Say Anything Blog

...and avoid public appearances that could be perceived as campaigning.

Ah yes.  Mischaracterize, distort and then spin.  Sounds about par for the course for you Rob.

Had he actually talked to the media and appeared to have done some campaigning, you would sniff his ass to see if that stunk too.  Don’t think you have fooled anyone with a brain.

It may work for your moronic sheep, but not on anyone else.

This will give him plenty of the “upward gaze with hand positioned in reflection” photo ops.

Maybe that is why they sent three Media Lap Dogs with him that wouldn’t print anything but a glowing story about him. What an empty suit.

This guy is so vulnerable its sick.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

It appears that the young Democrat nominee has a plan to handle situations which have the potential to make him look bad… ignore them.

Those of us mature enough will recall that the contemptibly failed Jimmy Carter had a similar approach such difficulties.  Problem is, those potentially embarrassing situations have a habit of expanding exponentially in size and number when they are not properly attended to.

If Obama was really as smart as is claimed (Jimmy Carter suffered from a similarly over-arching sense of his own intelligence!) he would have learned this from the history of Carter’s failed presidency.  If Obama becomes president, we will all pay the price for his schooling.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

It may work for your moronic sheep, but not on anyone else.

H,

Perhaps a different, less taxing frame of reference will help.  A judge, at least an honest, fair-minded one, does not announce his decision in a case before him until all the evidence is presented, all the testimony is hears, and all the arguments are given.

Young Mr. Obama has already announced his policy decisions… before talking with General Petraeus or any of the other theater or area commanders, before being introduced to any of the duly-elected Iraqi government, and before he has made any attempt to judge the situation on the ground for himself (not that he would know what to look for, or at, in any case!).

Furthermore, his judgment has already been proven horribly wrong in this crucial issue.  He loudly declared that the “Surge” could only be a failure when he voted against it.  Now he would import the strategy, the troops, and their experience making Petraeus’ “Surge” strategy work over to Afghanistan.  All without so much as acknowledging just how wrong he was in the first place.

Anyone who regards this trip as anything more than a political stunt needs to be locked away for their own good.  At least on “American Idol” the constestants have talent and experience,.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

A judge, at least an honest, fair-minded one, does not announce his decision in a case before him until all the evidence is presented, all the testimony is hears, and all the arguments are given.

I am curious to know why it is you feel that in a Presidential election, a candidate should not have a position, until he hears everything from everyone?  This is beyond unreasonable.

In negotiations, it certainly is wise to not only have a position, but also to have your opponent understand that you might be willing to…..bargain.

Young Mr. Obama has already announced his policy decisions… before talking with General Petraeus or any of the other theater or area commanders,

George Bush made up his mind on a few things before talking to those he disagreed with too.  Bush in fact had an approach to do the opposite of everything Clinton offered him post election. 

How is it that understanding certain commanders who are favorable to Bush’s idea’s might possibly be ideological, escapes your imagination?  Perhaps it makes more sense to get a better understanding of things from a different perspective before you are influenced by the status quo?

George Bush had positions that he changed as fact on the ground changed.  As you know, everything changed after 9/11. 

Your attacks on Obama are not only unreasonable but they are also little more than obvious partisan misunderstandings.

Furthermore, his judgment has already been proven horribly wrong in this crucial issue.

A game of tit for tat could be played had I had the interest in advising you that he was right in the first place, and that perhaps we could be much more successful in the more important goal of fighting those who actually attacked us on 9/11?  Instead, we are now forced to deal with this mistake, made by Bush and endorsed by McCain.

Anyone who regards this trip as anything more than a political stunt needs to be locked away for their own good.

Or maybe they need to reexamine their own ability to intellectualize and analyze their logic?

Here you go Bat…this is pretty interesting, I think.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25742388#25742347

I am curious to know why it is you feel that in a Presidential election, a candidate should not have a position, until he hears everything from everyone?  This is beyond unreasonable.

H,

You have got to be kidding, right?  This is NOT an issue such as economic policy, tax policy, or international trade… none of which, by the way, Mr. Obama has shown any more experience or depth of knowledge than he has national defense and military strategy.  This IS military policy, and whether he, and you agree or not, the US has assumed responsibility for the welfare and continued development of the Iraqi people as they continue to put their nation together.  We don’t simply walk away from such commitments.  Especially while the atrategy now in place is obviously working.

Furthermore, the policy involves the potential for life and death for American military personnel.  To even suggest that a candidate for the office of Commander-in-Chief does not need to listen carefully to those experts (God knows Barack Obama has no military or foreign policy experience!), the ones on the ground who know the situation first hand and have direct responsibility for developing and implementing the strategy and tactics being used, is quite simply the height of irresponsibility and cynical expediency.

That said, the simple fact of the matter is that Barack Obama has been proven wrong by the very people he seeks to command and whose wisdom and first-hand knowledge of the situation he ignores in formulating the policy he advocates.  Obama said that Iraq was a failure and that the “Surge” would not work.  He was wrong.  That fact alone calls into question his qualification to be this nation’s Command-in-Chief.  It also, clearly, calls his judgment into question… particularly where military and national defense affairs are concerned.

If the young man is too obstinate and arrogant to listen to those who DO know about military strategy and tactics, before he decides what policy he would pursue, then obviously he is unfit to be Chief Executive.

We don’t need another 4 years of Jimmy Carter’s failures.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

I am curious to know why it is you feel that in a Presidential election, a candidate should not have a position, until he hears everything from everyone?  This is beyond unreasonable.

Very simple, even elementary: The President should be a leader, not a follower.  With a leader, it’s the core principles that tell you where that leader will lead us.  A follower doesn’t need any core principles, of course; only a large polling staff.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!