Obama conquers Europe

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-07-28 09:51pm

Rahvin wrote:Which once again begs the question: why did you need convincing that a currently occurring genocide needs to be addressed? You haven't answered that. Rather, you asked "why should I give a damn?"

The fucker is just trying to find some sorry excuse to criticise Obama, while he whines about his ignorance.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2008-07-28 09:58pm

Frankly, the fact that he used BHO, choosing to point out that his middle name is Hussein shows he is a baiting shrill. Because everyone named Hussein is a terrorist supporting Baathist, just like everyone named Young is a murderous Polygamist. Equivocation is fun kids.

American Infidel · Post by **American Infidel** » 2008-07-29 12:29am

Dark Hellion wrote:Frankly, the fact that he used BHO, choosing to point out that his middle name is Hussein shows he is a baiting shrill. Because everyone named Hussein is a terrorist supporting Baathist, just like everyone named Young is a murderous Polygamist. Equivocation is fun kids.

I didn't say a thing about his name being Hussein. BHO are his initials.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2008-07-29 12:34am

Yes, but why not just use BO? It's shorter and there's still no risk of mistaking him for someone else.

So why put the Hussein in there?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-07-29 12:42am

Gandalf wrote:Yes, but why not just use BO? It's shorter and there's still no risk of mistaking him for someone else.

I always thought it convention the Presidential initials were written in full (GWB, GHWB, WJC, JFK, etc.).

American Infidel · Post by **American Infidel** » 2008-07-29 12:43am

Gandalf wrote:Yes, but why not just use BO? It's shorter and there's still no risk of mistaking him for someone else.

So why put the Hussein in there?

Honestly? I probably would have except BO brought "Body Odor" to my mind.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2008-07-29 03:42am

Bill Clinton is just plain Clinton (or slick Willy) not WJC, Nixon is Nixon not RMN, Carter and Ford are forgettable but just Carter and Ford. Same with Reagan, Taft, Garfield, Washington, etc. etc. ad naseum. Obama is Obama is Obama. No one would put BHO without an agenda, whether conscious or not.

Words are an amazing thing, just the suggestion of Hussein can color peoples reactions. Of course, AI here will act much like the movie he is named after and continue to give pointless exposition that will be boring and languishingly melodramatic and eventually make me pray that the robots will kill us all and end our suffering.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2008-07-29 09:46am

Dark Hellion wrote:Words are an amazing thing, just the suggestion of Hussein can color peoples reactions.

Indeed. Badmouth liberals (or any other group) long and stridently enough, for example, and you run the risk of that happening. That's also why any suggestion of assassination is so morally repugnant as well.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2008-07-29 10:27am

Dark Hellion wrote:Bill Clinton is just plain Clinton (or slick Willy) not WJC, Nixon is Nixon not RMN, Carter and Ford are forgettable but just Carter and Ford. Same with Reagan, Taft, Garfield, Washington, etc. etc. ad naseum. Obama is Obama is Obama. No one would put BHO without an agenda, whether conscious or not.

Don't confuse shorthand with initials. Phogn is right. When using initials to refer to Presidents you are supposed to use their full initials. This is why Truman added an S. He felt it looked better. So yes, when using initials instead of shorthand it is RMN and WJC.

This does not distract from the actual issue, which is the question of why anyone needs convincing that genocide needs to be stopped.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-07-30 02:32am

American Infidel wrote:
weemadando wrote:
American Infidel wrote:HOW he is going to intervene in Darfur and WHY I should give a damn.
How? Perhaps by finally having America do something constructive in Africa? Rather than dumping money into faith-based charities which perpetuate the suffering of a great many, they can instead put the money into backing the AU peacekeeping forces, or perhaps even into the UN security council to get actual peacekeepers in there.

Lets not forget that it would be in America's interest to break into Africa again as "the good guy" to shut down a lot of the Chinese expansion there. So, just for you sociopaths, it's not ALL about just stopping a genocide as if that wasn't enough for you.

And it's not like the US doesn't have assets in place to support operations in Sudan right now (bases in Djibouti and Saudi Arabia), even if it isn't US forces on the ground, stopping the Sudanese Air Force would be a huge start - and it's not like running a quick strike on the Sudanese Air Force with general world approval could be a bad thing for the US given how the world sees them now.

After all, it would stop them from being able to bomb villages in a remarkable string of coincidences where the villages just happen to be the ones where that completely separate from the government militia is about to commit atrocities.

You seem to be one of these people who are a strong believer in American superiority and manifest destiny. So how about actually stepping into those big shoes and seeing that America with minimal effort can go a long way towards bettering the world?
Well, good job. You did a better job persuading me than BHO did in Berlin.

Why would you think Obama was trying to talk to people like you when he was in Berlin? Did it cross your mind that he might be talking to the Germans who were present?

People like you ask why anyone should trust that Obama can improve relations with Europe. It's interesting that you totally ignore the fact that he is obviously far more popular in Europe than any Republican. Do you honestly not see how that might be relevant to his ability to improve relations with Europe?

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-07-30 03:01am

Darth Wong wrote: People like you ask why anyone should trust that Obama can improve relations with Europe. It's interesting that you totally ignore the fact that he is obviously far more popular in Europe than any Republican. Do you honestly not see how that might be relevant to his ability to improve relations with Europe?

He's popular here, basically, because a) he is NOT republican, b) he is NOT Bush, c) because most people have only a very fuzzy idea what the Democratic Party stands for (and generally lump it in the general direction of our social democrats, so slightly leftist) and d) because they falsely assume he will do politics in a more European line of thinking just for being not Bush and democrat.
When he gets elected and comes with highly unpopular demands, like more German troops in Afghanistan, his popularity might dimish quickly.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-07-30 03:04am

Dahak wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:People like you ask why anyone should trust that Obama can improve relations with Europe. It's interesting that you totally ignore the fact that he is obviously far more popular in Europe than any Republican. Do you honestly not see how that might be relevant to his ability to improve relations with Europe?
He's popular here, basically, because a) he is NOT republican, b) he is NOT Bush, c) because most people have only a very fuzzy idea what the Democratic Party stands for (and generally lump it in the general direction of our social democrats, so slightly leftist) and d) because they falsely assume he will do politics in a more European line of thinking just for being not Bush and democrat.

When he gets elected and comes with highly unpopular demands, like more German troops in Afghanistan, his popularity might dimish quickly.

It won't be a honeymoon, but he will still be more popular than McCain would be, since McCain is just Bush redux, and Bush is so reviled that mere association with him makes someone unpopular. The same phenomenon occurs in Canada despite far more knowledge about him, his policies, and the US situation in general. We prefer Obama even though many of us fear that he will actually harm Canada's economic interests, because we think that McCain would be even worse.

Of course, idiots like "American Infidel" have a rather warped idea of what constitutes diplomatic ability: they think that successful diplomacy means that European nations will become vassal states, happily obeying every American edict with no thought for their own interests. Small wonder they laugh at Democrats who think they can improve relations with Europe; by their perverse standard, diplomacy will always be useless because they assign a cartoonishly impossible goal to it.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-07-30 03:28am

Darth Wong wrote:
Dahak wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:People like you ask why anyone should trust that Obama can improve relations with Europe. It's interesting that you totally ignore the fact that he is obviously far more popular in Europe than any Republican. Do you honestly not see how that might be relevant to his ability to improve relations with Europe?
He's popular here, basically, because a) he is NOT republican, b) he is NOT Bush, c) because most people have only a very fuzzy idea what the Democratic Party stands for (and generally lump it in the general direction of our social democrats, so slightly leftist) and d) because they falsely assume he will do politics in a more European line of thinking just for being not Bush and democrat.

When he gets elected and comes with highly unpopular demands, like more German troops in Afghanistan, his popularity might dimish quickly.
It won't be a honeymoon, but he will still be more popular than McCain would be, since McCain is just Bush redux, and Bush is so reviled that mere association with him makes someone unpopular. The same phenomenon occurs in Canada despite far more knowledge about him, his policies, and the US situation in general. We prefer Obama even though many of us fear that he will actually harm Canada's economic interests, because we think that McCain would be even worse.

I think a lot of politicians here secretly would like McCain in office rather than Obama. President McCain would make it so much easier to deny the USA unpopular wishes (like more troops,...) than Obama. Denying him would require probably more maneuvreing and posturing.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-07-30 03:44am

Dahak wrote:I think a lot of politicians here secretly would like McCain in office rather than Obama. President McCain would make it so much easier to deny the USA unpopular wishes (like more troops,...) than Obama. Denying him would require probably more maneuvreing and posturing.

I take it the anti-US platform is still fashionable?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-07-30 03:48am

What exactly changed to make you think everyone would have changed their attitudes?

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-07-30 03:53am

Stark wrote:What exactly changed to make you think everyone would have changed their attitudes?

Well, it varies from season to season, this sort of anti-<insert most hated country here> platform.

Back in 9/11, it wasn't fashionable, until the Iraqi war.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-07-30 03:55am

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:
Dahak wrote:I think a lot of politicians here secretly would like McCain in office rather than Obama. President McCain would make it so much easier to deny the USA unpopular wishes (like more troops,...) than Obama. Denying him would require probably more maneuvreing and posturing.
I take it the anti-US platform is still fashionable?

Less so than right around the war, but still enough to harness it. Especially when it comes down to military topics.
Whoever becomes President will have a lot of broken china to repair...

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-07-30 04:01am

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Back in 9/11, it wasn't fashionable, until the Iraqi war.

What a post 9/11 mindset this is!

Various people have always disliked America for being bellicose, arrogant and short-sighted. People just stopped for a while around 9/11 out of sympathy. But in the current situation, with an ongoing USA clusterfuck in operation and Bush in power, why would anyone who fashionably disliked America have stopped?

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-07-30 04:06am

Stark wrote:
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Back in 9/11, it wasn't fashionable, until the Iraqi war.
What a post 9/11 mindset this is! Various people have always disliked America for being bellicose, arrogant and short-sighted. People just stopped for a while around 9/11 out of sympathy. But in the current situation, with an ongoing USA clusterfuck in operation and Bush in power, why would anyone who fashionably disliked America have stopped?

Like I said, amount of hatred varies from to time. There are of course the die-hards, but not everyone will hate the US just for the sake of it.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-07-30 04:08am

Oh yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you, it just seemed odd to say 'is it still x' when all the causes of x are still in play.

I'm not sure anyone has had more reasons to support their fashionable hatred of the US than at the present time.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-07-30 04:12am

Stark wrote:Oh yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you, it just seemed odd to say 'is it still x' when all the causes of x are still in play.

I'm not sure anyone has had more reasons to support their fashionable hatred of the US than at the present time.

Fair enough, especially when King George the Second still sits on his Oval Office Throne is enough to fuel resentment.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-07-30 04:38pm

On the initials thing, the bit that surprises me is the common usage of BO or BHO, without anyone using JM or JSM. Most don't even seem to know his middle name begins with an S, let alone it stands for Sidney.

Then again, the pattern played itself out here nicely: Person invokes 'I'm not impressed' when hearing a speech for a different audience, has it broken down to their level of gruel, and decrees 'You're more convincing than him!'. It's an interesting pattern I've watched repeat since Senator Obama emerged as a great public speaker in the Primaries. Always by his opponents, though.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2008-07-30 05:24pm

Ender wrote:This does not distract from the actual issue, which is the question of why anyone needs convincing that genocide needs to be stopped.

When talking about governments, they would need convincing because what happens to the citizens of other States is, quite simply, none of their concern. The social contract between the citizenry and the government means that the latter's primary obligation is the former. Committing resources to other people would, in the absence of a compelling reason or benefit, constitute a breach of contract due to opportunity cost of said resources. Do note, however, that demand for action from the populace is a compelling reason.

When talking about individuals, the obvious answer is a tribalistic or nationalistic mindset which places a considerably higher value on the lives of members of their group than that of the lives of members of other groups. This is quite understandable given a limited number of available resources and even more limited number of things that can be done with said resources. However, such mind-sets often suffer from short-sightedness and tend to underestimate the value of intangible things like good will. Self-interest is not necessarily opposed to charity.

American Infidel · Post by **American Infidel** » 2008-07-31 07:55pm

Darth Wong wrote:Why would you think Obama was trying to talk to people like you when he was in Berlin? Did it cross your mind that he might be talking to the Germans who were present?

People like you ask why anyone should trust that Obama can improve relations with Europe. It's interesting that you totally ignore the fact that he is obviously far more popular in Europe than any Republican. Do you honestly not see how that might be relevant to his ability to improve relations with Europe?

He is running for US president. Everything he does is designed to be consumed by the media, and by extension, the American public. He was talking to us and his groupies in Germany.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-07-31 08:06pm

American Infidel wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Why would you think Obama was trying to talk to people like you when he was in Berlin? Did it cross your mind that he might be talking to the Germans who were present?

People like you ask why anyone should trust that Obama can improve relations with Europe. It's interesting that you totally ignore the fact that he is obviously far more popular in Europe than any Republican. Do you honestly not see how that might be relevant to his ability to improve relations with Europe?
He is running for US president. Everything he does is designed to be consumed by the media, and by extension, the American public. He was talking to us and his groupies in Germany.

Bullshit. He was not trying to convince idiotic right-wing twits such as yourself that he is one of you. He was talking to Germans, and knowing that Americans might be listening in.

And you ignored the argument.