Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obama's failed foreign policyFollow

#27 Apr 07 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,882 posts
Varus wrote:
bsphil,


Quote:
That'd be great except we paid HIGHER prices for gas under W



No we didn't. Not that I actually expected you to take the time to find out if what you were saying is true or not.

So as usual allow me to educate you;

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html


You were saying something about reality.


Varus says we didn't. Yet his data posted shows highest prices in 7/7/2008, with three relatively high spikes during the three years prior.

When did Obama take office, Varus?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#28 Apr 07 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
According to your linked story, the highest gas prices were July 2008. You know, When Bush was President. You really are clueless.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#29 Apr 07 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
BUT THE MARKETS KNEW OBAMA WAS GOING TO WIN
#30 Apr 07 2011 at 4:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
And it's not like those Dems didn't take control of congress back in 2006 or anything.

For the record, I don't think recent fluxuations in gas prices have had much of anything at all to do with who's in what office.

Edited, Apr 7th 2011 3:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Apr 07 2011 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
gbaji wrote:
And it's not like those Dems didn't take control of congress back in 2006 or anything.
How does that make it due to Obama's foreign policy?
#32 Apr 07 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,882 posts
gbaji wrote:
And it's not like those Dems didn't take control of congress back in 2006 or anything.

For the record, I don't think recent fluxuations in gas prices have had much of anything at all to do with who's in what office.

Edited, Apr 7th 2011 3:16pm by gbaji


The point being not who's fault it is, but rather that Varus doesn't read what he posts as evidence.

Edited, Apr 7th 2011 6:17pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#33 Apr 07 2011 at 6:19 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
varusword75 wrote:
bsphil


Proof that varus is bsphils sock: he's the only person who's name he wrote correctly.
#34 Apr 07 2011 at 6:55 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
Reporting from Baghdad, Iraq yesterday, NBC’s Tom Brokaw said the Saudi Arabian monarchy is “so unhappy with the Obama administration for the way it pushed out President Mubarak of Egypt” that it has sent senior officials to the Peoples' Republic of China and Russia to seek expanded business opportunities with those countries.


Is anyone surprised by this?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/nbc-s-brokaw-saudis-so-unhappy-obama-adm


As an independent, I would like to see less threads of what the Dems are doing wrong and more threads of what the Reps are doing right...

Just a thought... trolling or not, it's still information..
#35 Apr 07 2011 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
Certainly, it would have been a lot cheaper to pay Saddam a couple billion to be our buddy than to spend a decade of military action overseas, right? Bush sure was dumb.


No it wouldn't have. W taking out Saddam was as much a message to the rest of the ME not to f*ck with W which saved the US consumer billions in revenue.

Instead costing us billions in military spending, as well as thousands of dead and maimed soldiers. As long as you think the trade-off is fair...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#36 Apr 07 2011 at 6:57 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
bsphil


Proof that varus is bsphils sock: he's the only person who's name he wrote correctly.

No, I think he got lolgaxe right last page.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#37 Apr 07 2011 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,730 posts
Debalic wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
bsphil
Proof that varus is bsphils sock: he's the only person who's name he wrote correctly.
No, I think he got lolgaxe right last page.
No, he put me in my place with his uncanny ability to insult people through the misspelling of one's handle by not adding the e at the end.

It doesn't make sense to me, either.

Edited, Apr 7th 2011 9:55pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38 Apr 07 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Aripya,

Quote:
I hope you don't vote, so that you are simply an ignorant @#%^, instead of a dangerous ignorant @#%^.

Your lack of knowledge and understanding about the recent events in Egypt are breathtaking in their scope.


I simply hope you actually get a f*cking job so you can understand what real americans are having to deal with.

Oh and you're stupid.

What breathtaking vocabulary. Twit. ****. Fucktard. Sewer backwash. Puerile-minded hypocrite. Violently repulsive emetic. Unexamined life direly worse than not worth living. Deluded carrion breathed memetic plague bearer. Cretinous boot-licking cowardly thrall to small simple-minded hate-mongers. Blinkered slave to lax illogic, irrationality, and unearned narcissistic grandiosity. Vile, putrid spreader of lies and untruths, nurturer of prejudicial. festering xenophobia, community divisions and ethnic violence. Drooling, lustfully-yearning dreamer of the violent suppression of anything NOT YOU. Soul sucking totalitarian fascist.

You think you are moral: Delusion.
You think you are smart: Delusion.
You think you are informed enough to follow effect from cause: Delusion.
You think you are better than other people, that you know what makes other people tick, that you are morally pure when you look down on the "sluts" and "whores" you pick up for your own pleasure: Delusional psychopath.

Edited, Apr 7th 2011 9:58pm by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#39 Apr 07 2011 at 7:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Almalieque wrote:
As an independent, I would like to see less threads of what the Dems are doing wrong and more threads of what the Reps are doing right...


On foreign policy? That's pretty much 100% the person sitting in the oval office who's responsible for that, so I'm not sure what things you expect us to say.

We can talk about statements about how the GOP would have handled things differently, though. And frankly, this is a subject I've commented on many times, and specifically with regard to the handling of the recent unrest in the region in question (Middle East and North Africa). I think it's very legitimate, coming off 8 years of the Dems criticizing Bush for his foreign policy approach while arguing that they could do it so much better, to look at the results of those supposedly "better" methods. What are we seeing? Not much difference. Same groups of people are burning Obama in effigy instead of Bush, and what certainly appears to be less stability in the region than more.


I think that the problem with Obama's approach to foreign policy is that he's damaging relations with the few allies we have in the region, in an attempt to improve relations with those who have not been our allies. And while that approach sells well among the "can't we all just get along?" crowd, the reality is that most of the time you cost yourself the allies you have, and then the new "friends" you make ***** you over anyway. That certainly seems to be what's happening at least.



Having said that, I'll be perfectly fair and say that there likely wasn't a whole lot Obama could have done differently with regard to Egypt. He could have been a bit more supportive of the idea of Mubarak being part of the transition instead of jumping on the "boot him now" bandwagon, but honestly it's hard to say how that would have changed things anyway. On the plus side is that in Mubarak you had a leader who did apparently care more about his own people and country than his own political power. While hardly a perfect leader while in power, at least he did step down and did so in a way that allowed for the maximum stability possible. The Obama approach worked here, but I'm pretty sure the Bush approach would have as well. I suspect Bush would have operated in a way designed to *not* further inflame a potentially violent mob while allowing for a more stately step down for Mubarak. It ended out working ok, but Obama ran the risk of the whole thing turning far more violent than it did, and seemed to do so purely because he wanted to look like he was "one of the people".

Dunno. Not a huge deal in Egypt, but it is an indication of the way Obama approaches foreign politics. He seems to be more concerned with how he appears to the angry mob than in working toward a well defined goal. The GOP is less concerned with how they look, and more concerned with how things end out.


And at the risk of expanding the conversation, this is very very relevant in Libya. In that case, Obama also took the "cheer lead from the sidelines" approach, and it didn't work out so well. Khadaffi was not willing to just step down because crowds of people demanded it and the whole thing has spun into civil war. And when that happened, Obama wasn't willing to pick a side and help them win, but once again went with the "I don't want to appear to be too aggressive" approach. The end result is that we're likely to be stuck in a stalemate and arguably more people will die rather than fewer before this thing is done. Also, pretty much no matter how it ends, we wont be viewed well by whomever ends out in power in Libya.


The GOP would have either stayed out of it entirely, or would have provided substantial assistance to the rebels with the goal of helping them topple Khadaffi. Since you're asking what the GOP would do "right", that's how they'd have done it "differently". Hopefully, that's close enough to what you're asking for. And in Libya, the GOP approach absolutely would have been better. Obama took a risk that the rebels would be able to win and all he needed to do was cheer them on. But he was wrong. And now, he's missed his opportunity to act decisively and resolve the conflict quickly, and has himself stuck in a policy position that makes it incredibly difficult to ever act to resolve the conflict. Criticize the GOP for their cowboy approach all you want, but it would have allowed us to avoid the pitfall that Obama finds himself in now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Apr 07 2011 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:

On foreign policy? That's pretty much 100% the person sitting in the oval office who's responsible for that, so I'm not sure what things you expect us to say.


I meant in general. Most of his trolling threads are just Dem-bashing, but writing more positive pro-Republican threads is a much more effective way to sway people's minds. I know it's silly to ask as a troll's job is to stir up emotion.

#41 Apr 07 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

On foreign policy? That's pretty much 100% the person sitting in the oval office who's responsible for that, so I'm not sure what things you expect us to say.


I meant in general. Most of his trolling threads are just Dem-bashing, but writing more positive pro-Republican threads is a much more effective way to sway people's minds. I know it's silly to ask as a troll's job is to stir up emotion.


I find it interesting you think he's a troll with a consistent persona. I rarely if ever see a crack in the persona, and I get a strong vibe he means what he says. If he is purely trolling, then he's the best on site. If not, he's a despicable human being from my point of view.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#42 Apr 07 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

On foreign policy? That's pretty much 100% the person sitting in the oval office who's responsible for that, so I'm not sure what things you expect us to say.


I meant in general. Most of his trolling threads are just Dem-bashing, but writing more positive pro-Republican threads is a much more effective way to sway people's minds.


Sorry. I have to laugh. You know that's not true, right? The whole "pro arguments for your side work better than con arguments against the other side" is unfortunately simply false. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for people to be more swayed by arguments in which you simply say what your side will or is doing and why it's better, but the reality is that people aren't that reasonable as a whole. There's a reason why negative ads work in politics. It's usually much much easier to get someone to vote "against" someone than to get them to vote "for" your guy. Sad, but true.


Having said that, it's also a reasonable opener to criticize the other guy first and *then* say how your guy would do it better. Even if you aren't playing rhetoric games, it's nearly impossible to argue a "better" alternative method if you don't first establish what's wrong with the current method. I agree 100% that arguments that stop at just attacking the other side are (or should be) considered weak. I've often argued against the idea of effectively comparing the other guy to perfection, which is what you're doing if all you do is point out the flaws in the other guys position. You have to show what's wrong with the other guys approach, and then show that some alternative approach is better.


Varus may not do that, but I do (or at least I try to). It's rare that I simply point out something someone is doing and say it's wrong or bad. I nearly always will follow it up with an alternative that I believe is better. So by all means, feel free to bash Varus for not doing this, but I think it's unfair to suggest that just because Varus doesn't present those "better" alternatives from the GOP that this means that they don't exist.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Apr 07 2011 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
bsphil


Proof that varus is bsphils sock: he's the only person who's name he wrote correctly.
Hahaha, interesting point.

varusword75 wrote:
bsphil,

Quote:
That'd be great except we paid HIGHER prices for gas under W


No we didn't. Not that I actually expected you to take the time to find out if what you were saying is true or not.

So as usual allow me to educate you;

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html


You were saying something about reality.
Yes, this proves that I'm right - the highest price of gas is under George W. Bush's term in 2008. Did you forget when Obama was sworn in?



Edited, Apr 7th 2011 9:56pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#44 Apr 07 2011 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Arip wrote:
I find it interesting you think he's a troll with a consistent persona. I rarely if ever see a crack in the persona, and I get a strong vibe he means what he says. If he is purely trolling, then he's the best on site. If not, he's a despicable human being from my point of view.


I know exactly what you mean, this is why I don't call myself a troll. Even though I often say things to get a response, it's 100% what I believe. The difference with him is HOW he says it.

Gbaji can say the same exact thing, but the way it is presented is in a discussion type manner. Varus, on the other hand, says things in a very immature, negative and insulting way. It may just be me, but I take it as very provocative ("Haha, I just insulted your president, now what!"). Although, I believe he supports his political stances, I don't believe a large percentage of the stuff he says in general responses. May be that isn't the definition of a troll, but that's how I see it.

Gbaji wrote:

Sorry. I have to laugh. You know that's not true, right? The whole "pro arguments for your side work better than con arguments against the other side" is unfortunately simply false. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for people to be more swayed by arguments in which you simply say what your side will or is doing and why it's better, but the reality is that people aren't that reasonable as a whole. There's a reason why negative ads work in politics. It's usually much much easier to get someone to vote "against" someone than to get them to vote "for" your guy. Sad, but true.


That simply isn't true. It just often follows the "Good Guys Always Finish Last" concept. I compare this to the people who go around pitching their religion. That's not the best solution. It's much more effective to "lead by example." Think about it, society idolizes celebrities mainly because of their success and their ways of success are often studied.

The same concept applies here. Results speaks for themselves. I use the same concept at work. You can say whatever you want about me and/or my leadership, but the results speak for themselves. Is the mission complete? Yes? Then what's the problem? The only reason why you would have to do negative ads, is if your work isn't as good as it should be.

I hate to make so many cross references, but take R. Kelly for example. People were wondering why when M.J. got accused for child molestation (and other celebrities with other negative charges) their careers took a dump, but R. Kelly's didn't? The answer is, he was continually making good music and that's what people want him for. So, he can ***** up in other areas, but as long as he's getting the job done, that is all that matters.

You can see the same with Chris Brown.

Gbaji wrote:
Having said that, it's also a reasonable opener to criticize the other guy first and *then* say how your guy would do it better. Even if you aren't playing rhetoric games, it's nearly impossible to argue a "better" alternative method if you don't first establish what's wrong with the current method. I agree 100% that arguments that stop at just attacking the other side are (or should be) considered weak. I've often argued against the idea of effectively comparing the other guy to perfection, which is what you're doing if all you do is point out the flaws in the other guys position. You have to show what's wrong with the other guys approach, and then show that some alternative approach is better.


I agree with that, but it's all about class. You can address current problems without directly attacking a person. Just like when the commercials say "against the leading brand". You don't have to show your opponents face in black and while slowly fading in the background with horror music playing.

I can see how there might be situations where it might be difficult to avoid directly referring to someone, but if your argument has been clean most of the way, I think people generally understand that.
#45 Apr 07 2011 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
it's all about class
Smiley: dubious

Really?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#46 Apr 08 2011 at 6:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Almalieque wrote:

I hate to make so many cross references, but take R. Kelly for example. People were wondering why when M.J. got accused for child molestation (and other celebrities with other negative charges) their careers took a dump, but R. Kelly's didn't? The answer is, he was continually making good music and that's what people want him for. So, he can ***** up in other areas, but as long as he's getting the job done, that is all that matters.

You can see the same with Chris Brown.


Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#47varusword75, Posted: Apr 08 2011 at 7:40 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) bspil,
#48 Apr 08 2011 at 7:43 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
varusword75 wrote:
bspil


Oh, don't try to change it now. I'm on to you, bsphil.
#49 Apr 08 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
Quote:
Sorry little fella but the graph shows a sharp trend upwards in the cost of gas since the Dems took control of congress and then a continual increase every year Obama's been in office.
And that would have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that gas prices bottomed out at the start of the recession and have had only one way to go since then, up.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#50 Apr 08 2011 at 9:56 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
bspil
Don't change it now just because you got called out on it.

varusword75 wrote:
Sorry little fella but the graph shows a sharp trend upwards in the cost of gas since the Dems took control of congress and then a continual increase every year Obama's been in office.

Excluding the election year dip it's obvious to any non-partisan that the price of gas has only increased while the dems have controlled congress and the presidency. H*ll if you predict oil futures based solely on the information on this graph then we're heading for 7$ a gallon by then end of Obama's second term (if he wins).

Mark my words if Obama loses re-election the cost of gas will level off or start going down. And if he wins the cost of gas will continue going up. Anyone want to take this bet?
Not as high as under Bush though, which was exactly my point. And there have been increases in that graph where republicans control both congress and the presidency. Anyone with half a brain can see that, plain as day, on the chart, but I don't want to assume too much by saying you have an entire half of a brain.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#51varusword75, Posted: Apr 08 2011 at 2:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) bsphil,
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 79 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (79)