The Obamanation

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I read it and recognize that the American Enterprise Institute has a neo-con agenda that runs counter to the Pew study...and that many AEI scholars and fellows had formal roles in the Bush administration, including guys like Richard Pearl and Paul Wolfowicz (who were principle architects of Bush's Iraq policy) and others like Bush's UN ambassador John Bolton and Lynn Chaney.

Does any of that change the fact that Pew is not a un-biased source?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Does any of that change the fact that Pew is not a un-biased source?

Neither is the American Enterprise Institute...so whats your point?

The issue for me is whether the perceptions of the US as a nation and the president as a world leader matters beyond our borders.

IMO, we should recognize that there is a negative perception and acknowledge it in our foreign policy as long as it doesnt hurt our national interests or national security.

On the other hand, according to another post of yours, it doesn't matter... "Not one fucking bit."

Different perspectives...*shrug*...thats life. You wont change my opinion and I wont change yours.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The issue for me is whether the perceptions of the US outside of our borders matters.

And as long as policy makers continue to worry about that, it hurts our national interests or national security.

On the other hand, according to another post of yours, it doesn't matter... "Not one fucking bit."

Different perspectives...*shrug*...thats life. You wont change my opinion and I wont change yours.

God damm right about that.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Neither is the American Enterprise Institute...so whats your point?

It invalidates any point that one were to make that Pew published accurate data concerning perceptions from overseas. They are false studies and poor soruces of statistical measure, further reinforced by their bias.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And as long as policy makers continue to worry about that, it hurts our national interests or national security.

As I said, our foreign policy should recognize it and acknowledge it as long as it does not hurt our national interests or national security.

It might even help. We dont live in a vacuum.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

As I said, our foreign policy should recognize it and acknowledge as long as it does not hurt our national interests or national security.

It might even help. We dont live in a vacuum.

It should be a low priority. I doubt the Chinese, Russians, Indian's, Iranians, North Koreans, Israeli's, or Germans really care if we like them or not when they set international policy.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It should be a low priority. I doubt the Chinese, Russians, Indian's, Iranians, North Koreans, Israeli's, or Germans really care if we like them or not when they set international policy.

When John Bolton (AEI fellow) says "bomb Iran now", I dont think that is in our best interest. Sitting down with Iran (along with the other interested parties) one time makes more sense to me.

When Lynn Cheney (AEI fellow) said "we didnt torture or abuse detainees", I dont think that is in our best interest. Ending the policy of "enhanced interrogations" makes more sense to me.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

When John Bolton (AEI fellow) says "bomb Iran now", I dont think that is in our best interest.

Neither do I.

Sitting down with Iran (along with the other interested parties) one first makes more sense to me.

Not when they are killing US troops in Iraq. No way.

When Lynn Cheney (AWI fellow) said "we didnt torture detainees", I dont think that is in our best interest.

I don't think what Lynn Cheney or any Cheney says is important.

Ending the policy of "enhanced interrogations" makes more sense to me.

I don't that has been adequately defined. That is Liberal speak.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not when they are killing US troops in Iraq. No way.

It is very much like Nixon going to China at the same time as the Chinese were supporting the North Vietnamese and killing US troops.

You negotiate with adversaries, not friends.

I don't think what Lynn Cheney or any Cheney says is important

It is only important in the sense that it is seen and heard around the world, feeding negative perceptions.

I don't that has been adequately defined. That is Liberal speak.

It is US law and international treaty obligations...and again, it feeds those negative perceptions.

[TheMercenary]

I was just reading some quotes from Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, and Obama the man himself.

They are just to numerous to post.

I can just say that I hope nothing ever happens to Obama because Biden is a frightening replacement.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

It is very much like Nixon going to China at the same time as the Chinese were supporting the North Vietnamese and killing US troops.

Support that all you want. It is still wrong and if he does he will risk re-election.

You negotiate with adversaries, not friends.

Really? I thought that Israel was our friend, at least that is what they and the Jewish Lobby tell us.

It is only important in the sense that it is seen and heard around the world, feeding negative perceptions.

Damm, then you should be worried about what Biden has said in the last year or so.

It is US law and international treaty obligations...and again, it feeds those negative perceptions.

I have always said that the US population never had what it took to finish The WOT, if you don't fight them on their terms at a time of your choosing you will lose. I am not really concerned with those negative perceptions if they serve our well being and safety in the long run. Effective international policy is not conducted worrying about what your adversaries or others think about you.

[TheMercenary]

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent." -- Joe Biden

Here is Michelle on wealth redistribution:

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." -- Michelle Obama

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -- defending his tax plan to Joe the Plumber, who argued that Obama's policy hurts small-business owners like himself, Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 12, 2008

[classicman]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Its how all the Republicans I know are. They're still dangerous and have influence, you can't dismiss them because "its only the extreme right." Because either it isn't, or they have a disproportional amount of pull.

You need to get some new friends.

[Undertoad]

Uh OH...a poll?

Here is the non-partisan opinion

We had expected this sort of turnaround and are bouyed by it, and it's part of the reason we voted for O. However, the story is weak at this time, and in order for the results of this to be a realistic comparison between the two presidencies, we need to wait at least 7 more years, probably longer.

We notice that Presidential favorable/unfavorable rates almost universally go down during a Presidency, and we should expect a similar result here as world events occur. For example, had the poll been taken this week, the number for Poland would be cut in half.