simply don’t respond. Pretty simple concept dontcha think?
Have a wonderful Friday!
Guest House, for someone who regularly opposes overly sensitive people, I have to say that I think referring to my post as a “scold” was being overly sensitive.
Guest House,
You still haven’t answered about your own hypocrisy. You scolded Nemesis for “labeling” after making the comment “I’m the glass is half full kind of person and you’re the glass is half empty.”
You’ve also been complaining about all the “mother hens” who are objecting to your comments, after saying “But I also don’t appreciate people bashing the US and the Bush administration. If you’re so unhappy with this country than leave.”
Don’t you see a difference between people suggesting that you be more civil in your comments, and you telling people to leave the country rather than make comments?
All I’m saying Guest House, is go back and look at your first two posts. They could have been made by O’Reilly or Hannity or Savage. I can imagine them being made by a certain notorious fan of those three blowhards.
This country is slowly waking up to how harmful that level of discourse is to the fabric of our society.
Go back and re-read your first couple of posts, and those of Bingo Bob, and tell us whether you think they belong in a civil conversation. If you think they are OK, then tell us why the very mild complaints about your language are so much worse than the bombs that you dropped.
The labeling issue I was talking to Nemesis about was her labeling peoples “VIEWS”, not labeling people themselves. (and I didn’t “scold” her, merely made a statement) But of course if you would have read it correctly yourself you would have seen that. So lets move on already.
This site promotes free speech and if that’s too much for you to handle than don’t reply to my comments. It’s as simple as that. But all the “mother hens” on this site with their scolding of fellow posters has gotten out of hand. If you don’t think my comments are “civil enough” for you, than move on and respond to somebody elses comments. You certainly won’t offend me.
I guess there is a difference depending on who makes the “statement” and who “scolds.” That’s actually quite hypocritical. But I agree, time to move on.
As for hmmms comment. Yes, I do oppose “overly sensitive” people. This country was founded on freedom of speech and until that right is taken away from me, I’m going to utilize it to the fullest extent. If my views, opinions and comments happen to offend someone along the way, oh well that’s life, get over it. You may not like my style of debate, but I don’t like the way you (& Idahogie) have to pick apart every person that makes a comment you don’t approve of. This is the real world, not some sugar coated dreamland you want it to be.
As always, just my opinion. Which you’re more than welcome to ignore. Have a wonderful day!
(and btw, can we get back on topic now?)
Not to jump in the middle of your conversation but Idahogie, do you think calling someone a “blowhard” is “civil conversation”? It doesn’t bother me, but I can understand how other posters can point out you saying one thing about their comments and than you turn around and do the exact same thing you’re complaining about.
I have agree with the “free speech” issue GH talks about. “Civil discussion” means different things to different people. What’s civil to one person may not be to another. I’m a big Rush Limbaugh fan, (I think GH is too. LOL) and I can tell by hmmm & Idahogies comments they’re not. Rush is pretty brash with his comments and point of view, but that’s the beauty of this country, he has that right. Just as GH has that right. And like Rush, you can choose to tune him out or listen to his point of view.
just throwing in my 3 cents.
Sorry but I’m lost. If Guest House says something derogatory it’s freedom of speech. If Idahogie or I say something it’s a scold, bash or other likewise comment. That’s the part I don’t get. It’s the part we both referred to. It’s the part that keeps meeting with disagreement. It’s hypocrisy at it’s finest. This is precisely the reason why my once more conservative stand is moving towards a more liberal stand.
Geez, let it go already!!!!
Ah, darn it, I wasn’t here to get into the middle of it all and make everyone mad at me instead of at each other!
Shucks. Now whatever will I do with my evening?
Time to write a new post! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Nice to see Obama agree to the town hall meetings with McCain….
oh, wait, now he doesn’t. . .
oh wait, he is against offshore oil drilling. . .
oh wait, now he is in favor of it. . .
I wonder what size flip-flops he wears?
Hmm….he was for public financing, then against it.
He was for the DC law banning handguns, then was for it when the Supreme Court decided it violated the 2nd Amendment.
He was against immunity for telecoms, then voted for it.
On 7/2/08, he gave a speech in one state in the morning advocating a withdrawl of troops based on military commander recommendations. Later that afternoon on the same day, in another state, he gave a speech totally contradicting himself statng he would begin the withdrawl on day one of taking office. Just playing to the audience I suppose. Both of these pols have their moments, that is for sure.
Isn’t it interesting that Obama is a politician, just like McCain? Wow.
Hasn’t been one single politician that I know of that doesn’t change their mind about something. Wait. That could also apply to any reasonable human being…we tend to change our minds.
So, I’m curious, both easterner and Bundy…was your point in comments #53 and 54 to say that Obama is a politician?
If so, I definitely agree with you.
I was going to make another comment, but I changed my mind.
I can only speak for myself. Yes, the message was that Obama WAS and IS just another politician. Using Hoagster’s point about legislating morality, i.e. that conservatives do and deny it. It is ironic that Obama sold himself as an outsider, a new kind of politician that was not beholden to special interests, and people believed it because they were hankering for something different than the rest. Obama sold himself as a bag of new goods when in fact he was recycled out of the corrupt Chicago political machine……but of course, he will deny it to the very end. I wonder how many of his enthusiastic supporters now realize this…..and if this will effect turnout for him in November. Many people mocked McCain’s Paris Hilton/Obama Ad, but when you really stop an look at the situation, we see that Obama like McCain are just a bunch of the same old political pros trying to get elected. Guys like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul (who aren’t beholden to any of the ilk from the 2 main parties) never stand a chance because they don’t play the game like Obama and McCain.
Hi Nemesis,
I think it is important to note these “flip flops” because Obama was supposed by many to be a man of conviction who was “not” a politician (I don’t mean you, Nem) and who was going to “change” politics.
The mainstream media had previously touted Obama as being outside of the realm of “politician”. It is nice to see that he really is a garden-variety politician, tilting at whatever windmill the special interest groups (i.e., campaign contributers) place in front of him.
I think many young earnest politicians start out trying to be new and different and end up beaten and desperately attempting to retain the last vestiges of their integrity.
I hope Obama is able to retain as much of his as possible.
Oh, Bloop, in #56, I hope you make your comment! Don’t let me or others scare you or make you too sad to say what you think.
I’m still wondering why they made a comment to say they weren’t going to make a comment. Is it some sort of puzzle or mind freak or will they break down and post said comment anyway?
McCain is the biggest flip-flopper in the race. He denounced the religious right, but has courted them just to get the nomination. He said “no withdrawal without victory” (without defining victory, of course) but has since said that he’ll listen to the Iraqi parliament. He said he’d run a positive campaign, but is running mostly negative ads (the latest are absolutely disgusting – it says a lot about a person who will support such a scummy candidate). All of these changes were done purely to win an election. That’s the definition of flip-flopping.
Obama flip-flopped on one thing listed in the comments above: the unconstitutional McCain-backed FISA law. Other than that, the rest of the examples are bogus.
For example, he never changed his position on public financing. He said that he’d work with the nominee of the other party to have a publicly financed campaign. But McCain violated his own law, so Obama knew exactly what he was going to face. And because Bush refused to unbundle his nominees for the FEC board, no enforcement was possible.
Obama is very much a politician. But he does represent a huge change from what we have right now. He will actually engage with Republicans for workable compromises. He proved that today by releasing his energy plan that includes new oil drilling. That doesn’t mean he thinks new drilling is a good idea. But he recognizes that since the GOP has staked their own election campaign on the idiotic notion that new drilling will have some impact, they can’t approve any energy policy unless it includes that.
Of course, the conservatives here will call it a flip-flop, as they are not so much interested in honesty – just in destroying Obama’s character, just as they did with Kerry and with Gore.
Funny comment 60. lol I wondered that too.
Have a great day everyone!
But lets be realistic, they both flip flop because their both trying to get elected and will say whatever it takes to win. I don’t think either candidate is right for the job, but you just have to pick the lesser of two evils, and in my opinion, that’s McCain.
Mr. Hoagie,
You are obviously a partisan. Can your guy do no wrong? I guess not. He must walk on water and be the biggest and the best. We must all be stupid for not supporting such a great candidate. If we could all just convert like Hoagie wants us to then we can all be saved.
Yeah, I can see where he is really trying to reach across the isle. He won’t even join McCain at joint Town Hall meetings. I think McCain should have an empty chair with Obama’s name on it follow him on the campaign trail everywhere he goes and mock the guy for refusing to debate one-on-one.
If it’s all about honesty for you Hoagie, then why can’t you practice some in your recitation of all the big bad things the Democrats do as well as the Republicans, or is that just too inconvenient for your argument?
I saw idahogie being honest about Obama, including the FISA change, Bingo Bob. The one being dishonest about Obama is you. Obama has agreed to at least 3 debates with McCain, once they both get their party’s nominations. Why should they debate before then?
It’s pretty clear that if you are for Obama, that makes you the big, bad, mean bully. Pretty sad attitude to have.
Oh I can feel the attacks coming but here goes from one of the Mother Hens herself.
What I find sad is that the republicans on this thread with few exceptions cannot seem to debate. Instead they cast stones at those bringing up facts on the other side of the coin. It gives republicans a bad name. As someone who has voted many times in the past for the republican party (although not recently), I can say that this is one reason why I don’t choose to vote for them anymore. I’d like to here of a reason TO vote for them.
BEFORE our republicans friends go throwing rocks at this post, yes…I am fully aware that democrats do the same thing. I also see who picks up the first stone when the democrats have proven them wrong time and time again. It seems that the frustration level with the reps gets so amazingly high when they realize they’re wrong, that they see no alternative but to get mean. No party if perfect. No party is without problems, issues and imperfections. It’s not the end of the world if your party doesn’t do something right.
Oh I know Guest House will call me mama hen again. I honestly don’t care, it’s actually a bit of a compliment. I like being a mom.
I am sure Easterner will make herself out to be the victim of a BRUTAL ATTACK. But I honestly don’t care about that either. Her issue not mine.
What I do care about is a good debate which is what I thought these threads were all about. Am I wrong? Making fun of other parties/people doesn’t tell me what I need to know to cast my vote. It discourages this voter from the republican party all the more. It doesn’t enlighten readers to information they want to cast their vote.
Bundy — I know that you are smarter than all this. I have seen it in your posts which I can’t say for some of the others. You have the ability to use it wisely. When you resort to some of those posts you’ve done recently, it seems like you lose composure or something. You of all people in my opinion, should be using your brains to debate with the knowledge you obviously have. You and Idahogie could have a great debate if you both keep your tempers in check.
Just my two cents.
Bingo Bob:
I’m seriously tired of some of the people on this website. I listed a flipflop that Obama made in my response to the half-dozen accusations that were made in the comments above. None of those commenters listed anything wrong with McCain. Yet who does Bingo call out? The guy who did exactly what he’s asking for.
Maybe you should try reading my comment again, a little slower this time. Let me know if that doesn’t help.
…..funny, I never used the words “BRUTAL ATTACK”. . . .
hmmmm, why make assumptions about me and my motives?
if you don’t agree or care to read my posts, then don’t. . . .but why do you keep making me one of your issues?
this is the 3rd or 4th time you have jumped into a discussion with no info or opinion on the topic, but rather some personal slam against a poster or posters, usually, as here, because they disagreed with your opinion or with Idahogie’s opinion. . . read through your own posts on this particular article and see what I mean.
but please, leave me out of it, okay?
if you want to debate the issue here, great!
I think that not reading your posts is a great idea! They usually lack any ability to reason anyway. I’ll do that.
yep, most posts usually “lack any ability to reason”. . . um, people really need to do that.
You want some facts to debate with hmm and Hoagie?
Check this out. This is a major problem for the good Senator from Ilinois on his flip-flop about drilling:
________
Barack Obama — fighting to keep us ignorant
It’s unfortunate that, at least until this Friday, Barack Obama opposed off-shore drilling. Still, this is a policy issue on which reasonable people probably can differ and certainly could before gasoline prices skyrocketed. But, Obama has also led a one-man crusade to keep the American people ignorant about what’s at stake in the debate over off-shore drilling. This is almost criminal. For it implies that there is no set of facts under which we should ever consider drilling off-shore. The absurdity of that position, always apparent, is confirmed by Obama’s willingness to flip on the issue.
Here’s the background. In 2005, Congress considered energy legislation that included an off-shore inventory. The inventory would provide an estimate of our off-shore reserves. Taking it wouldn’t mean drilling; it would just tell us what’s out there. Yet Obama voted to kill the off-shore inventory provision. So, unfortunately, did John McCain. However, the effort to kill the inventory failed, and the first inventory report was issued in February 2006.
Obama, though, did not give up in his efforts to keep the public ignorant. In January 2007, he proposed legislation to eliminate the authorization to conduct the inventory, as established in the 2005 law. Obama’s bill is S. 115. The key provision is section 101(a)(5). It provides that “Section 357 (42 U.S.C. 15912) (relating to comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and natural gas resources)” is “repealed as of the date of enactment of this act.” It’s my understanding that Obama is the only sponsor of this legislation. Here is the link:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-115
Ironically, Obama called his legislation “The Oil SENSE Act.” How audacious a label for an act that would deprive the public of key information relevant to deciding whether off-shore drilling makes sense. As far as I know, Obama’s legislation is still pending.
It’s wonderful that Obama now thinks it might be ok to drill off-shore, provided that such drilling is part of an “overarching really thoughtful” energy package. Perhaps now, as part of the package, Obama will stop opposing an inventory of our off-shore energy assets. After all, if Obama is prepared to support drilling, he no longer needs to keep voters in the dark about what we are losing by not drilling.
So, now Obama is in favor of some off-shore drilling? Why? Especially when he tired to not only eliminate a study but 2 years later, kill it’s funding. Total politics and this is legislation that HE ALONE SPONSORED.
Y’know Bundy, it’s polite to source material when you lift it for your own use. Looks to me you’ve taken writings by at least two different people to create your post.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_craftiness.html
Naughty, naughty! You might even get the site owner in trouble.
Thanks ooh_child for researching that. I thought Bundy had lifted that material somewhere else, too. Although I think he/she didn’t intend to mislead – it just wasn’t made clear that’s what was happening. Perhaps he/she can be more clear in the future.
What I think is funny is that Bundy thinks the issue is some sort of problem for Obama in the first place. Obama and most knowledgeable people recognize that opening new offshore oil fields will have negligible effects on gas prices for the next 15 years. Even McCain said that the impact would be psychological. But Obama added it to his energy plan because the GOP had backed itself into a such a corner that they would never agree to any energy policy unless new drilling were included. Obama’s inclusion of drilling is just an attempt to craft a workable policy that will get passed. It’s not an admission that he thinks its a good idea.
You’re welcome, idahogie. It wasn’t that hard to find, once I started googling for more info about the bill. It’s kinda obvious, in fact.
The other funny thing about off-shore drilling, if there’s anything to be amused about, is the states’ rights to approve these leases. I don’t think California will go for it, but I’m not sure about the other states involved. It’s a political show the Republicans are putting on right now; the rhetoric means nothing to solving our problems.
It’s needs to happen sooner than later and the Gulf of Mexico is the place to be. There’s enough oil there to to replace current Persian Gulf imports for 59 years. Only problem is, those politicians that are currently in bed with the Saudis would lose out on all that money.
http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2753
And I’m sure there’s just as much if not more off both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts as well. We could completely free ourselves of foreign oil if we wanted to, but why would we want to do that?
Exactly, Guest House – why would we want to do that?
When what we should be doing is making ourselves completely free of all fossil fuel sources.
On the other hand, we could elect McCain, give the oil companies more tax breaks, and get ourselves more addicted to oil in the process.
Why would we want to do that? Indeed.
Why should we make ourselves free of “fossil fuel” sources? Because of your “so called” global warming? The sooner you bleeding heart liberals realize global warming is a hoax, the better off we’ll all be and can move on with out lives without everything needing to be “green”.
I urge everyone to read Glenn Becks book “An Inconvenient Book”. After 22 chapters you’ll be shocked and saddened at how political correctness, special interests, and outright stupidity have trumped common sense. This book should be High School mandatory material.
Give me something better to work with Hoagster.
Yeah, lets run everything off wind and solar power, that’s the answer!! Give me a break!
No! Let’s not run everything off wind and solar power! Please give us a break, too and stop making it sound as if we’re a bunch of eco-nuts with nothing of substance to contribute, just because we don’t think the same way as you do! I’m tired of being soft and gentle, if you’re going to be sarcastic I’m going to respond likewise. (oops, did I do wrong to speak forcefully here? maybe I should let my hero fight my battles for me, as I’m just a sad and sorry little girlie…)
Instead, let’s lift our dependence on fossil fuels because of so many reasons that have nothing to do with being green…for starters, the fact that we don’t want to be dependent upon any one fuel source to the extent that we are with fossil fuels, because when there are shortages or market fluctuations we hurt all over in today’s type of economy.
We’re asking for a more thorough energy plan with long-term and diverse options that many companies (and hopefully they’ll be United States-owned companies) control, instead of what we have today which is Big Oil in bed with the Saudis!
If we were to develop resources in many areas, hydro-electric, fossil fuels, solar, wind, nuclear, hydrogen, electric battery, etc we could finally break the yoke and get out from this burden.
It’s like your stock market or retirement portfolio. And the old common sense saying, “Never put all your eggs in one basket”.
Please help me understand, Guest of a Guest and Guest House…are you really not in favor of working to diversify our energy options?
DANG! You GO girl!
Glen Beck? For real? That’s your authority? Not a climate specialist, or even a scientist in general, but a wingnut blowhard?
Seriously, do you also listen to Ann Coulter on evolution?
If only energy diversity were the real agenda of both parties it would be wonderful for the country. Neither of them seem to be able to offer a coherent energy policy that helps us keep all of our “eggs” out of one basket.
Obama’s energy plan includes oil drilling, natural gas development, clean coal, conservation, alternative and renewable energy development, and nuclear power, with both short- and long-term initiatives.
Sounds diverse to me.
Why don’t you go down to the Obama campaign and go to work for them? You really seem to have an answer for everything.
Ha! That’s your response?! Someone provides a well-formed and succinct comment with a link to the source material, and all you can do is tell them to buzz off in what you think is an insulting manner?
When liberals are proven wrong they tend to change the subject, when conservatives are proven wrong they tend to devolve into name calling and bossiness. Which is worse?
Bundy, in #82 you do offer a thought that I agree with. Your first sentence says:
“If only energy diversity were the real agenda of both parties it would be wonderful for the country.”
I am amazed at the so-called leadership in our country, which didn’t step up to the plate in the 70s when we encountered the first warning of our over-dependence on fossil fuels. It feels like they went on with pork business as usual when the immediate crisis ended, and never bothered to find ways to help get us out of our problems.
Here it is 30 yrs later and we’re still in the same “barrel” so to speak.
Let’s not let them get away with it this time.
Guest #85, I’ve had that same complaint for over 35 years…it annoyed the heck out of me that conservatives were such bullies and liberals were such weinies. Bullies are disgusted by weakness, and liberals tend to be so meek and mild.
Then I meet Idahogie who isn’t a weinie, he lives his life boldly and is willing to stand proudly on the same battlefield as the conservatives do…and while I recognize the importance of his style to the liberal cause, I bemoan that there is no other way to combat the bullies than to be on their turf at their level.
It just feels icky to have to be battling at all. I’m old, and I want to go back to the politics of fairness, where we disagree but respect each other’s position, and even compromise to get each segment of the population a little peace offering in each major piece of legislation.
Now it’s always war (you’re either with us or against us) and I’m tired of war.
For all of Obama’s gaffes, and the fact that he is having to learn the hard way that sometimes he has to compromise, I feel he has the better desire to bring change and that’s why I’ve decided I’m going to actively campaign for him.
The point is, there’s no reason to ditch fossil fuels altogether. That’s preposterous. There’s more oil and natural gas in the ground than we know what to do with. We purchased Alaska for this reason, for it’s natural resources, not for it’s pretty mountains and watch bambi bound across the fields. Wake up liberals! Obama wouldn’t know an energy plan if it bit him in the @#$!
I am working for Obama. I was a state delegate. I’m attending an organizing meeting on Saturday.
I don’t have an answer for everything, but I can find answers to uninformed comments like #82.
Why does that prompt an aggressive, insulting response like #84? Do you always lash out like that when presented with facts?
Guest House -
I provided a link to Obama’s energy plan in #83. Instead of completely baseless comments like you just made, why don’t you read it and identify for us its weaknesses. Also show us how McCain’s plan is better.
Or you could continue throwing out meaningless and uninformed comments like #88.