Magox Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 I heard it early this morning, and I was surprised, pleasantly surprised. For a change, he didn't apologize to the world for some of our perceived shortcomings but rather defended our moralism through use of force. I also liked that he implied that they wouldn't be able to sit there, living comfortably if it weren't for countries that had the courage to fight for freedom. I'd say up to now, this was his best foreign policy speech. I might add, that this speech could have been mistaken from a GW Bush speech writer as well.
LeviF Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 I heard it early this morning, and I was surprised, pleasantly surprised. For a change, he didn't apologize to the world for some of our perceived shortcomings but rather defended our moralism through use of force. I also liked that he implied that they wouldn't be able to sit there, living comfortably if it weren't for countries that had the courage to fight for freedom. I'd say up to now, this was his best foreign policy speech. I might add, that this speech could have been mistaken from a GW Bush speech writer as well. Is my libertarian middle school band teacher's prophecy coming true? Obama = Dubya?
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 I heard it early this morning, and I was surprised, pleasantly surprised. For a change, he didn't apologize to the world for some of our perceived shortcomings but rather defended our moralism through use of force. I also liked that he implied that they wouldn't be able to sit there, living comfortably if it weren't for countries that had the courage to fight for freedom. I'd say up to now, this was his best foreign policy speech. I might add, that this speech could have been mistaken from a GW Bush speech writer as well. Really? I felt that it was one of his worse speeches - I generaly hold Obama's speechifying in high regard, but this one to me seemed unfocused and slightly rambling, with some ill-expressed points given the arena (the necessity of conflict to pursue those who would eschew peaceful resolution of differences is defensible, even in acceptance of a peace prize. But I felt it was expressed poorly in his speech).
Chef Jim Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 Really? I felt that it was one of his worse speeches - I generaly hold Obama's speechifying in high regard, but this one to me seemed unfocused and slightly rambling, with some ill-expressed points given the arena (the necessity of conflict to pursue those who would eschew peaceful resolution of differences is defensible, even in acceptance of a peace prize. But I felt it was expressed poorly in his speech). Maybe because he didn't believe a goddamn word of what he said.
Magox Posted December 10, 2009 Author Posted December 10, 2009 Really? I felt that it was one of his worse speeches - I generaly hold Obama's speechifying in high regard, but this one to me seemed unfocused and slightly rambling, with some ill-expressed points given the arena (the necessity of conflict to pursue those who would eschew peaceful resolution of differences is defensible, even in acceptance of a peace prize. But I felt it was expressed poorly in his speech). God, this feels uncomfortable, you know, defending him and all. His message seemed to be loud and clear, which was a message of "Hey douchebags, I know you gave me this award, and were thinking that I would bow down and pull out of Afghanistan, but hey! My country NEEDS for me to be strong for a change, even though I'm feeling very out of place telling you all this, I am considering my country first and above anything else, now I gotta dip, see you in Copenhagen."
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 God, this feels uncomfortable, you know, defending him and all. If the actions are defensible, defend them. If not, criticize them. Everything else is partisanship.
GG Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 Maybe because he didn't believe a goddamn word of what he said. This is coming from a fan. I have come to the conclusion that the real reason this gifted communicator has become so bad at communicating is that he doesn’t really believe a word that he is saying. - Tina Brown
Magox Posted December 10, 2009 Author Posted December 10, 2009 If the actions are defensible, defend them. If not, criticize them. Everything else is partisanship. I do, I really do. I have a major fundamental difference of views from that of this administration, so I can rarely find hardly anything that he does that I would feel the need to defend, but often with ease, find things to criticize. I have been a consistent critic of BO's administration because I loathe their domestic policies. It goes against every single fiscal principle that I believe we should do as a country. I am a staunch fiscal conservative, always have, and most likely always will and before I came onto this board, I lambasted Bush for his reckless spending and unnecessary use of force in the Iraq war. Admittedly, I supported the war initally, once it became apparent that there was no WMD's, I felt that we had been shafted, and no matter what the excuse, it was the wrong the decision, based on the original premise of the war. Having said that, I felt proud hearing that speech, I thought it was sort of "Don't take me for granted" sort of speech.
erynthered Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 I heard it early this morning, and I was surprised, pleasantly surprised. For a change, he didn't apologize to the world for some of our perceived shortcomings but rather defended our moralism through use of force. I also liked that he implied that they wouldn't be able to sit there, living comfortably if it weren't for countries that had the courage to fight for freedom. I'd say up to now, this was his best foreign policy speech. I might add, that this speech could have been mistaken from a GW Bush speech writer as well. Listen to it again. No way amigo. He's yet to hit good on any foreign policy speech much less best.
/dev/null Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 might add, that this speech could have been mistaken from a GW Bush speech writer as well. Really? I felt that it was one of his worse speeches - I generaly hold Obama's speechifying in high regard, but this one to me seemed unfocused and slightly rambling, with some ill-expressed points given the arena (the necessity of conflict to pursue those who would eschew peaceful resolution of differences is defensible, even in acceptance of a peace prize. But I felt it was expressed poorly in his speech). So Tom, what you're saying is that you also thought this speech could have been mistaken for one of GWs?
Magox Posted December 10, 2009 Author Posted December 10, 2009 Listen to it again. No way amigo. He's yet to hit good on any foreign policy speech much less best. “I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,” Obama said. Negotiations didn’t stop Adolf Hitler and won’t stop al-Qaeda, he said. “To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.” There are times and events where the use of military force is “not only necessary but morally justified,” “I, like any head of state, reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation,” he said. “Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates -- and weakens -- those who don’t.” I thought these were a few things that he said that I liked. oh and thanks JA, you rock
Chef Jim Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 This is coming from a fan. Don't even think of calling me Tina.
Chef Jim Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 I thought these were a few things that he said that I liked. oh and thanks JA, you rock Hey, congrats on the quote mechanism.
erynthered Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 I thought these were a few things that he said that I liked. oh and thanks JA, you rock I should have said “believability”. With his history, and from the apology tour, his bowing, bringing AQ to trial to NY etc. I found those words coming from him to be completely empty, no merit. Might have sounded good, but in know way believable. To me at least.
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 I thought these were a few things that he said that I liked. oh and thanks JA, you rock Wait...you mean the whole reason you never quoted things properly is because you didn't know how? So, in other words, you're not an !@#$, you're an idiot...
GG Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 Don't even think of calling me Tina. Don't worry, won't happen. You're definitely more of a Lola.
Magox Posted December 10, 2009 Author Posted December 10, 2009 Hey, congrats on the quote mechanism. ya, it's a watershed moment
IDBillzFan Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 This is coming from a fan. An interesting article. Thanks for posting it. The beginning is interesting to me because it kind of supports a point I keep making about how Obama walks a beautifully scripted line between that which he implies and that which is inferred. He throws some obscure line out there, and then let's everyone on both sides jump on it for interpretation, which is then followed by his foot soldiers wandering around, pointing at the different interpretations and choosing the inferred reactions that best suit him. It's starting to take its toll, as is evidenced by the part of her article just above her conclusion: Does Obama create confusion on purpose? Is this his “process” based on his confession that he’s a screen onto which people project things? Is it a strategy so that whatever bill trickles out of Congress or however many soldiers linger in Afghanistan, he can claim that the outcome is what he meant it all along? (Clinton and Gates assured nervous senators on the Hill Thursday that the August 2011 deadline was both firm and flexible, and that this position was, in Gates’ words, “not contradictory” in the least.) Or is it that for all the administration’s vaunted mastery of multiplatform communication, Rahm and Gibbs and company are actually amateurs at crafting a clear political message and launching it on the dazed American public? Or is it that there is so much subtext to every part of this message that the simple heads of the electorate are just not pointy enough to comprehend it? His approach only works for a little while, but when voices like that of Tina Brown start bellyaching, you know the blush is off the rose.
Magox Posted December 10, 2009 Author Posted December 10, 2009 Wait...you mean the whole reason you never quoted things properly is because you didn't know how? So, in other words, you're not an !@#$, you're an idiot... Listen, "Let me give you a 1 word answer Ignorence" ok?
GG Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 Listen, "Let me give you a 1 word answer Ignorence" ok? What does that word mean?
Recommended Posts