chapoutier said:
the comma in your sentence was misused

I dunno that it’s wise to set yourself up as a grammar cop, chap. It usually comes back to bite ya.

There are people voting for Obummer based on 1) his color, 2) his “newness”, and 3) his charisma.

No…I think now I am voting for him just to spite you.

Isn’t that like Obama’s time horizon?

Jeez, now Bush will be labeled a terrorist.

If that is the case, great. But don’t blame me for thinking you hadn’t when you say things like this:

I’m not very curious about Obummer.

You seem to either be deliberately obtuse or misunderstand. I said I wasn’t very curious about Obummer because a) I’m not interested in electing the “first” black president b)I’m tired of political games and for someone who says he’s not playing them just gets old c) I want a leader not a messiah.

For you to deliberately “distort” my opinions like you seem to be suggesting that I’m doing the same to Obummer is disengenuous. When anybody criticizes Obummer or throws his words in his face (or those of his supporters), you and they cry distortion.

You have every right to believe that. I would never presume to change anyone’s mind here about Obama or his qualifications. I just don’t like it when they are, in my opinion, distorted or lied about.

Actually, you are exhorting support for him. You speak up in defense of him. Please.

How have Obummer and his qualifications been distorted? He’s flip-flopped on everything from the Iraq War to public financing. He says stupid things and they get thrown at him, just like McCain. He is not called on his positions nor will he be. This election is a coronation and nothing else.

No. Obviously nothing is nearly as simplistic as that. And I certainly do not know where you get or why you keep clinging to this “send in the peace corp” idea, but I never said anything about it and neither has Obama as far as I know. But if you think that social and economic conditions in Middle East countries does not contribute to terrorism (or lack thereof), you are incredibly wrong.

And military might will always be important. Everyone agrees it was right to go into Afghanistan.

Isn’t this the same person who’s said “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” or the like? That screams foreign aid welfare which also includes the Peace Corps. You may have not have meant it as such but many liberals think throwing money at a problem produces results. If that was true then all the aid we’ve given Africa would have extinguished AIDS as well as poverty.

I do know what they mean. Strawman is where you take an opponent’s argument and represent/and or distort it in a way that makes it absurd and easily refutable. Kind of like this:

I was simply pointing out your prevention analogy was a straw man.

I am still trying to figure out what argument of yours I apparently distorted to the point of absurd. The argument one is making oneself, by definition, can’t be a strawman. You may disagree with it and/or think its stupid and wrong, but that does not make it a “strawman.”

Logic lesson over.

Actually you made the argument that if only we get to the root causes of terrorism (poverty) everything will be all better. How do you suggest we do that? I do know we’re pouring money for such a thing into Africa right now and I don’t see any poverty being extinguished. I pointed out that your argument was faulty since poverty cannot be mitigated through monetary aid or social work. That is the road we go down when we start to apply economic/social problems to terrorism than what it actually is. You also seem to miss the point where most of the leaders of Al Qaeda are well-educated, from the middle class, or wealthy. So your “logic lesson” is as empty as your cries of distortion.

You can disagree with what he feels are the roots and/or the approach he would take to address them, but at least get his argument correct. And don’t say that he wants to go give warm fuzzies to existing terrorists; that is a blatant distortion.

And you still haven’t shown me where he flip flopped on 1,2 or 3. Obama’s position is that the war in Iraq really had nothing to do with 9/11. Feel free to disagree with that position. And feel free to think he has shifted his thinking on the war in Iraq. But accepting his initial premise, it doesn’t show a change in position with respect to 3.

Actually, in the quote that Mrs. Malkin used, he sympathizes with the terrorists’ plight and why they do what they do:

Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.”

The man pointing to history as judge to why terrorism exists is also pretty lame. Terrorists feel that if only they kicked out the US from the Middle East then they can overthrow their governments and they’ll finally be able to reshape their society, economy, and politics. It is blatantly condescending to resort to using poverty as a root cause of terrorism. Terrorism has more ties to religion than it does poverty. Terrorists seek to deny freedom to people and that includes economic freedom. That is more poverty not less.

Well, “prevention as cure” is not exactly what I said and is on its face contradictory, but I get what you are saying. And it is a fair point. Pretty much untested, at least in the context of the middle east. But use of appropriate military force and attempting to address the root causes of terrorism are not mutually exclusive.

I know that many of you here think that the terrorism is rooted more in the religion rather than socioeconomic conditions, and if that is your opinion then it is understandable that you would think any attempt to address terrorism by addressing socioeconomic conditions is a waste of time. Fine. Not going to try to convince otherwise, but again, lets at least argue from the standpoint of accurate representations of the arguments.

I don’t feel financial assistance will improve the social/economic situation in the Middle East. I also feel it hasn’t in Africa. We’ve never put conditions on that aid until recently. That money has wound up in the hands of the leaders (such as our UN aid in the hands of terrorist organizations), not the people.

You introduced the whole issue of “root causes of terrorism.” I addressed it honestly. I did not misrepresent you, I only pointed out your naive approach to what you think will improve the situation.

Again, this is a blatant lie about his position. Did he advcate 1) attacking Palistan or 2) to go after terrorists located in Pakistan on actionable intelligence if Pakistani government refused to act?

I’ll help you out with this one too. It was the latter, something, btw that the Bush administration has done already.

Yet another attempt at equivocating one action for another. I’m not surprised. Obummer has made no secret of the fact that he’ll go into Pakistan whether or not they like that. Pres. Bush consulted Musharref. Will Obummer do the same? Is Obummer a warmonger?Perhaps, since Iran wasn’t a threat before it was, what will Obummer do about that? Oh, that’s right, direct diplomacy, whatever that is and in whatever given frame of time.

There is plenty of proof out there that Obummer has fabricated his qualifications for the office of President. Where are his billing records as an attorney? Who were his clients? What kind of legal work did he do? His application for the Bar? What did he actually do as a “community organizer?” You’re so invested in an Obummer presidency, you should be able to find the answers.

If you consume the news (both print, broadcast, and online), there is proof and proof galore that Obamma “changes his mind” better known as a flip flop. I’ve heard him on the television saying to one audience that Iran wasn’t a threat and to another that it was. Why would he do that? Did I just imagine that?

I’ve made my disatisfaction with both candidates quite well-known. You can hate Pres. Bush (like both you and Lgm and all the other left-minded people on this blog) for being incompetent, but I must say, it shouldn’t take 300 advisors to understand foreign policy.

There are people voting for Obummer based on 1) his color, 2) his “newness”, and 3) his charisma. The thing about this is what are his plans and what is his experience? He hasn’t given honest answers and you can deny it (or cry distortion) all you like but you’re not going to dispell that sentiment (which you’ve already admitted).

For a guy who is so “open-minded,” your mind is a steel trap that won’t let anything in (especially if it contradicts your candidate). If you approach this blog and Obummer like that, you’re not interested in anything but geting his message out and that makes you a shill.

Press “quote” button. You will see blockquote

Paste section.

Make sure your cursor is at the end of the selection and hit quote again. You will see /blockquote. You can then continue with your post.

Use preview to make sure it looks okay.

For someone supposedly interested in tearing down the terrorist apparatus, is it helpful to attack Pakistan, an ally?

Again, this is a blatant lie about his position. Did he advcate 1) attacking Palistan or 2) to go after terrorists located in Pakistan on actionable intelligence if Pakistani government refused to act?

I’ll help you out with this one too. It was the latter, something, btw that the Bush administration has done already.

Having requested the Pakistani government’s official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

Did Bush therefore attack Pakistan as well?

I’ve actually taken a look at all his great “plans” for the US (on his website) and they do not align with my politics.

If that is the case, great. But don’t blame me for thinking you hadn’t when you say things like this:

I’m not very curious about Obummer.

For a politician who says he’s something different, Obummer is certainly playing the same political games. Political expedience has become his best friend. Political and personal associates can be thrown under the bus. I’m not saying that he’s any different than McCain, but my curiousity diminishes with each pandering, political flip flop Obummer makes. Is that change we can believe in? Or more of the same?

You have every right to believe that. I would never presume to change anyone’s mind here about Obama or his qualifications. I just don’t like it when they are, in my opinion, distorted or lied about.

You think that a big PR offensive will win the hearts and minds of the Middle East. If we just send our Peace Corps over to the Middle East, that will result in more Democracy, less terrorism.

No. Obviously nothing is nearly as simplistic as that. And I certainly do not know where you get or why you keep clinging to this “send in the peace corp” idea, but I never said anything about it and neither has Obama as far as I know. But if you think that social and economic conditions in Middle East countries does not contribute to terrorism (or lack thereof), you are incredibly wrong.

And military might will always be important. Everyone agrees it was right to go into Afghanistan.

Do you know what either word mean?

I do know what they mean. Strawman is where you take an opponent’s argument and represent/and or distort it in a way that makes it absurd and easily refutable. Kind of like this:

Ohhhh, does that mean he’ll send a bunch of social workers and Peace Corps volunteers over to the Middle East to hold their hands, give ‘em a hug, and pat their hands and say, “there, there, I’ll wear your burqa if you wish it.”

I am still trying to figure out what argument of yours I apparently distorted to the point of absurd. The argument one is making oneself, by definition, can’t be a strawman. You may disagree with it and/or think its stupid and wrong, but that does not make it a “strawman.”

Logic lesson over.

The quote Mrs. Malkin used to demonstrate the whole “social work/empathy for terrorists” as preventative cure against terrorism.

Did you read his quote? Does he talk about empathizing with the terrorists or the terrorists’ lack of empathy for their victims and the root causes of this lack of empathy? Let me help you out:

The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers

You can disagree with what he feels are the roots and/or the approach he would take to address them, but at least get his argument correct. And don’t say that he wants to go give warm fuzzies to existing terrorists; that is a blatant distortion.

And you still haven’t shown me where he flip flopped on 1,2 or 3. Obama’s position is that the war in Iraq really had nothing to do with 9/11. Feel free to disagree with that position. And feel free to think he has shifted his thinking on the war in Iraq. But accepting his initial premise, it doesn’t show a change in position with respect to 3.

However, it now occurs to me, where is your proof that applying “prevention as cure” works?

Well, “prevention as cure” is not exactly what I said and is on its face contradictory, but I get what you are saying. And it is a fair point. Pretty much untested, at least in the context of the middle east. But use of appropriate military force and attempting to address the root causes of terrorism are not mutually exclusive.

I know that many of you here think that the terrorism is rooted more in the religion rather than socioeconomic conditions, and if that is your opinion then it is understandable that you would think any attempt to address terrorism by addressing socioeconomic conditions is a waste of time. Fine. Not going to try to convince otherwise, but again, lets at least argue from the standpoint of accurate representations of the arguments.

Well, since your options for leader are either Obama or McCain, your lack of curiosity about him does make you intellectually lazy, yes.

I’ve actually taken a look at all his great “plans” for the US (on his website) and they do not align with my politics. This also goes for McCain. However, McCain has stated some plans that align with my Conservative viewpoints. What exactly does Obummer say that would align with my Conservative beliefs?

For a politician who says he’s something different, Obummer is certainly playing the same political games. Political expedience has become his best friend. Political and personal associates can be thrown under the bus. I’m not saying that he’s any different than McCain, but my curiousity diminishes with each pandering, political flip flop Obummer makes. Is that change we can believe in? Or more of the same?

For a man who thinks nothing of pandering to every different identity group (Latinos, blacks, women), he decided it wasn’t necessary to participate in a townhall meeting at a military base where McCain has agreed to participate and take questions from the thousands of military members (and their families) who will be there. Obummer said he couldn’t come because of a “scheduling conflict,” even though the organizers offered him alternative dates. No, I get bored with politicians who aren’t interested in taking the questions of all groups of people, only those socially aligned to them. I get bored with politicians who won’t answer difficult questions, only the easy questions that they want to answer.

Chaps, I don’t think you know what the meaning of the phrase “intelectually lazy” is but I’m sure your face could be stamped right next to the phrase.

I hope that was cathartic for you. Seems like you’ve been wanting to get that off your chest for some time.

Condescending statements like this are why I neither trust your viewpoint nor respect your “open-mindedness.” Also, I used this example to demonstrate that your “preventative cure argument” will not solve the root problems of terrorism. Terrorist/Islamic fundamementalism isn’t caused by poverty, it seeks to restructure the economic, social, and political structure of the Middle East. It seeks to limit freedoms. When you limit people’s economic prosperity (as did the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalists), poverty occurs.

Strawman and a stupid one at that. Seems as though many on the right are forced to rely on these stupid distortions and outright lies rather than engaging the actual substance.

This is the problem with you, Chaps. You think that a big PR offensive will win the hearts and minds of the Middle East. If we just send our Peace Corps over to the Middle East, that will result in more Democracy, less terrorism. The only problem with this is that, until very recently, in Al-Anbar Province in Iraq, the people didn’t stand up to the terrorists. The terrorists “terrified” the people into submission. It took major support on the part of the US military, gaining the locals’ trust, to encourage groups like the Sons of Iraq to fight back. It took constantly routing out terrorists in that province to convince the people to trust us and defend it themselves.

What allusion and what strawman? I don’t think you know what either of those words mean.

Do you know what either word mean? Aren’t you beneath such dictionary enforcement tactics? I thought your argument was working perfectly, Chaps. Why bring the petty “word usage” defense?

Since allusion means representation or reference, I simply used this as a connection to your whole “prevention as cure” argument. Then I used the whole straw man argument (an argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted) to point out that your whole “prevention as cure” or “social work is best” fit this premise.

However, it now occurs to me, where is your proof that applying “prevention as cure” works? Please point this out to this blog audience. I’m sure Michelle herself would be curious. Oh, and don’t redirect and use other geographical or historical examples- let’s keep to the Middle East. We wouldn’t want to confuse you with LGM, okay?

I will let slide that you are now just trying to shift focus on the fact that you are a careless reader and just address what you said. Please show me where he has “blamed America” or “flip flopped” on:
1. steping up security at our airports.
2. reexamining the effectiveness of our intelligence networks.
3. identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.

And remember, the perpetrators of 9/11 were and are in Afghanistan/Pakistan, which military action Obama has always supported.

Oh, Chaps, must I repeat myself? I guess I must. Let’s point out the obvious:

1. The quote Mrs. Malkin used to demonstrate the whole “social work/empathy for terrorists” as preventative cure against terrorism. Oh, that’s right, Obummer was misquoted, that seems to be happening to him a lot in both the Washington Post and The New Yorker, doesn’t it?

2. Obummer has flip flopped on the Iraq War. Let’s see, it’s a bit confusing to illustrate since he’s woven an entire maze (of his own doing) but I’ll try. He supported an immediate drawdown, withdrawal, redeployment for his liberal crowd, then he said he would consult the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then “may” have to change his mind, then Moveon got mad at him and so he had to go running back from the center to the left (perhaps he’s center-left or left-center?) to satisfy his left-wing handlers and donors to keep that money rolling in.

3. His end the war now rhetoric has been completely removed from his website. Why is that?

4. For someone supposedly interested in tearing down the terrorist apparatus, is it helpful to attack Pakistan, an ally? Now do we want Pakistan’s cooperation (that’s why liberals push diplomacy at all costs, right?), or their enmity?