ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll

[Nordling]

And to use the tragic death of four people to "gain points" in a political campaign is a bit evil in itself. Especially when it's done before much information has come out.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I suppose, I think most people I know whose reaction I gauged were more concerned about the act than whatever pretext it was committed under. Even when we thought it was something to do with a video, didn't we all still believe a video isn't even the slightest excuse? The killing of 4 people because they represent a foreign country is an act of terrorism whether it's because of a video, a book, or whatever. It doesn't make it any more or less horrible or evil whether there was some kind of protest used as cover for a planned attack or simply a planned attack.

If an administration lied about the circumstances of the attack to minimise political fallout during an election I'm not defending that at all, BUT it's ridiculous to turn THAT into more of an issue than the attack itself.

I am not. The attack was a horrible event, and brought closer to home because I believe I meet the Amb Stevens. when we attended university together. For all my criticism of the President I am sure he is sincere in tracking down and killing those responsible. Nitpicking security deployments aside I doubt there was a lot that could have been done to prevent the attack.

The President deserves criticism for two things attempting to deflecting blame on the video. Secondly after condemning the video the umpteenth, he needed to mount a full throated defense on the rights of any crazy hateful nuts to make these horrible video. He also needs to explain that even the President doesn't have the ability or right to ban these videos. Freedom of speech is cherished right in the west, and Western religions have learned to deal with hateful propaganda in non violent ways. So when Pakistani ministers call for international laws against blasphemy he needs to say to hell no it ain't happening. Romney's instincts were right in this respect with his condemn the Egyptian embassy's statement even if his timing was bad.

 

[Shaun__]

I am not. The attack was a horrible event, and brought closer to home because I believe I meet the Amb Stevens. when we attended university together. For all my criticism of the President I am sure he is sincere in tracking down and killing those responsible. Nitpicking security deployments aside I doubt there was a lot that could have been done to prevent the attack.

The President deserves criticism for two things attempting to deflecting blame on the video. Secondly after condemning the video the umpteenth, he needed to mount a full throated defense on the rights of any crazy hateful nuts to make these horrible video. He also needs to explain that even the President doesn't have the ability or right to ban these videos. Freedom of speech is cherished right in the west, and Western religions have learned to deal with hateful propaganda in non violent ways. So when Pakistani ministers call for international laws against blasphemy he needs to say to hell no it ain't happening. Romney's instincts were right in this respect with his condemn the Egyptian embassy's statement even if his timing was bad.

Did you ever stop and consider that they may have had a reason for claiming that the video was the cause of the attack? Like maybe they thought the attacks might have been aimed at the CIA operations in the area, but they did not want to say that out loud just in case they were not the target and the operations were still secure? Of course then the Republicans had to have their public witch hunt, and accidentally exposed the CIA activity to the world and the fact it was still ongoing in the area as well.

 

[Nordling]

The President needs to make a "full-throated defense of free speech?" Okay, how about this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/world/obamas-address-to-united-nations.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

The President needs to make a "full-throated defense of free speech?" Okay, how about this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/world/obamas-address-to-united-nations.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

A fine speech and I was well aware of it. (Give the President an important venue a teleprompter and he generally delivers an excellent speech). Now if this had been give Sept 12, or even Sept 14 instead of Sept 25 after dozens of statement distancing the US from the video, which we now know is a red herring. I'd have no complaint.

 

[morment]

Obama responded: 'Here's what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.'

Did you see the interview that quote was pulled from? If so you would know that John Stewart used the phrase "not optimal" in the question right before that statement, so it wasn't as if President Obama opened with that or anywhere close to it. It's yet another instance of the right wing conservatives taking something he said out of context.

 

[Jupiter551]

So when Pakistani ministers call for international laws against blasphemy he needs to say to hell no it ain't happening. Romney's instincts were right in this respect with his condemn the Egyptian embassy's statement even if his timing was bad.

And what if loudly and proudly saying "Hell no!" does nothing more than provoke even more potential fundamentalists, and therefore more potential innocent deaths, is that okay? I would call that highly irresponsible. That's not how foreign policy works.
Let Pakistani ministers call out whatever they want. What Obama says in public is not the point, what he, and his ambassadors reply behind closed doors is the point. That's what diplomacy is, not spewing vitriolic rhetoric on television. Just because he doesn't shout stupidly at foreign ministers doesn't mean he's agreeable to some nutjob policy they want to impose.

Source: 7 years at the Australian Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

So when Pakistani ministers call for international laws against blasphemy he needs to say to hell no it ain't happening. Romney's instincts were right in this respect with his condemn the Egyptian embassy's statement even if his timing was bad.

And what if loudly and proudly saying "Hell no!" does nothing more than provoke even more potential fundamentalists, and therefore more potential innocent deaths, is that okay? I would call that highly irresponsible. That's not how foreign policy works.
Let Pakistani ministers call out whatever they want. What Obama says in public is not the point, what he, and his ambassadors reply behind closed doors is the point. That's what diplomacy is, not spewing vitriolic rhetoric on television. Just because he doesn't shout stupidly at foreign ministers doesn't mean he's agreeable to some nutjob policy they want to impose.

Source: 7 years at the Australian Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

So was the President wrong to basically say hell no. Are you saying he should have used more diplomatic language because that isn't how foreign policy works.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete

 

[Just Me]

Obama's accomplishments:

• First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
• First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
• First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States
• First President to violate the War Powers Act.
• First President to be held
in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .
• First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
• First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready‘ jobs when there was no such thing as ’shovel-ready’ jobs.
• First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
• First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
• First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.
• First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
• First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.
• First President to terminate America ‘s ability to put a man in space.
• First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.
• First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
• First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
• First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
• First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
• First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
• First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
• First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).
• First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
• First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
• First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.
• First President to golf 103 separate times in his first three and a half years in office.
• First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
• First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
• First President to go on multiple global “apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.
• First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
• First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
• First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
• First President to repeat the Holy Qur’an & tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
• First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences”.
• Then, he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.
• First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states ( Mexico vs Arizona ).

Good to see Bocefish has some company in this thread. If you are going to post a bunch of random things a source is usually a good bet if you want to be taken seriously. I can see you tried in a later post to put a source, but a 12 year old article from an obviously biased source is not going to help your cause. I am still holding out hope for you, but my experience with these type of debates with the right wing is that same as debates on religion, beliefs are not facts.

 

[morment]

Why does the right make such a big deal about the president using a teleprompter? What possible difference does it make?
Do they think that every other politician just goes out there and wings every speech they give?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Why does the right make such a big deal about the president using a teleprompter? What possible difference does it make?
Do they think that every other politician just goes out there and wings every speech they give?

Because the President's ability to respond to questions in unscripted fashion, is say more important qualification than, whether Mitt Romney was a evil for putting his dog on top of his car.

 

[Nordling]

Why does the right make such a big deal about the president using a teleprompter? What possible difference does it make?
Do they think that every other politician just goes out there and wings every speech they give?

I think it's a form of bullying...school yard revenge for those of us on the left making fun of GW Bush's inability to deliver a cogent speech even WITH a teleprompter.

It's nonsense. I've seen the President speak in question and answer sessions in which he was brilliant...like that conference the GOP asked him to during the election. They were later sorry it was recorded.

 

[Nordling]

Why does the right make such a big deal about the president using a teleprompter? What possible difference does it make?
Do they think that every other politician just goes out there and wings every speech they give?

Because the President's ability to respond to questions in unscripted fashion, is say more important qualification than, whether Mitt Romney was a evil for putting his dog on top of his car.

No, it doesn't...plus generally, the President does just fine in Q&A.

 

[morment]

Because the President's ability to respond to questions in unscripted fashion, is say more important qualification than, whether Mitt Romney was a evil for putting his dog on top of his car.

How would a teleprompter help the President, or anyone for that matter, to answer random questions?

And if you want a fair equivilance for your point, wouldn't bringing up Romney's ability to respond to questions be a better point than the story of Seamus?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Why does the right make such a big deal about the president using a teleprompter? What possible difference does it make?
Do they think that every other politician just goes out there and wings every speech they give?

Because the President's ability to respond to questions in unscripted fashion, is say more important qualification than, whether Mitt Romney was a evil for putting his dog on top of his car.

No, it doesn't...plus generally, the President does just fine in Q&A.

So you are saying Mitt Romney animal care on family vacation, twenty years ago is more relevant to performing the task of Presidency than a presidency communication skill?
The reason I bring up it it was something the Left nailed Romney on along with releasing his taxes. Both parties play silly gotcha games with their opponents, it is politics and hasn't changed in 200 years.


Actually I beg to differ he does not do fine in Q&As, he come across as arrogant and dismissive. Pretty much the same way as Bush 43 did. Both Bill Clinton and Bush 41 did a better job. Personally, I'd like to see all of our President appear before Congress every quarter and answer questions like the Prime Minister does in the UK and Australia during question time.

 

[Nordling]

Why does the right make such a big deal about the president using a teleprompter? What possible difference does it make?
Do they think that every other politician just goes out there and wings every speech they give?

Because the President's ability to respond to questions in unscripted fashion, is say more important qualification than, whether Mitt Romney was a evil for putting his dog on top of his car.

No, it doesn't...plus generally, the President does just fine in Q&A.

So you are saying Mitt Romney animal care on family vacation, twenty years ago is more relevant to performing the task of Presidency than a presidency communication skill?
The reason I bring up it it was something the Left nailed Romney on along with releasing his taxes. Both parties play silly gotcha games with their opponents, it is politics and hasn't changed in 200 years.


Actually I beg to differ he does not do fine in Q&As, he come across as arrogant and dismissive. Pretty much the same way as Bush 43 did. Both Bill Clinton and Bush 41 did a better job. Personally, I'd like to see all of our President appear before Congress every quarter and answer questions like the Prime Minister does in the UK and Australia during question time.

Horse shit. The President is not dismissive...you're talking about Bush Junior and Mitt Romney. Go find the Q&A the President had with a crowd of hostile Republicans at a conference they invited him to...he made them all look like fools...withOUT being dismissive. Your bias is leaking if you think Obama is dismissive. When it comes to arrogance, Romney wins hands down.

 

[Nordling]

Is this the "horrid" communications skills you're whining about? And THIS was in the lions den.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Horse shit. The President is not dismissive...you're talking about Bush Junior and Mitt Romney. Go find the Q&A the President had with a crowd of hostile Republicans at a conference they invited him to...he made them all look like fools...withOUT being dismissive. Your bias is leaking if you think Obama is dismissive. When it comes to arrogance, Romney wins hands down.

Wow news flash Democrat partisan thinks President Obama does fine at press conference, film at 11. The conference you are referring was not a news conference. I'd direct you to the exchanges between Congressman Ryan and the President which was dismissive. " THE PRESIDENT: We'll have a longer debate on the budget numbers, all right?" Which I read as going away you pest. Anyway this is a completely unproductive discussion since we are not going to change each others mind.

I'll simply point out that among recent Presidents Mr Obama has had less press conference than anybody since Reagan, while delivering I am sure way more speeches than recent presidents. It is not surprising the President is terrific at delivering speeches probably the best of his generation, not so good as the first debate showed at answering questions and being challenged.

 

[Nordling]

Horse shit. The President is not dismissive...you're talking about Bush Junior and Mitt Romney. Go find the Q&A the President had with a crowd of hostile Republicans at a conference they invited him to...he made them all look like fools...withOUT being dismissive. Your bias is leaking if you think Obama is dismissive. When it comes to arrogance, Romney wins hands down.

Wow news flash Democrat partisan thinks President Obama does fine at press conference, film at 11. The conference you are referring was not a news conference. I'd direct you to the exchanges between Congressman Ryan and the President which was dismissive. " THE PRESIDENT: We'll have a longer debate on the budget numbers, all right?" Which I read as going away you pest. Anyway this is a completely unproductive discussion since we are not going to change each others mind.

I'll simply point out that among recent Presidents Mr Obama has had less press conference than anybody since Reagan, while delivering I am sure way more speeches than recent presidents. It is not surprising the President is terrific at delivering speeches probably the best of his generation, not so good as the first debate showed at answering questions and being challenged.

You didn't specify "press conference" in your OP in this exchange. I'd say how he does before a hostile Q&A group says more about how well he does than nitpicking a handful of statements that you choose to characterize as "dismissive." He answered Ryan's question and then admitted there was more to say . . . later. That's not dismissive, that's being reality based. Any one of those questions could have taken up the entire conference.

 

[tubby556]

Even a woman who abstains fully from sex can run into major problems with her reproductive organs any time after puberty.

That's their problem, not the taxpayers'.

So your advice to a woman who has been assaulted is don't get raped again? :roll: Rape can be prevented. It can be prevented by teaching men that they don't have the right to treat women like blow up dolls. It can be prevented by making the laws harsher and not treating the victims like they somehow brought it upon themselves or should have been able to find a way to disarm their attackers. This "boys will be boys and women should be more prepared" attitude IS the problem.

My advice is prevent the rape in the first place by being armed and able to defend yourself in a practical and effective manner so the rape doesn't happen in the first place. I answered your question which you set up that a rape had already occurred. I'm saying don't let it happen in the first place. The only blame in the case of rape is on the actor themself, not on the victim. Men need to be taught how to act and women need to be taught how to defend themselves from attack. Some men grow up with asshole fathers or no fathers and most women think the police will swoop in and save the day. Make the sentencing laws harsher? I'd love to see rape be a federal crime with an absolute sentence of 10 years in prison, no parole. Second offense is execution.

Don't disarm your attacker, kill them. You will live and so will countless other potential victims if the rapist wasn't stopped.

 

[tubby556]

I've only been skimming and may have missed some important context (I'm too lazy to look back) but yeah, to suggest that it's up to a woman to not get raped as opposed to it being a man's responsibility to, you know, not rape people, is kinda ludicrous.

You need a backup plan. In case some asshole doesn't get it, you need to be prepared to deal with that threat and eliminate it. The amount of law abiding citizens walking around without a clue as to personal protection is simply mind boggling. My wife carries a firearm every day. Why doesn't yours?

 

[tubby556]

World Net Daily? You're kidding, right? May as well use The Fascist Times to get information.

There are other sources out there that mirror it. I won't spoon feed you. You're an adult, look it up.

 

[tubby556]

Plus, there's different levels of crime. I would much rather see a thousand shops get looted than one gun massacre in which dozens of people lose their life.

Really? You would rather see hundreds of families directly affected by such looting with loss of income, food, utilities, etc. How about the dozens or hundreds they employ, perhaps totaling into the tens of thousands affected when you add the toll up with the aftermath? So you support looting, stealing, unlawful entry, grand larceny, and a host of other crimes then?

 

[tubby556]

Survival of the fittest and wealthiest, I suppose. Why not start charging $300 for a gallon of milk and other necessities. If you can't afford the outrageous prices, just starve.

You're missing the entire point of insurance and playing right into the hands of the insurance companies.

Survival of the fittest and wealthiest? How did my family ever survive generations at the bottom of the income bracket?

 

[tubby556]

it isn't common knowledge, it's common pro-gun propaganda which is exactly why you know all about it while in our own countries we can still leave our front doors unlocked most of the time.

Your liberal anti-gun propaganda polices work well too as applied here. The states with the most restrictive gun control have the highest gun violence rates. The states with the least restriction on gun control have the least gun violence rates. States that changed the law to allow citizens to carry firearms for protection immediately achieved a significant reduction in crime.

America is the most liberated gun society on this planet and it's been proven time and time again that restrictions on gun ownership cause crime to increase.

My doors are open at night. Come through them and you'll be killed. Welcome to America.

 

[tubby556]

Obama's accomplishments:

• First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
• First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
• First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States
• First President to violate the War Powers Act.
• First President to be held
in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .
• First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
• First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready‘ jobs when there was no such thing as ’shovel-ready’ jobs.
• First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
• First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
• First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.
• First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
• First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.
• First President to terminate America ‘s ability to put a man in space.
• First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.
• First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
• First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
• First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
• First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
• First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
• First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
• First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).
• First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
• First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
• First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.
• First President to golf 103 separate times in his first three and a half years in office.
• First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
• First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
• First President to go on multiple global “apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.
• First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
• First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
• First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
• First President to repeat the Holy Qur’an & tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
• First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences”.
• Then, he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.
• First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states ( Mexico vs Arizona ).

Good to see Bocefish has some company in this thread. If you are going to post a bunch of random things a source is usually a good bet if you want to be taken seriously. I can see you tried in a later post to put a source, but a 12 year old article from an obviously biased source is not going to help your cause. I am still holding out hope for you, but my experience with these type of debates with the right wing is that same as debates on religion, beliefs are not facts.

Dispute them if you've been paying attention the the current administration. I'll give you some help that disputes some of the aforementioned claims here:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/ ... t-card.htm

Funny you mention biased sources. So CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBA, etc can't be used as sources then, because they are biased. Neither can blogs, because they are biased. Right?

 

[Nordling]

Why did you post that bullshit list? Just to be cute?

Of course blogs cannot be used for data...they are by definition personal, vanity opinion sites.

ABC, NBC, etc are perfectly good sources...as long as you limit their use to NEWS articles and not editorials.

World Net Daily is NOT a news site...it's a freaking fascist site full of crap like Jerome Corsi and other nut bags.

 

[schlmoe]

Obama's accomplishments:

• First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
• First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
• First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States
• First President to violate the War Powers Act.
• First President to be held
in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .
• First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
• First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready‘ jobs when there was no such thing as ’shovel-ready’ jobs.
• First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
• First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
• First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.
• First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
• First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.
• First President to terminate America ‘s ability to put a man in space.
• First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.
• First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
• First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
• First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
• First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
• First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
• First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
• First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).
• First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
• First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
• First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.
• First President to golf 103 separate times in his first three and a half years in office.
• First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
• First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
• First President to go on multiple global “apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.
• First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
• First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
• First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
• First President to repeat the Holy Qur’an & tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
• First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences”.
• Then, he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.
• First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states ( Mexico vs Arizona ).

WOW! We have an addition to the "World's Thinnest Book" shelf. First we had "What I Know About History", by Bocefish. We now have "Tubby's Truthful Tidbits". Great job!

 

[Jupiter551]

So you are saying Mitt Romney animal care on family vacation, twenty years ago is more relevant to performing the task of Presidency than a presidency communication skill?

Obama has been praised for his oratory skills far more often, and by many more people, than he has been criticised.

Secondly, if you're asking whether moral responsibility (or lack thereof) to creature dependent upon you for its welfare is an important quality in a leader of any nation, I would say I fucking well hope so. For your sake, and mine.

In response to the "hell no" thing, you said he "basically" said hell no. Well, as far as diplomacy goes, saying hell no and "basically" saying hell no is the qualitative difference between saying "I don't like your country, your people are rude, it's too hot here, smells and your water tastes funny" or saying "it's nice to see other parts of the world but it'll be good to get home".

They can mean the exact same thing - one is the responsible answer for someone representing a nation. See if you can figure out which one it would be.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

So you are saying Mitt Romney animal care on family vacation, twenty years ago is more relevant to performing the task of Presidency than a presidency communication skill?

Obama has been praised for his oratory skills far more often, and by many more people, than he has been criticised.

Secondly, if you're asking whether moral responsibility (or lack thereof) to creature dependent upon you for its welfare is an important quality in a leader of any nation, I would say I fucking well hope so. For your sake, and mine.

In response to the "hell no" thing, you said he "basically" said hell no. Well, as far as diplomacy goes, saying hell no and "basically" saying hell no is the qualitative difference between saying "I don't like your country, your people are rude, it's too hot here, smells and your water tastes funny" or saying "it's nice to see other parts of the world but it'll be good to get home".

They can mean the exact same thing - one is the responsible answer for someone representing a nation. See if you can figure out which one it would be.

I already said that Obama is probably the best oratory in his generation, he delivers a written speech about as well as any English speaking guy since Tony Blair. Where he fails to do a great job communicating is in his relatively infrequent press conference, stylistic there are a lot of hum and haws, from a content prospective and he'll off launch into a professorial discussion and fail to make his point. Sometimes he does well in Q&A situation but often he is just down right dull and at times when gets annoyed he comes across peevish and arrogant. I have probably listened to at least 10 minutes of 50 of his 70 odd press conferences, the PBS Newshour almost always plays a long clip. There is significant gap between his skills as communicator when he used a teleprompter, and for instance in the first debate, when even liberal supporter tweeted maybe he does in fact need a teleprompter. Communication skills is an important attribute for a president, and while I'd certainly give the President high marks a B+, it isn't the A+ the he got as candidate. So the meme that Obama needs a teleprompter, while a cheap shot, is not complete unfair and relevant to the job. In contrast the silly shots about Romney and the dog, (there are website, twitter hashtags and probably facebook pages) while humorous are completely irrelevant to his fitness to be President.

Your analogy is fine and basically hell no is diplomatically the correct thing to say. I don't generally have a problem what the administration does in foreign policy. There aren't significant differences between the candidate, I have huge problem with the cautious nature and the speed things get done. In the case of Libya, during Ghaddifi and Syria I think the go slow approach results in needless civilian deaths. But that is another discussion.