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.