Quote Of The Day - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Janett_Reno · 08-09-2007, 07:45 PM

(((Barack Obama at last night's debate hammering rivals who voted for the war that are now criticizing his Pakistan comments.)))

"I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism."

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/election...ote_of_the_day

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He has a point here.

dude1394 · 08-09-2007, 09:58 PM

Barack Obama...

"Bomb bomb bomb...Bomb Pakistan...bomb bomb bomb...Bomb Pakistan"

Jack.Kerr · 08-11-2007, 02:10 AM

Obama falling back into the pack.

From luster to bluster.

usafreedom3 · 08-11-2007, 11:06 AM

He is an empty suit, a novice in every sense of the word. He may be a rock star to the democraps, but if he makes it past Shrillary, he will get obliterated by Fred Thompson in the general election.

Let me get this straight- He would meet unconditionally with enemy dictators from Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela, but he would bomb an ally in Pakistan? HUH?

Mavdog · 08-11-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usafreedom3

He is an empty suit, a novice in every sense of the word. He may be a rock star to the democraps, but if he makes it past Shrillary, he will get obliterated by Fred Thompson in the general election.

Let me get this straight- He would meet unconditionally with enemy dictators from Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela, but he would bomb an ally in Pakistan? HUH?

fred thompson couldn't match intellects with obama. not even close.

nice distortion btw, the interjection of "unconditionally".

if pakistan allows the sheltering of osama bin laden, can they truly be described as "an ally"?

usafreedom3 · 08-11-2007, 09:02 PM

First off there was no distortion. In my haste to make a point on this topic, I spelled unconditionally wrong, and when I found the error, I changed it.

Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror. They have nukes, and have a rabid anti-American and radical element to their country. They have tried to assassinate Musharaff 4 times, and if he goes and they get taken over by a radical, we are all in big trouble.

They are not a traditional ally like Britain, but they have provided support. Recently the ignorant peace treaty they signed with the tribal leaders in the mountainous region of Wazhiristan was called off, and their forces are back on the offensive against Al Quaeda.

If we were to bomb that area as Barrack Obama suggests, it would de-stabilize that region 100 times over and make our lives a lot worse. To not understand that simple reality is very naive, just like Obama is. In reality, he wouldn't bomb anyone. He is simply trying to sound tough to make up for his ignorant comments in the democrap debate a few weeks ago.
As for Fred Thompson's intellect, are you friggin serious? Look at the long list of things he has accomplished and written in his life, and compare that to your man Obama. Obama is a pretty face and an empty suit, and it has nothing to do with his race (I know being a liberal you would bring that up next)

You will see my friend! When they are on the same stage together at debates next year (if the sophomoric Obama can even beat Shrillary) he will get punked, intellectually and substantively.

Mavdog · 08-11-2007, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usafreedom3

First off there was no distortion. In my haste to make a point on this topic, I spelled unconditionally wrong, and when I found the error, I changed it.

no, that's not the case, you put the word "unconditionally" into barak obama's comments when he didn't say it. here's the quote from the cnn debate where it surfaced:

Quote:

I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

so you were wrong, flat out wrong, and you distorted his comments, plain and simple.

Quote:

Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror. They have nukes, and have a rabid anti-American and radical element to their country. They have tried to assassinate Musharaff 4 times, and if he goes and they get taken over by a radical, we are all in big trouble.

so they are an ally because they "have nukes", have a "rabid anti-american and radical element" and some pakistanis have tried to kill musharraf?

that's what I call a compelling argument, let me tell ya!

Quote:

They are not a traditional ally like Britain, but they have provided support. Recently the ignorant peace treaty they signed with the tribal leaders in the mountainous region of Wazhiristan was called off, and their forces are back on the offensive against Al Quaeda.

so tell me, if they are an "ally" why would they sign a treaty (the very one you mention) that allows for al queda and the taliban to be provided refuge and a sanctuary in their territory? a very soft and sometimes non-ally it seems.

Quote:

If we were to bomb that area as Barrack Obama suggests, it would de-stabilize that region 100 times over and make our lives a lot worse. To not understand that simple reality is very naive, just like Obama is. In reality, he wouldn't bomb anyone. He is simply trying to sound tough to make up for his ignorant comments in the democrap debate a few weeks ago.

gee, if you for once gave an accurate read of the "ignorant comments" perhaps you'd have some credibility about those very comments...

obama didn't make the remark about bombing pakistan during the debate, he made them a week later in a speech.

so it is your position that if we could remove osama bin laden from this planet by dropping a bomb, a bomb that would land in pakistan, we shouldn't do it?

Quote:

As for Fred Thompson's intellect, are you friggin serious? Look at the long list of things he has accomplished and written in his life, and compare that to your man Obama. Obama is a pretty face and an empty suit, and it has nothing to do with his race (I know being a liberal you would bring that up next)

You will see my friend! When they are on the same stage together at debates next year (if the sophomoric Obama can even beat Shrillary) he will get punked, intellectually and substantively.

yeah, that acting resume and fiction writing sure trumps barak obama being the editor of the harvard law review! unquestionably it takes a ton more intellect to be an actor.....

interesting insertion of race....funny, no one else did that but you.

it's pretty fascinating to read how a person who can't even bring themselves to actually announce their candidacy for president is already the nominee in your eyes.

he's what, afraid to get toe to toe in the primaries? does he not want to have to take positions in the nomination process?

could you give ONE good reason that he is soliciting campaign donations, hiring campaign staff, but can't announce that he is a candidate?

well?

Janett_Reno · 08-11-2007, 10:20 PM

I do not think Fred can debate Obama. I feel Obama will come out the better. I also feel Obama won't beat Hills but it is alot of time and i do feel Fred could overtake Rudy. That will be close Rudy/Fred.

Fred is not comming out now because of things both parties are going to rip him on. This is also a scarry tactic because how long do you wait and take a chance of losing because Rudy has the steam.

One reason Obama has appealed and done better than most anyone expected is because he can speak and can go toe to toe with the best ever to speak, Bill and Hills is very very good also. Not many can beat them in a debate and Obama holds his own.

It is interesting if Fred is holding back, with the gop telling him to wait and let's see if we can poll Rudy far ahead of Hills, answer aborion and gays like this and them telling him how to answer or just seeing what he can raise now.

I think others in the Republican party will out debate Fred but i feel also the gop is looking for someone to pole vault ahead of Hills and maybe they think he can, no matter what he says or debates. Obama will more than hold his own with debatting Fred. He would out debate him.