O-Ba-Ma...O-Ba-Ma...O-Ba-Ma...O-Ba-Ma...O-Ba-Ma

[shagdrum]

Even though I don't think Obama will win against McCain if he is the candidate in the election I can respect the fact that he has raised himself to the level of a serious contender without the help of well connected family like Bush or having been married to a former president like Hillary.

I would agree with Bryan that Obama was made (in large part) by the media, but that isn't to say he didn't work to get where he is. He didn't have some breaks that Clinton and Bush had. However, in there respective runs for president, it was mainly name recognition. That is a decided advantage over someone who's name is Barak Hussein Obama when we are at war (or have recently been at war) with people named Hussein and Osama. However, Bush did (and still does) have a media that is very hostile to him, and in this election, that same media has been rather hostile to Hillary too. So the advantages thing is really 1 for 1. In fact, while name recognition is good, support by the media is a lot better.

I just can't buy this muslim fifth columnist arguement about Obama you are putting forth.

I understand that. It is a hard pill to swallow. I am not totally sold on it. But you have to admit there are some red flags in his past that he needs to address (and he is currently dodging) if he is gonna be president. The media is supposed to be the ones to do that. That is why they are given special privillage in our founding documents. However, the media view Obama as the second coming of Christ, and have given him a pass. Anyone who is gonna vote should be concerned about these red flags and want Obama to address them. It is a legitimate question to ask.

My opinion is that Bush has been the least worldly president in recent history.

Worldly? How is that not just an elitist platitude and intellectual bludgeon? "he doesn't agree with my views on world politics, so he isn't 'worldly'". Basically, that is trying to marginalize him by impling that he isn't "enlightened". Bush has a much better understanding of the world and the way it works then Obama, that's for sure. Bush's understanding of human nature is much more accurate then Obama's too. The term "worldly" (just like "world view") is merely an attempt to smear and marginalize. All being "worldly" really means is that the you agree with the liberal elites, nothing more. Those same "elites" gave us the League of Nations and, ultimately WWII. Elites are usually wrong. I would much rather have a president who is a wise leader, and surrounded by other wise and well informed advisors, then someone who is "worldly" or has a "world view".

You claim that Bush has been the least worldly president is a plus.

 

[fossten]

All being "worldly" really means is that the you agree with the liberal elites, nothing more. Those same "elites" gave us the League of Nations and, ultimately WWII. Elites are usually wrong. I would much rather have a president who is a wise leader, and surrounded by other wise and well informed advisors, then someone who is "worldly" or has a "world view".

You claim that Bush has been the least worldly president is a plus.

And Shag lays the smackdown yet again. *owned*

 

[shagdrum]

Which is why I argue that he is a muslim sympathizer which I think weakens his resolve to keep this country safe from any all terrorists, especially those bred in muslim countries. He will take a softer stance and they will take advantage of our weakness, as every bully does.

I can't say he is a muslim sypathizer but the red flags disqualify him from office, unless he addresses them well, and logically proves they are nothing. The burden of proof is on him. Otherwise, we at the very least would get someone in office who, through a soft stance and lack of resolve would be an enabler, much the same way Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier allowed and enabled Hitler to invade other countries and become a major threat.

Chamberlain today would be called "worldly" or said to have a "world view"

They hate our filthy television. Our decreped music. Our sick and violent sexual appetites.

Well I agree with them there. I hate reality TV, I hate Rap music, and I want to make it clear, I am decidedly against NAMBLA!

...See, I am "worldly", I can find some common ground with our enemies.

Economic prosperity and freedom is the only solution. Turn their lack of opportunity and hate into growth, prosperity and freedom.

That is the only solution and why Bush was and is a great President. He understands that the only way for the 2 societies to co-exist is if the muslim society becomes a pro-democracy society. Look at every developing nation and you will see that as a people they become less prone to violence and care more about their family and protecting the people and things (possessions) around them as they prosper.

It is just human nature.

I think you just spelled it out right there.

 

[04SCTLS]

Let's just agree to disagree as to if Bush has been a wise leader.
Since we seem to want to project ourselves as a world power with bases in many parts of the world and deep water fleets, a leader with an interest for more knowledge about the rest of the world is something that would be a plus and fit in with the old axiom of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

 

[shagdrum]

Since we seem to want to project ourselves as a world power with bases in many parts of the world and deep water fleets...

It isn't that we want to, it is that we are the sole superpower and the world looks to us for leadership and to take responsibility, weather we like it or not. In fact, most of the country would like to see us less involved with the world. Bush did, but 9/11 changed the world dynamic for us and for Bush.

...a leader with an interest for more knowledge about the rest of the world is something that would be a plus and fit in with the old axiom of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

When have we had a leader who didn't have an interest for knowledge about the rest of the world? The problem is when US presidents don't prioritize their country's interests over other nations. Clinton was notorious for that, and was a very weak president on foreign policy. THAT is what the elites call "worldly". It has nothing to do with a level of knowledge or understanding, it is how you view America and the rest of the world and where your priorities lie. A "worldy" person should never be allowed to be president, as the position or the office and the persons priorities conflict.

 

[fossten]

Based on Shamnesty, I would argue that El Presidente Jorge Arbusto is too worldly. I'd rather he be more focused on America.

 

[shagdrum]

Based on Shamnesty, I would argue that El Presidente Jorge Arbusto is too worldly. I'd rather he be more focused on America.

You have a point there. When it comes to Mexico, Bush does have a "worldly" outlook; he prioritizes their interests over our own.