Did no one see the article I linked to about fences in Ireland? Not one single comment about that at all. Instead that point is ignored by the "see no evil" Obama supporters on here.
It's not that people "see no evil". It's that your "point" is very unclear. What are you talking about?
We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid.
On 8 December 2007, while visiting President Bush in the White House with the Northern Ireland First Minister Ian Paisley, Martin McGuinness, the Deputy First Minister, said to the press "Up until the 26 March this year, Ian Paisley and I never had a conversation about anything – not even about the weather – and now we have worked very closely together over the last seven months and there's been no angry words between us. ... This shows we are set for a new course."
On 8 December 2007, while visiting President Bush in the White House with the Northern Ireland First Minister Ian Paisley, Martin McGuinness, the Deputy First Minister, said to the press "Up until the 26 March this year, Ian Paisley and I never had a conversation about anything – not even about the weather – and now we have worked very closely together over the last seven months and there's been no angry words between us. ... This shows we are set for a new course."
. . . sounds like Obama is right again.Those walls have not come down.
Obama referenced the Berlin Wall, a physical wall. In the same sentence he references walls coming down in Belfast. I posted a link showing that physical walls in Ireland are going up, not coming down. These "Peace Walls" are a fact, a fact that you have chosen not to respond to.
Obama referenced the Berlin Wall, a physical wall. In the same sentence he references walls coming down in Belfast. I posted a link showing that physical walls in Ireland are going up, not coming down. These "Peace Walls" are a fact, a fact that you have chosen not to respond to.
How concrete do you have you be to think that? Obama was not talking about physical walls, Steve. He was talking about the fact that people are living together peacefully.
It's called "speaking metaphorically". Look into it.
Obama referenced the Berlin Wall, a physical wall. In the same sentence he references walls coming down in Belfast. I posted a link showing that physical walls in Ireland are going up, not coming down. These "Peace Walls" are a fact, a fact that you have chosen not to respond to.
How concrete do you have you be to think that? Obama was not talking about physical walls, Steve. He was talking about the fact that people are living together peacefully.
And not bombing each other with the fervent nature that they have in the past.
Obama referenced the Berlin Wall, a physical wall. In the same sentence he references walls coming down in Belfast. I posted a link showing that physical walls in Ireland are going up, not coming down. These "Peace Walls" are a fact, a fact that you have chosen not to respond to.
How concrete do you have you be to think that? Obama was not talking about physical walls, Steve. He was talking about the fact that people are living together peacefully.
It's called "speaking metaphorically". Look into it.
Yet, it is those physical "peace walls" that allow Catholics and Protestants to live together.
Why can't you just admit that Obama screwed up by adding those words to his speech?
Why did Obama cancel his visit to the U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany? The Pentagon has come out and said that under the current rules military bases can not be used as backdrops for campaigns. If he wanted to come he could come (minus the press) and bring a few aides with him. Military photographers would be on hand.
Instead of going he cancelled the trip entirely. Why?
Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.
The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.
We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid.
So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.
He was talking about people finding ways to live together peacefully. He was talking about tearing down the old walls of intolerance and suspicion like the physical Berlin Wall was torn down. He didn't "screw up" because he didn't say anything about any physical walls in Ireland.
Try to read for comprehension.
Why did Obama cancel his visit to the U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany? The Pentagon has come out and said that under the current rules military bases can not be used as backdrops for campaigns. If he wanted to come he could come (minus the press) and bring a few aides with him. Military photographers would be on hand.
Instead of going he cancelled the trip entirely. Why?
Who cares? You seem pretty desparate to make an issue where there is none.
Why did Obama cancel his visit to the U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany? The Pentagon has come out and said that under the current rules military bases can not be used as backdrops for campaigns. If he wanted to come he could come (minus the press) and bring a few aides with him. Military photographers would be on hand.
Instead of going he cancelled the trip entirely. Why?
You just exlained it yourself. It has been mentioned here before that the campaign is paying for all of these trips. In Obama's case, this would be solely via donations. Do you have a concept of how expensive international flight is? If he would not be allowed to bring the press, who are already along for the ride on this trip where he is already within the same country, then it is not fiscally sensible. His campaign is being run like a business, which is more that can be said for McCain's campaign or Hillary Clinton's former campaign.
Plus, I have seen how well military photographers would do, and I wouldn't trust them.
Why did Obama cancel his visit to the U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany? The Pentagon has come out and said that under the current rules military bases can not be used as backdrops for campaigns. If he wanted to come he could come (minus the press) and bring a few aides with him. Military photographers would be on hand.
Instead of going he cancelled the trip entirely. Why?
You just exlained it yourself. It has been mentioned here before that the campaign is paying for all of these trips. In Obama's case, this would be solely via donations. Do you have a concept of how expensive international flight is? If he would not be allowed to bring the press, who are already along for the ride on this trip where he is already within the same country, then it is not fiscally sensible. His campaign is being run like a business, which is more that can be said for McCain's campaign or Hillary Clinton's former campaign.
Plus, I have seen how well military photographers would do, and I wouldn't trust them.
So, Obama's only reason to go to the military hospital was to use it as a campaign event? He can't go by himself to show support for those wounded in action? I thought his campaign coffers were overflowing with cash? Didn't he visit some military installations in Iraq without the press?
So, Obama's only reason to go to the military hospital was to use it as a campaign event? He can't go by himself to show support for those wounded in action? I thought his campaign coffers were overflowing with cash? Didn't he visit some military installations in Iraq without the press?
So Obama has to visit every single military service member abroad on his trip or else he doesn't support the troops?
Steve, I hate to say this, but haven't you learned by now to stop trying to sell us these Conservative arguments? This sort of thing does not prompt intelligent discussion, it just annoys the rest of us on this board and causes resentment and quarrels. Come back when you have something more interesting to say.
So, Obama's only reason to go to the military hospital was to use it as a campaign event? He can't go by himself to show support for those wounded in action? I thought his campaign coffers were overflowing with cash? Didn't he visit some military installations in Iraq without the press?
So Obama has to visit every single military service member on his trip or else he doesn't support the troops?
No. I just find it funny that his campaign would cancel a planned visit because the press can't cover it.
So, Obama's only reason to go to the military hospital was to use it as a campaign event? He can't go by himself to show support for those wounded in action? I thought his campaign coffers were overflowing with cash? Didn't he visit some military installations in Iraq without the press?
So Obama has to visit every single military service member on his trip or else he doesn't support the troops?
No. I just find it funny that his campaign would cancel a planned visit because the press can't cover it.
Steve, if they were ignored by the media, why have I heard about all of these .....
The media talks about all of these things for the amount of time they are worth which isn't much. McCain and Obama will be making tons of stupid comments as is the case when they have to make dozens of speeches in a day. As long as they don't consistently make the same mistake over and over again it's not a big deal. Really. That's why you don't see me posting about McCain and Czech.... Anyone who has ever done a lick of public speaking knows you will misread a line or say something off the cuff and confuse pronouns. You say I would joke on McCain on that but I haven't. Public speaking is a bitch. One downside of 24 hours news is we get to hear about every time a politician misspeaks, when in the past they used to do it all the time and no-one cared.
I mean Obama talked about "the Bomb" that hit pearl harbor.... We know what he was actually talking about.. He misspoke...
I love how people use rhetoric to criticize the other candidates for using rhetoric. A presidential campaign in the USA is nothing more than a popularity contest and media circus. If you criticize a candidate for playing the game, then you criticize all of them equally. By getting inside of the game, and pointing it out, you are just falling into its trap. Pointing out that people are playing the game is part of the game. The issues don't matter. Votes in most states don't matter. Nothing that really matters has anything to do with it. All that matters is who gets more money, and how efficiently they use that money to increase mind share and sway public perception.
If you happen to have been swayed one way or the other, good for you. If you try to sway others to your way, good for you again. If you're smart enough to recognize that politics, especially presidential campaign politics, is just show business and bullshit, then be smart enough to realize when you've totally fallen for it. When you realize you have totally fallen for it, you realize that the reason that politics is bullshit is because it works, even on you. And when you realize it works, even on you, don't criticize either candidate for doing what works. The only way to make the bullshit stop is to stop falling for it. Only when bullshit stops working will bullshit stop.
Boy, do you like to put words in people's mouths. I said the rules laid down by the Pentagon was the problem, and that it was not financially responsible for him to make an additional trip at the cost of donated funds, better to leave that for a later point as POTUS. From a rules perspective, it would have been a problem, if he went anyways.
He probably just didn't have time because he was working on his awesome speech.
The visits were planned for Friday.
Whatever. He'll go once he's POTUS.
So, what other US Senators have requested to hold a speech at the Brandenburg Gate? What other US Senators have the anchors of the major news networks hanging off of their every word?
Right wing media figures have been charging that the media is “biased†because the three major network news anchors accompanied Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) on his current trip overseas and ignored Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ). But, as ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Newsweek has reported that McCain “chose not to take reporters†with him to Europe, thus making the Right’s charges baseless. Yesterday during an interview on the UK’s Channel 4 News, NBC News anchor Brian Williams confirmed Newsweek’s report:
WILLIAMS: When Sen Obama comes to Europe and the Middle East — and in effect the pejorative is summons — the presenters or anchors from the so called big three over the air broadcast networks in the States and offers interview deals with a varying degree of exclusivity and they all agree to go …There has been no, I must say, similar offer from the McCain campaign with which we are in touch with constantly.
Boy, do you like to put words in people's mouths. I said the rules laid down by the Pentagon was the problem, and that it was not financially responsible for him to make an additional trip at the cost of donated funds, better to leave that for a later point as POTUS. From a rules perspective, it would have been a problem, if he went anyways.
How would it have been a problem? The Pentagon clearly told the Obama campaign that he (and a few aides) were welcome as long as they did not bring the press.
Boy, do you like to put words in people's mouths. I said the rules laid down by the Pentagon was the problem, and that it was not financially responsible for him to make an additional trip at the cost of donated funds, better to leave that for a later point as POTUS. From a rules perspective, it would have been a problem, if he went anyways.
How would it have been a problem? The Pentagon clearly told the Obama campaign that he (and a few aides) were welcome as long as they did not bring the press.
Boy, do you like to put words in people's mouths. I said the rules laid down by the Pentagon was the problem, and that it was not financially responsible for him to make an additional trip at the cost of donated funds, better to leave that for a later point as POTUS. From a rules perspective, it would have been a problem, if he went anyways.
How would it have been a problem? The Pentagon clearly told the Obama campaign that he (and a few aides) were welcome as long as they did not bring the press.
It's a non-issue, Steve. No one cares.
It's only a non-issue to those who blindly support Obama and think him incapable of doing anything wrong.
Because Pentagon rules state (and have for a while) that military bases can not be used for campaigning Obama can't make a small social call without the press following him? Does this mean he only intended to visit the military hospital so he could use it as a photo-op? By going he sends the message that he is going as a sign of support and not just as a photo-op.
The best thing he could have done was to go. Instead he only affirms what those on the right think, that he was only going there for a photo-op and once that photo-op was denied he decided it was not worth going.
Neither of you are discussing real issues and instead focus on arguments based on making the other side look less ________ (Choose one: Patriotic, Intelligent, American). If you ever feel like discussing real issues, let me know. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Because Pentagon rules state (and have for a while) that military bases can not be used for campaigning Obama can't make a small social call without the press following him? Does this mean he only intended to visit the military hospital so he could use it as a photo-op? By going he sends the message that he is going as a sign of support and not just as a photo-op.
The best thing he could have done was to go. Instead he only affirms what those on the right think, that he was only going there for a photo-op and once that photo-op was denied he decided it was not worth going.
Yes, you are exactly right. Everything Obama does between now and November is based on how much press it will get. Even negative press is good, because even negative press increases name recognition. Visiting this base would create no press whatsoever. There would be nothing to criticize, but no photos or videos either. We live in a country where most people do not read. If there are no photos or videos of something, it didn't happen. We learned this with Kennedy/Nixon. Changing the schedule to not visit it creates an incredibly small amount of negative press that only people who read might notice.
As I said, Obama is just playing the game. He's doing what he needs to do to win. McCain is no different. Clinton was no different. Bush is no different. Reagan was no different. The last president I remember who was different was Jimmy Carter who went around saying the truth, which people don't like to hear. You can see where that got him.
Steve, all you are saying is "Look! These candidates are just playing a media game! They're not actually doing or saying anything of substance!" This is absolutely true, but it isn't news to anybody except you. It's also equally true about all political candidates everywhere in the US, and most of western society. Trying to act as if Obama is the only candidate to ever actually try to win a political campaign via the media shows maybe you haven't yet discovered it's all fake.
Sigh. I'll say it once more. If that's where you're trying to find an issue, you must be pretty damn desperate. There was a schedule. Something got bumped. It happens all the time. It's not a big deal.
It's also not because it's Obama. I don't care what military hospital McCain goes to. He could go to them all or he could go to none of them. It just doesn't make any difference.
I'm not trying to "find an issue", I'm trying to find some intellectual honesty. If person A (whom you do not like) does something bad and you impugn them for it why do you ignore it when person B (whom you like) does the same thing?
Steve, all you are saying is "Look! These candidates are just playing a media game! They're not actually doing or saying anything of substance!" This is absolutely true, but it isn't news to anybody except you. It's also equally true about all political candidates everywhere in the US, and most of western society. Trying to act as if Obama is the only candidate to ever actually try to win a political campaign via the media shows maybe you haven't yet discovered it's all fake.
You are close. What I am trying to point out is the hypocrisy among certain forum members who will quickly jump on McCain's back and call him old/senile/etc but excuse the same thing when Obama does it.
Andrew: Issue - Overall message of speech
When Obama mentions the Berlin airlift he also states, "The odds were stacked against success." I find this funny because he did not support the 'Surge'. Though the Surge had some rough spots in the middle (even I lost faith) it did work in the end.
What of Obama's calls to continue the war on terror? Sounds kind of like Bush, no?
What of Obama's call for a "new dawn in the Middle East"? Sounds like something certain forum members have decried the neo-cons for.
When I brought up Obama's "changing" position on FISA some forum members responded by attacking me or bringing up McCain. It wasn't until the more Intelligent members of the forum opined that the change on FISA bothered them that the attack dogs reeled themselves in and joined the actual discussion. I'm used to this pattern. I know that if I post something critical of Obama I will be attacked by a few certain members until someone posts their concerns on the topic. Once that happens the discussion continues.
Yet, it is those physical "peace walls" that allow Catholics and Protestants to live together. Why can't you just admit that Obama screwed up by adding those words to his speech?
He is speaking in metaphore and referencing with hope a time when neither physical NOR social walls are needed.
You are close. What I am trying to point out is the hypocrisy among certain forum members who will quickly jump on McCain's back and call him old/senile/etc but excuse the same thing when Obama does it.
I see what you're saying, and I agree. There is plenty of anti McCain rhetoric that goes around that is exactly the same as the anti Obama rhetoric you are presenting here. To all who fall for this kind of thing on either side, I say the same thing.
Your problem, Steve, is that you are stooping down to that level. That doesn't work. You just make yourself look stupid. Not an insult to you, but you have not demonstrated the writing ability to be clever, witty, or sarcastic. If you want to make a point that people are spewing Obama rhetoric, just point out that it's stupid rhetoric, no different than the stuff people on the other side are saying. Instead, what you do, is you spew the stuff the other side is saying. It makes it appear as if you also believe the stupid Fox News bullshit when you present it as you do. This is why you fail. Instead of making people realize that they are spewing pro-Obama bullshit, you simply instigate a torrent of rebuttals to the pro-McCain bullshit.
If you want to point out bullshit, just point at it and call it like it is. If you try to fight poo with poo, you just make everyone stink.
Comments
Obama referenced the Berlin Wall, a physical wall. In the same sentence he references walls coming down in Belfast. I posted a link showing that physical walls in Ireland are going up, not coming down. These "Peace Walls" are a fact, a fact that you have chosen not to respond to.
It's called "speaking metaphorically". Look into it.
Why can't you just admit that Obama screwed up by adding those words to his speech?
Instead of going he cancelled the trip entirely. Why?
Try to read for comprehension. Who cares? You seem pretty desparate to make an issue where there is none.
Plus, I have seen how well military photographers would do, and I wouldn't trust them.
This sort of thing does not prompt intelligent discussion, it just annoys the rest of us on this board and causes resentment and quarrels. Come back when you have something more interesting to say.
Short list of Obama gaffes that were ignored by the media. Had these gaffes been made by a Republican they would be all over the news.
The media talks about all of these things for the amount of time they are worth which isn't much. McCain and Obama will be making tons of stupid comments as is the case when they have to make dozens of speeches in a day. As long as they don't consistently make the same mistake over and over again it's not a big deal. Really. That's why you don't see me posting about McCain and Czech.... Anyone who has ever done a lick of public speaking knows you will misread a line or say something off the cuff and confuse pronouns. You say I would joke on McCain on that but I haven't. Public speaking is a bitch. One downside of 24 hours news is we get to hear about every time a politician misspeaks, when in the past they used to do it all the time and no-one cared.
I mean Obama talked about "the Bomb" that hit pearl harbor.... We know what he was actually talking about.. He misspoke...
If you happen to have been swayed one way or the other, good for you. If you try to sway others to your way, good for you again. If you're smart enough to recognize that politics, especially presidential campaign politics, is just show business and bullshit, then be smart enough to realize when you've totally fallen for it. When you realize you have totally fallen for it, you realize that the reason that politics is bullshit is because it works, even on you. And when you realize it works, even on you, don't criticize either candidate for doing what works. The only way to make the bullshit stop is to stop falling for it. Only when bullshit stops working will bullshit stop.
Because Pentagon rules state (and have for a while) that military bases can not be used for campaigning Obama can't make a small social call without the press following him? Does this mean he only intended to visit the military hospital so he could use it as a photo-op? By going he sends the message that he is going as a sign of support and not just as a photo-op.
The best thing he could have done was to go. Instead he only affirms what those on the right think, that he was only going there for a photo-op and once that photo-op was denied he decided it was not worth going.
Neither of you are discussing real issues and instead focus on arguments based on making the other side look less ________ (Choose one: Patriotic, Intelligent, American). If you ever feel like discussing real issues, let me know. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
-Andrew
As I said, Obama is just playing the game. He's doing what he needs to do to win. McCain is no different. Clinton was no different. Bush is no different. Reagan was no different. The last president I remember who was different was Jimmy Carter who went around saying the truth, which people don't like to hear. You can see where that got him.
Steve, all you are saying is "Look! These candidates are just playing a media game! They're not actually doing or saying anything of substance!" This is absolutely true, but it isn't news to anybody except you. It's also equally true about all political candidates everywhere in the US, and most of western society. Trying to act as if Obama is the only candidate to ever actually try to win a political campaign via the media shows maybe you haven't yet discovered it's all fake.
Andrew: Issue - Overall message of speech
When Obama mentions the Berlin airlift he also states, "The odds were stacked against success." I find this funny because he did not support the 'Surge'. Though the Surge had some rough spots in the middle (even I lost faith) it did work in the end.
What of Obama's calls to continue the war on terror? Sounds kind of like Bush, no?
What of Obama's call for a "new dawn in the Middle East"? Sounds like something certain forum members have decried the neo-cons for.
When I brought up Obama's "changing" position on FISA some forum members responded by attacking me or bringing up McCain. It wasn't until the more Intelligent members of the forum opined that the change on FISA bothered them that the attack dogs reeled themselves in and joined the actual discussion. I'm used to this pattern. I know that if I post something critical of Obama I will be attacked by a few certain members until someone posts their concerns on the topic. Once that happens the discussion continues.
Seriously apparently one side wants the other side to do things in a way that will cause them to not win. Awesome! Lets take that advice!
LoL... the republican party sure has a sense of humor....
Your problem, Steve, is that you are stooping down to that level. That doesn't work. You just make yourself look stupid. Not an insult to you, but you have not demonstrated the writing ability to be clever, witty, or sarcastic. If you want to make a point that people are spewing Obama rhetoric, just point out that it's stupid rhetoric, no different than the stuff people on the other side are saying. Instead, what you do, is you spew the stuff the other side is saying. It makes it appear as if you also believe the stupid Fox News bullshit when you present it as you do. This is why you fail. Instead of making people realize that they are spewing pro-Obama bullshit, you simply instigate a torrent of rebuttals to the pro-McCain bullshit.
If you want to point out bullshit, just point at it and call it like it is. If you try to fight poo with poo, you just make everyone stink.