AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

On Oct 13, 6:32*am, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:54:38 -0400, jeff wrote:
wrote:

First and foremost, since you seem to have put some thought into a reply, and
done so (seemingly) seriously, reasonably and courteously, I wanted to return
the favor, if you will. *Please note that this was written as I've had a spare
moment here and there, over a couple of days, since your reply - I've tried to
edit/proofread, but I've probably missed some things. *



he changed the direction of this country (and the perceptions of this
country) long before january 20, 2009. *

No, he really hasn't. *But from the other side, um...no, he really hasn't...but
see below...

well...yes, he really has. he began a movement...a sea-change in ideas
and ideals and politics.

Among who? *How? *Can you give some examples of this "sea-change"? *Now, if you
mean that "liberals" are now fans of the POTUS and "conservatives" aren't, sure,
but that's not Obama, that's politics. *It seems there has been very little
change in politics or ideas, only a change in who is in the majority and pushing
their own agendas. *And yep, if McCain had won (other than with perhaps my
hoped-for-but-unrealistic McCain/Obama ticket), there would not have been
anything much new, either. *

now, diplomacy is different.

It is? *How?

UN policy and talk is decidedly different.

Are you serious? *The only thing most of those heavily involved with UN are
interested in is having a continued tit to suck. *Look no further than all the
shtick with al-Qaddafi and the tent and, what, the second or third major
walk-out over the Ahmedinejad, Israel, and the Holocaust? *The UN, for the most
part, is a ****in' circus.

foreign relations are different.

Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, China, Israel, for example...? *Or are you
referring to the fact that the government of France hasn't been quite as bitchy
for a few months?

appreciation of civil rights, individual liberties, constitutional rights are
different. *

The Dem-controlled Senate - specifically, AHEM, the Judiciary Committee - just
started the process to renew substantial portions of the Patriot Act...at the
behest of and with the support of the Obama administration...and Obama wanted to
be able to "seize the Internet" or some such nonsense. *Frankly, it seems to me
that those on the left are willing to let other lefties **** them, but bristle
when they think the right is trying to do it. *I would offer as a instant
example Obama's recent speech, but lack of overall action, on the whole "gay
rights" issue. *Look, I don't understand the whole "gay marriage" thing, but I
can't see any reason why they shouldn't have the same right to be unhappy as
straight folks... * Seriously, though, why is a secular national government even
involved in or concerned with who marries who versus "civil unions"?

torture policies are different.

AHA! *So that's what he's done with "Don't ask, don't tell"...

I'd offer that if you think what you'd consider "torture" has stopped under
Obama, I think you'd be sadly disappointed. *And I'd offer as evidence his
endorsement of certain US Army manuals. *They allow things that would be
considered "torture" under the same guidelines used to classify water-boarding
"torture". *

*integrity of decision-making is different.

Here, I substantially disagree. *While Bush's decisions weren't always right, he
did tend to stick by both them and his people. *And while I understand the
argument that if it appears from reasonable and credible evidence that one has
made a "wrong" decision, changing one's mind would make sense. *Unfortunately,
many of the decisions a President must make are difficult ones and aren't ones
such that lend themselves to "instant (reasonable) feedback." *And thus far with
Obama, I don't see a lot of decision-making of any kind.

honest statements to the public...different.

Um, do you mean different lies or ??? * Assuming you mean to imply that Obama is
more honest than past presidents, what about "transparency"? *Howsabout time for
public input on major legislation? *Closing Gitmo? *Troops out of Iraq? *How
about just being honest about a friggin' trip to Copenhagen?

economic push, different.

Two words - Ben Bernanke.

regard for the balance of power between branches of govt...different.

Actually, all POTUS' since Nixon/Ford have been doing is taking back some of the
power "snatched" by Congress in the wake of Watergate. *And Obama certainly
hasn't done anything to reverse the trend. *And I suspect that if he could do
some more, um, "snatching" with regard to Pelosi, Reid, Sessions, and a few
others, he wouldn't hesitate for a second.

appointment of federal judges...way, way different (and better...g)

Again, I disagree. *Sotomayor gives no evidence of being a serious legal scholar
of any stripe, or even a particularly "even" and (merely) competent jurist.

On Oct 13, 6:32*am, wrote:

There is a lot that I could comment on but I will stick to one area.
Foreign relations. Its not your opinions/ideology that are so
striking
but the huge hole in your info base. Given what you said it is not
possible to believe you venture outside of the FOX circuit or much
beyond local papers and right-wing blogs, unless you are just
spinning
some absurdities for effect. I don't get abroad much but I assumed
that you traveled more and talked to folks at least some. It doesn't
sound like you have much conversational contact with foreigners.

Even if you listened to BBC America, itself seriously dumbed down and
censored for our American biases, you would not seriously be able to
say what you said. You say yourself that you do not understand the
fuss the World is making over Obama, and whether and why perceptions
of the US are shifting in many places. Maybe you don't get it because
you are not listening, or reading, or talking outside your normal
circle of cranky hardliners?


Richard, the Internet makes all kinds of foreign broadcast news and
English editions easily available. PBS has a 1000% more active
correspondents than does FOX or the major networks for that matter.
Even a weekend NYT once a month can give you the broad outlines. My
stalwarts are Australian Broadcasting, Haaretz in English, the
Economist (right up your Tory alley).


The Australians are particularly uncensored and deal with all the
taboos and most of the stories that we mostly self censor. Deutsche
welle and Radio Sweden are next to useless, Moscow and China radio
are
what you would expect, and some insightful stuff from a non-western
viewpoint comes from India, accessible from the late nite/early AM,
BBC news, and their world-talk phone-in show.


I am sure that this post could **** you off. But really man, you may
disagree with everything the man says and does, but to persist in
this
assertion that Obama has not shifted perceptions of the US in many
places in the World is just silly. Roff interactions are no
substitute
for wider reading and listening.


Dave

wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:54:38 -0400, jeff wrote:

wrote:

First and foremost, since you seem to have put some thought into a reply, and
done so (seemingly) seriously, reasonably and courteously, I wanted to return
the favor, if you will. Please note that this was written as I've had a spare
moment here and there, over a couple of days, since your reply - I've tried to
edit/proofread, but I've probably missed some things.

why would you expect me to be anything other than courteous? i can
understand doubts about reasonable or serious...or intelligent.

he changed the direction of this country (and the perceptions of this
country) long before january 20, 2009.
No, he really hasn't. But from the other side, um...no, he really hasn't...but
see below...
well...yes, he really has. he began a movement...a sea-change in ideas
and ideals and politics.

Among who? How? Can you give some examples of this "sea-change"? Now, if you
mean that "liberals" are now fans of the POTUS and "conservatives" aren't, sure,
but that's not Obama, that's politics. It seems there has been very little
change in politics or ideas, only a change in who is in the majority and pushing
their own agendas. And yep, if McCain had won (other than with perhaps my
hoped-for-but-unrealistic McCain/Obama ticket), there would not have been
anything much new, either.

sea change...ebb/flow...tide. ok. i guess you know, as i do, that i
don't have a tidal gauge, so what i say is my own impression...although,
i think it is rationally based. anyway, here is someone with their
"how": (this is quoted stuff)

"At the recent International Festival, I bought a t-shirt that displays
every country's flag with the slogan 'Citizen of the World'. For me,
President Obama's receiving the Nobel Peace Prize celebrates that
sentiment. I have read the Nobel Committee's statement on its reasons
for bestowing that honor, and the president's humble, articulate and
profoundly thoughtful response. Ours is the most powerful nation on
earth, and our leaders have great influence on the course of world
events. Obama's vision, which he began developing long before the 2008
campaign, has been one of diplomacy, really listening to all points of
view, concern for what humanity can do to halt environmental damage and
reducing the threat of nuclear weapons. That his inauguration was
greeted with such jubilation by his supporters around the world is a
testament to the hope and optimism we feel his vision expresses. The
Nobel Peace Prize is an affirmation of the impact his vision has had on
the world psyche. My grandparents were immigrants who suffered
discrimination. My brother was a veteran who did four tours of duty in
Vietnam. Our family loves our country, and I am so proud that the United
States has produced Barack Obama." (end quotes) Phyllis Gordon, Raleigh,
NC (letter to editor, People's Forum, News & Observer Oct 13, 2009)

I have no doubt there are many others in the world who share this
sentiment. I also know Limbaugh, Fox News, and others express contrary
views. critics can parse her words with their own sense of what the
truth is. But...read, really read, what this lady says. That's the
stuff that got Obama elected and that, in my opinion, underscores the
award of the peace prize. it's not perfect, it may succumb to harsh
debate...but it's a genuine feeling worthy of respect and consideration.
It exemplifies my answer to the "who" and "how" you ask...


now, diplomacy is different.

It is? How?

....really?? Look at Iran...look at the UN talk and reception...look at
the guy going to Copenhagen for the Olympics pitch...look at all of his
efforts internationally...all of his "let me be clear" statements.

UN policy and talk is decidedly different.

Are you serious? The only thing most of those heavily involved with UN are
interested in is having a continued tit to suck. Look no further than all the
shtick with al-Qaddafi and the tent and, what, the second or third major
walk-out over the Ahmedinejad, Israel, and the Holocaust? The UN, for the most
part, is a ****in' circus.

a very superficial criticism in my opinion, and not at all specific to
our subject of Obama. what would you have him do...act like Bush and
Bolton? whatever you think of the UN, it is an international body with
some degree of gravitas in world decisions. even Bush gave it some
consideration, and used it as a rationale for some of his decisions
(stupid as his decision were, imo). i think it has great
potential...and that your castigation notwithstanding, it is an
important world body that cannot be ignored.

foreign relations are different.

Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, China, Israel, for example...? Or are you
referring to the fact that the government of France hasn't been quite as bitchy
for a few months?

yes...foreign relations and policy with all of them are different.
....and France isn't as bitchy for good reason.

appreciation of civil rights, individual liberties, constitutional rights are
different.

The Dem-controlled Senate - specifically, AHEM, the Judiciary Committee - just
started the process to renew substantial portions of the Patriot Act...at the
behest of and with the support of the Obama administration...and Obama wanted to
be able to "seize the Internet" or some such nonsense. Frankly, it seems to me
that those on the left are willing to let other lefties **** them, but bristle
when they think the right is trying to do it. I would offer as a instant
example Obama's recent speech, but lack of overall action, on the whole "gay
rights" issue. Look, I don't understand the whole "gay marriage" thing, but I
can't see any reason why they shouldn't have the same right to be unhappy as
straight folks... Seriously, though, why is a secular national government even
involved in or concerned with who marries who versus "civil unions"?


wait... you confabulate and confuse. Obama...not the Senate, not the
House. concentrate on the guy who got the prize. He made statements of
his position... other than the gay military, what does he get to
implement by personal fiat? ...and, the gay military thing is no
automatic on his word, is it?

torture policies are different.

AHA! So that's what he's done with "Don't ask, don't tell"...


well...we were being serious for a moment anyway...i guess you concede
this one? ...


I'd offer that if you think what you'd consider "torture" has stopped under
Obama, I think you'd be sadly disappointed. And I'd offer as evidence his
endorsement of certain US Army manuals. They allow things that would be
considered "torture" under the same guidelines used to classify water-boarding
"torture".


....or, not. i think you are simply wrong. he's been quite clear, as
has his administration, that torture is over and gone as an accepted
process. btw...what do you think i consider as torture?

integrity of decision-making is different.

Here, I substantially disagree. While Bush's decisions weren't always right, he
did tend to stick by both them and his people. And while I understand the
argument that if it appears from reasonable and credible evidence that one has
made a "wrong" decision, changing one's mind would make sense. Unfortunately,
many of the decisions a President must make are difficult ones and aren't ones
such that lend themselves to "instant (reasonable) feedback." And thus far with
Obama, I don't see a lot of decision-making of any kind.

for example?


honest statements to the public...different.

Um, do you mean different lies or ??? Assuming you mean to imply that Obama is
more honest than past presidents, what about "transparency"? Howsabout time for
public input on major legislation? Closing Gitmo? Troops out of Iraq? How
about just being honest about a friggin' trip to Copenhagen?

again...he's honest and open. he's closing gitmo... he's stated and
initiated a timetable for troops out of iraq and is doing it... not sure
about the meaning or importance of your copenhagen comment...

economic push, different.

Two words - Ben Bernanke.

wtf does that mean? just because he's retained doesn't mean it's the
same economic push...

regard for the balance of power between branches of govt...different.

Actually, all POTUS' since Nixon/Ford have been doing is taking back some of the
power "snatched" by Congress in the wake of Watergate. And Obama certainly
hasn't done anything to reverse the trend. And I suspect that if he could do
some more, um, "snatching" with regard to Pelosi, Reid, Sessions, and a few
others, he wouldn't hesitate for a second.

your suspicions and opinions notwithstanding, he's been much more
"judicious" and respectful in his consideration of the separation of
powers. i believe he has a fuller appreciation of the constitution...and
isn't arrogant in his exercise of executive authority. i know you have
an appreciation of the cheney/bush attempt to "reclaim" and assert
executive authority...beyond all reasonable bounds of respect for the
other branches.

appointment of federal judges...way, way different (and better...g)

Again, I disagree. Sotomayor gives no evidence of being a serious legal scholar
of any stripe, or even a particularly "even" and (merely) competent jurist.

look at the history of her opinions as weighed and assessed by an
objective, independent association.(i forget the name, but i read its
report) i suppose you think alito and roberts and thomas are iconic?
sotomayor is much more balanced across the board of judicial
decision-making and philosophy, imo. she will probably surprise most in
her conservatism on many issues... i think she is as competent as any
republican appointee ...

talking about the facts
instead of creating facts to talk about...huge difference.

Well, I will grant you that he certainly does a lot of talking...


ok...

he's restored pride to a substantial segment of the population that felt lost, left
out, used, taken for granted, and burdened.

Um, who, exactly?


me...african-americans, immigrants (legal and illegal), women, democrats
g, workers at my office, phyllis...

he can speak intelligently, powerfully...inspiring folks...way different.

Again, his speech-making can and will only do much - sooner or later, he's gonna
need to quit talking about what he's gonna do and do _something_ - accomplish
_something_ substantial - that he promised he'd accomplish...

ok...and your argument against the fact that his ability to speak
inspirationally is a change in direction?

there is a sense of integrity, honor, and truth. there is a recognition of the value of
other cultures and different perspectives. his efforts for a nuclear
weapon-free world. (or nukular) he's black. just look at how he was
received here and in other countries in 2008... why do you think that
happened?

The media, including the Internet "media." It's also why Paris Hilton is, well,
Paris Hilton. And if his racial makeup is important (I'm not sure why it would
be important as to policy, etc. but...), he's not "black," he's half-black and
half-white. That in and of itself isn't particularly important to his handling
of substantive issues, but it is important that you, like most people, seem to
forget it. Well, "forget it" isn't quite right, but when you point out his
racial makeup, you are inaccurate about it. Based upon his actual racial
makeup, why would you not say, "he's white"? It is just as accurate.

it's not just as accurate, and you and everyone else who is the least
bit honest should admit it. You can debate the point all you want, but
it's a silly point. Look at the wingnut jokes about him...he's "black".
Bush was white. Clinton was white. McCain was white. Hillary was
white... a rose is a rose is a rose...

his race...his appearance...is different than any other president. It
is a huge deal that we elected him. It is a source of incredible pride
and awe for me. I think it was a hallmark moment in our history...a
demarcation point. I feel privileged to have been alive to witness it.

i just don't understand the schadenfreude for obama that some have...
I don't either - thus far, he really hasn't done or accomplished much of
anything - from any standpoint. A ban on guns? Nope. A rise in taxes? Nope.
Gay atheist Muslim dope-smoking liberal hippie commies encouraging grade-school
kids to use condoms for unnatural sex in Heartland, Kansas? Nope. The Abortion
Czar putting PETA supporters at every mall with a coathanger? Not even close.
"Christmas (or Hanukkah) - no, Kwanzaa (or Ramadan) - yes." Hardly. Are Bush,
Cheney, and the CIA being investigated? Nop...er, ye...er, nop...er, ye....er,
nop...well, maybe...or not...
folks want him to fail,

Some do, yes. Most don't. IMO, the vast majority of those in the US (and
really, the world) don't want _any_ major leader who (generally) mirrors their
(general) views to "fail." Basic nature and decency aside, it's just not in
their interest.

want to find fault.

Why was it, for some, so "patriotic" to question every move Bush made, every
word he uttered, but it's only the insert ad hominem here that would question
_anything_ Obama does or says? Are you suggesting he has done nothing with
which anyone could/should objectively find fault?

this is you and me talking now. i never had the sense that Bush gave a
**** about consensus or logic or other viewpoints. Did you? I never
thought Bush was respected internationally, did you? I never felt
comfortable that he was capable of studying and thinking through an
issue or making an independent, intelligent judgment...did you? I voted
for and helped John East...a very "radical" conservative republican. I
always felt he had an intelligent, thoughtful demeanor...though I
disagreed with him politically and personally on many issues. I never
had the same feeling about Bush.

I think most right-minded folks want our president to succeed and to be
worthy of the position. I also think that few of us democrats in the
heartland turned on bush in the first 6 months of his presidency with
the heartless and mindless vitriol obama has experienced.


go out of their way to condemn him. ...and, of course, it's all his fault.

See above.

are you saying he's not tried in any meaningful, substantive, and honest way to implement or
initiate important change?

Not tried? There's not really enough information to determine that. I will say
that there is very little evidence that he has really tried to implement
important change. Take, for example, his "transparency, ""public review period"
and "no lobbyist" promises. These are things over which he has more-or-less
complete control, and yet, no real change in spite of all the talking about
them.

no real change??? come on...you know better. that he even talked about
them, made them a policy issue, and has initiated the change... what is
your measure quantitatively on these issues?


what do you think he should have done, or
done differently? pick something...and talk about his efforts
objectively as the executive branch...

See immediately above.

see immediately below immediately above.


Thus far, about all he has REALLY accomplished is to REALLY divide those he is
supposed to be President of....yeah, yeah, yeah, I know - it's ALL the fault of
the other side...(and in all seriousness, most of the division isn't his
"fault," nor did he "cause" all of it, but OTOH, neither he nor his
administration has done much of anything to ease it, either, and they have
encouraged some of it)
tell me...what has he done to cause the divide...other than be black? my
take is he's bent over backwards to try to find consensus, to encourage
discussion and compromise. ken and others may be right...perhaps he
should just say screw the repubs and push the agenda. i don't think so.
i like his approach.

Again, he's not "black," but that aside, for one, he could have provided a copy
of his birth certificate. From a purely objective standpoint, if an employee
has to prove citizenship to get a job in the US, an alleged citizen has to prove
it to get Medicare, etc., why shouldn't he? IOW, why is the demand of an
employer to see proof of citizenship improper? I fully realize the touchiness
of that topic, but objectively, why not end the controversy and do what,
technically, is a legal requirement (and I'll grant that I'm not sure whether
the "short-form" already bandied about would suffice or not)? If you want more
examples, I can provide them, but that is one of the simplest for him to
dispel/clear up and "heal the divide," if you will. And it would have the added
benefit of shutting up the truly out-there "birthers" or whatever they are
called. OTOH, if he doesn't actually want to "heal the divide" and shut up the
loons for his own political reasons....

to me, that evidences the weakness of your response. it is so ridiculous
that no one of any real intellectual or political substance or integrity
raises it or suggests its importance in any discussion about obama. i'm
honestly surprised you resorted to it as i have always respected and
believed in your intellect and analytic ability... all the devil's
advocate and inane stuff aside (or because of it, too, i guess).

IAC, while I haven't polled them, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the
great majority of the world don't really know or care about Obama or any other
POTUS, anymore than most of those in the US know or really care about how
Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, or those any other country feel or are governed

i haven't polled them either...but i'll go out on the same limb and say
more people in the world can tell you who obama is than can tell you who
herta muller is (and probably more than can identify william faulkner).

I;m not sure of your point, but I'd agree with the statement. IAC, how about
Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, Wen Jiabao, Musharraf, Patil, Yudhoyono, Gandhi,
Muhammad, Allah/God (and no, I'm not comparing anything but numbers of people of
can identify them)? How about the various members of the Bachchan family
(including Aishwarya Rai, and again, simple name-recognition comparison)? David
Hasselhof, Jerry Lewis, Posh and Becks or whatever they are called?

but that wasn't really the point of our discussion (or my comment) was
it? they know who obama is for a reason...


think back on his speech in germany...his visits to other
countries...the muslim world reaction... i think you understate the
general view of world leaders ... russia, china, us, uk, israel, middle
east, etc., and their political systems and populaces.

Oh, there's no doubt the media whipped some in Europe into the same tizzy into
which they whipped those in the US (and you'll note you're referring to yet
_another_ speech), but I think you are the one who is misreading world leaders
in general, esp. "rulers." For example, Norway - while it is a perfectly nice
country with generally nice folks, I'm sure, it ain't exactly a "world power." I
think many "rulers" saw a novice, feel-good kinda guy from whom they could get
more of their way with than they could other of the potential choices (and that
includes Hillary Clinton). IOW, their glee was more at their chances than the
US'...and he has probably done more to damage the US' rep with our two
most-powerful allies in the Middle East - Israel and the Iranian _people_ - than
Bush did. And he hasn't done much to keep the heat on Pakistan's leadership,
either.

i simply don't agree...and i didn't claim norway was a world power.
but, i stick by my opinion about the positive change overall in the
world leaders' view of our president.

unless they simply acknowledge being a rascist.
Hmmm...what about when certain sectors (and I mean sectors of races, not entire
races) of the various... um.... non-(half)white people blamed _everything_ on
white people...? Was that not "racist?" As an aside, is a rascist anything
like a facist?
yeah, yeah...racist... and i don't think racists exist only in a
single color or race. still, i accept there is an historical and real
basis for the black hatred of whites in the u.s. - a basis or reason for
the emotion that i can't find an equal underpinning for with the white
racists...maybe you can explain it?

Oh, to be sure, there are still some sheet-cutting rednecks around who dislike
Obama simply because he's half-black (to them, any black in the racial makeup is
_black_ - hint, hint), and others who are just...well, not really "racist" in
the common phrasing, but "racist" in the general sense that most folks are more
comfortable with those "like them," be they "white," "black," "brown," "yellow,"
or whatever other keying term one uses. But I don't think the majority of those
who aren't as enamored of Obama as you feel the way they do because of race.
Which is another thing, IMO, he has failed to do - take a firm stand on the
issue. He (and the administration) allow supporters (and to a lesser extent,
surrogates) to label those opposed to his proposed policy(s), ideas, promises,
etc. as "racist." His proposals, stated ideas, etc. are generally pretty
standard left-ish Dem stuff, many of which any of the "usual suspects" would
propose and which most center-right-to-right "usual suspects" would oppose, all
regardless of respective "race." Simply put, he's using (and tacitly allowing
the use of) the charge of "racism" to foster a divide and attempt to make a
political advantage with it.

i reckon that's why he has consistently deflected any suggestion that
his race is an issue? as in ...he was black before he took office? i
just don't get your argument on this, nor is it a response to what i
wrote above it.

i'll wager though that of all the nobel recipients, he
is easily the most recognizable and best-known in the world.
Except, apparently, in Poland...
too obscure for me...but see above...

It was a reference to Lech Walesa and his comments, "Who?...." And you
might want to look over the list of winners. I would agree he is probably the
best-known of the 2009 nominees from the "western world." I'm not sure that's
what it was intended to be all about, though.

no...but that is what i meant when i made my remark...about the 2009
recipients.

And your statement above is a pretty good indication of what I feel is the whole
problem - "Americancentricism." And note that I did not write "Americentric" or
similar.
don't get your meaning...but that's nothing new. please explain.

Well, read your own post. It's from the perspective of an "American," of
course, but it seems to indicate your belief that what an "American" believes or
thinks about Obama is what the world population believes or thinks. Why, for
example, would an "average worker" in China, India, Indonesia, etc., know or
care much about Obama or his policies, promises, "hope," etc.? To be sure, some
of the world populace thinks of "America" and what they perceive that it
represents _for them_, some good (ala "the American Dream") and some bad ("the
HQ of the infidels"). But I'd offer that most are pretty much agnostic about
it. Yet, "Americans" think that the thoughts of the world _population_ revolves
around "America." Again, to be sure, a portion of the world "ruling class" has
knowledge of it and does pay attention to a fair portion of "American" things,
but it is mostly out of self-interest as opposed to desire to be "American."

ok...but my comment simply contended a more favorable world view of our
president, didn't it? ...based on my opinion and my reading of what
other's say. i've not taken any scientific poll. i've tried to be
clear about my opinion and my belief...i've no illusion about it being
scientific or mathematical. from my read, people the world over are
enthusiastic and optimistic about Obama.

The
Peace Prize is awarded by 5 people chosen by the Norwegian legislature - we're
not talking about, pardon the pun, a great council of "world leaders" or even a
large body of the world's peoples, yet "Americans" who support Obama want to
point to it as some vast affirmation of him by the world. And what are other
"leaders" supposed to say about his win? Of course they are gonna be diplomatic
about it, at least those who want something.

but...the award given by those "5 people" is what we are talking about,
isn't it. I neither elevated it nor demeaned it...i simply said it made
me proud and encouraged. i do however believe it affirms a different
world view of our president. i would hope other world leaders would do
the reasonable, honorable, and responsible thing...the decent
thing...and be happy for him and congratulate him. what any decent
person should do.

my hope is for people, especially those in other countries, to believe
genuinely that our president promotes and desires peaceful solutions. we
are too often a violent short-sighted society, rightly perceived as
such, with petty purposes and ideas.
Um, who exactly is "we"...?
we = u.s. public/society/culture

Oh. I thought you might mean all of mankind or something...just checking...and
see above, Americancentricism...

so do you disagree that u.s. society/public/culture is "often violent,
short-sighted, and petty"? not sure that is just an americancentric
view...are you?

i like having a president who
doesn't fit that mold, and who garners the admiration and respect of
other world leaders...not to mention the nobel committee.
What makes you think he is "admired and respected" by "world leaders?"
i think it based on my reading... and based on newscasts i've seen on
teevee.

Uh-oh. How much "world news" do you watch/follow?

enough...more than most folks i know...but then, i don't know you or
your world news habits. i am satisfied i watch and know less than dave
snedeker though. g

i'm incredibly proud of obama...he's doing a terrific job as president
under the worst of circumstances.
OK. Please give examples of why you feel he is doing a terrific job.
see above... i trust you understand "worst of circumstances."

Where above? Are you referring to his speeches, teevee, or ???

read it again...change of direction stuff we disagree on...

though the bewilderingly hostile chasm and wasteland between repubs and
dems, conservatives and liberals, (using those labels in the most
dogmatic sense) keeps us a divided nation, i am seeing more folks (like
paul...and even tim g) in recent months who are willing to express
their dissatisfaction with the way things have been and who are seeking
ways to bridge the divide. it's encouraging... as is a president
awarded the nobel peace prize.
I'm curious - when Obama said he didn't deserve it, did you feel that he was
being honest, falsely modest, disingenuous, or ??? And if you feel he was being
honest, why do you disagree with him? IOW, why do you feel that he does deserve
it when he honestly disagrees with you?

i thought he was being genuine...a real and humble and honest human
being...who recognized the power of his symbol and his efforts, that
were being encouraged. i don't think i chimed in saying he did or did
not deserve it...the nobel committee, carrying out the will of alfred
nobel, decided he deserved it. the committee is comprised of
non-americancentrists, don't you agree? they've been in the business of
making selections since early 1900s. it's their job and their
choice...not yours or mine. we can debate our view of the merit of the
selection...but it ain't debatable that i'm proud of it and encouraged
by it.

Again, the Peace Prize is chosen by 5 people who themselves are chosen by the
Norwegian legislature. Let me ask you this, if 5 people chosen by the Senate or
the House "chose" to nuke, say, Belgium today, would you support it? Or let me
put it in real terms - since about 20 people chosen by the Senate, which was
supposedly chosen "by the people" (US) voted in support of the bulk of the
Patriot Act (with the support of Obama), will you state your unequivocal support
for that part brought forward?

not the same thing...no parallel. your attempt at similarity doesn't
follow the premise of my position or statement. whether he deserved the
award isn't our call. it's certainly debatable from a
conservativecentric limbaughist view...or even a paul friedman and
maureen dowd view. but that isn't what we were talking about, is it,
really?

i admit i was surprised. i believe i said i was proud and encouraged
that our president received the prize.

Why? What is it about the opinion of those 5 people that is so important _to
you_?

an international recognition of our president, a president and person i
admire and support, and who represents values i appreciate, is
satisfying, encouraging, and a source of pride. it also elevates an
issue i care about deeply...and one that will be implanted in the psyche
of those in power in this country.

clearly, to me and based on the statements contained in nobel's will,
the prize is intended to recognize and encourage potential and the
possible effects of the selection. i think obama was perceived as
bringing a better sense of reason and balance to a precarious and
dangerous set of world circumstances.

Er, no. While it was not intended to be based solely on results, it was to
based upon efforts. Let me ask you this - if it is such a powerful motivational
tool, why not give it to all of the leaders in the Middle East every year until
there is peace? I mean, with such a powerful motivation for potential, it
wouldn't take but a couple of years, right?

er...yes.

ok...an award as you suggest might serve a purpose. i certainly have no
argument against it if that's what the committe of 5 believe and choose
to do with nobel's will and money. give it a shot.

jose merida (yeah, about as well known as jeff miller) said he thought
the prize to obama also "recognized the american people who dared to
vote for a change of the u.s. role in the world." perception can become
reality... "give peace a chance"

And you feel continuing the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan - neither of which
are really "wars" and neither of which is "winnable" by any side in a "warfare"
sense - is giving peace a chance?

....and, what are his real world options? i mean, how does this
president deal with the hand he's been dealt? it's a very complex
decision model, and he's handling it very well in my opinion.


TC,
R

will do...jeff (just had my last "i'm not 60 yet" birthday...)

On Oct 13, 8:32*am, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:54:38 -0400, jeff wrote:
wrote:

First and foremost, since you seem to have put some thought into a reply, and
done so (seemingly) seriously, reasonably and courteously, I wanted to return
the favor, if you will. *Please note that this was written as I've had a spare
moment here and there, over a couple of days, since your reply - I've tried to
edit/proofread, but I've probably missed some things. *



he changed the direction of this country (and the perceptions of this
country) long before january 20, 2009. *

No, he really hasn't. *But from the other side, um...no, he really hasn't...but
see below...

well...yes, he really has. he began a movement...a sea-change in ideas
and ideals and politics.

Among who? *How? *Can you give some examples of this "sea-change"? *Now, if you
mean that "liberals" are now fans of the POTUS and "conservatives" aren't, sure,
but that's not Obama, that's politics. *It seems there has been very little
change in politics or ideas, only a change in who is in the majority and pushing
their own agendas. *And yep, if McCain had won (other than with perhaps my
hoped-for-but-unrealistic McCain/Obama ticket), there would not have been
anything much new, either. *

now, diplomacy is different.

It is? *How?

UN policy and talk is decidedly different.

Are you serious? *The only thing most of those heavily involved with UN are
interested in is having a continued tit to suck. *Look no further than all the
shtick with al-Qaddafi and the tent and, what, the second or third major
walk-out over the Ahmedinejad, Israel, and the Holocaust? *The UN, for the most
part, is a ****in' circus.

foreign relations are different.

Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, China, Israel, for example...? *Or are you
referring to the fact that the government of France hasn't been quite as bitchy
for a few months?

appreciation of civil rights, individual liberties, constitutional rights are
different. *

The Dem-controlled Senate - specifically, AHEM, the Judiciary Committee - just
started the process to renew substantial portions of the Patriot Act...at the
behest of and with the support of the Obama administration...and Obama wanted to
be able to "seize the Internet" or some such nonsense. *Frankly, it seems to me
that those on the left are willing to let other lefties **** them, but bristle
when they think the right is trying to do it. *I would offer as a instant
example Obama's recent speech, but lack of overall action, on the whole "gay
rights" issue. *Look, I don't understand the whole "gay marriage" thing, but I
can't see any reason why they shouldn't have the same right to be unhappy as
straight folks... * Seriously, though, why is a secular national government even
involved in or concerned with who marries who versus "civil unions"?

torture policies are different.

AHA! *So that's what he's done with "Don't ask, don't tell"...

I'd offer that if you think what you'd consider "torture" has stopped under
Obama, I think you'd be sadly disappointed. *And I'd offer as evidence his
endorsement of certain US Army manuals. *They allow things that would be
considered "torture" under the same guidelines used to classify water-boarding
"torture". *

*integrity of decision-making is different.

Here, I substantially disagree. *While Bush's decisions weren't always right, he
did tend to stick by both them and his people. *And while I understand the
argument that if it appears from reasonable and credible evidence that one has
made a "wrong" decision, changing one's mind would make sense. *Unfortunately,
many of the decisions a President must make are difficult ones and aren't ones
such that lend themselves to "instant (reasonable) feedback." *And thus far with
Obama, I don't see a lot of decision-making of any kind.

honest statements to the public...different.

Um, do you mean different lies or ??? * Assuming you mean to imply that Obama is
more honest than past presidents, what about "transparency"? *Howsabout time for
public input on major legislation? *Closing Gitmo? *Troops out of Iraq? *How
about just being honest about a friggin' trip to Copenhagen?

economic push, different.

Two words - Ben Bernanke.

regard for the balance of power between branches of govt...different.

Actually, all POTUS' since Nixon/Ford have been doing is taking back some of the
power "snatched" by Congress in the wake of Watergate. *And Obama certainly
hasn't done anything to reverse the trend. *And I suspect that if he could do
some more, um, "snatching" with regard to Pelosi, Reid, Sessions, and a few
others, he wouldn't hesitate for a second.

appointment of federal judges...way, way different (and better...g)

Again, I disagree. *Sotomayor gives no evidence of being a serious legal scholar
of any stripe, or even a particularly "even" and (merely) competent jurist.

On Oct 11, 9:34*am, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:51:36 -0400, jeff wrote:
wrote:

for more than a year prior to feb 2009, obama gave clear indications of
his positions, philosophies, and character (for those willing to read
and listen)...enough that my wife and i independent of one another took
notice, hoped he would announce as a candidate, and then began our
active support. something we'd not done with any heartfelt enthusiasm
since our 20s. i doubt we were the only ones affected in this way.

No, you weren't. *Unfortunately, he didn't give clear indications of much of
anything (good or bad).

Unlike you, huh?

Which, at least for me, makes the utter polarization
surrounding him all the more sad and strange. *Neither you, as a fairly
well-spoken, general-purpose supporter, or me, as a somewhat skeptical, "devil's
advocate,"

Third grade moron.

kinda guy (or even Forty, as a paradoxically wild-eyed-but-blind,
frothing-at-the-mouth rabid fan and Louie, as a drooling right-wing Rush
Glenbeck-listening loony) can really support, with substantive and objective
proof, a strong case for OR against.


Rereading that after typing it kinda makes you wonder what life would
be like if you actually had something to say, ainna?

he changed the direction of this country (and the perceptions of this
country) long before january 20, 2009. *

No, he really hasn't. *But from the other side, um...no, he really hasn't...but
see below...

We can hardly wait.

i just don't understand the schadenfreude for obama that some have...

I don't either - thus far, he really hasn't done or accomplished much of
anything - from any standpoint. *A ban on guns? *Nope. *A rise in taxes? *Nope.
Gay atheist Muslim dope-smoking liberal hippie commies encouraging grade-school
kids to use condoms for unnatural sex in Heartland, Kansas? *Nope. *The Abortion
Czar putting PETA supporters at every mall with a coathanger? *Not even close.
"Christmas (or Hanukkah) - no, Kwanzaa (or Ramadan) - yes." *Hardly. *Are Bush,
Cheney, and the CIA being investigated? Nop...er, ye...er, nop...er, ye.....er,
nop...well, maybe...or not...

Moron. Tedious moron.

Thus far, about all he has REALLY accomplished is to REALLY divide those he is
supposed to be President of....yeah, yeah, yeah, I know - it's ALL the fault of
the other side...(and in all seriousness, most of the division isn't his
"fault," nor did he "cause" all of it, but OTOH, neither he nor his
administration has done much of anything to ease it, either, and they have
encouraged some of it)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

IAC, while I haven't polled them, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the
great majority of the world don't really know or care about Obama or any other
POTUS, anymore than most of those in the US know or really care about how
Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, or those any other country feel or are governed

And......how do you feel about all of that?

unless they simply acknowledge being a rascist.

Hmmm...what about when certain sectors (and I mean sectors of races, not entire
races) of the various... um.... non-(half)white people blamed _everything_ on
white people...? *Was that not "racist?" *As an aside, is a rascist anything
like a facist?

Well, probably not as much as imbecile is like idiot.

i'll wager though that of all the nobel recipients, he
is easily the most recognizable and best-known in the world.

Except, apparently, in Poland...

Ah! An authority! Tell us more.....please.

And your statement above is a pretty good indication of what I feel is the whole
problem - "Americancentricism." *And note that I did not write "Americentric" or
similar.

I noted that you didn't write "Shoofngrangle." Does that count?

my hope is for people, especially those in other countries, to believe
genuinely that our president promotes and desires peaceful solutions. we
are too often a violent short-sighted society, rightly perceived as
such, with *petty purposes and ideas.

Um, who exactly is "we"...?

Look in your pants. You may safely refer to anyone or anything
resembling what you see there as "we."

i like having a president who
doesn't fit that mold, and who garners the admiration and respect of
other world leaders...not to mention the nobel committee.

What makes you think he is "admired and respected" by "world leaders?"

What makes you think he isn't?

i'm incredibly proud of obama...he's doing a terrific job as president
under the worst of circumstances.

OK. *Please give examples of why you feel he is doing a terrific job.

Please give examples of why you feel that we should believe you think.

though the bewilderingly hostile chasm and wasteland between repubs and
dems, conservatives and liberals, (using those labels in the most
dogmatic sense) keeps us a divided nation, i am seeing more folks (like
paul...and even tim g) in recent months who are willing to express
their dissatisfaction with the way things have been and who are seeking
ways to bridge the divide. *it's encouraging... as is a president
awarded the nobel peace prize.

I'm curious

No, that is one thing you are not, have never been, and never will be.

when Obama said he didn't deserve it, did you feel that he was
being honest, falsely modest, disingenuous, or ???

What did you think about it?

And if you feel he was being
honest, why do you disagree with him? *IOW, why do you feel that he does deserve
it when he honestly disagrees with you?

Why do you feel whatever the hell you feel?

Moron.

g.