# Hey! Pssst! You think President Bush and John McCain Know?



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

*1.* Our ally in the war on terror, Pakistan, _*talked*_ to the Taliban *(and just signed a deal).*

*2.* Israel (with Egypt as an intermediary) *is talking to Hamas.*

*3.* Israel *is in direct talks *with Hezbollah's patron, Syria.

Someone better let those countries know the Republicans think they are morons who are appeasing their enemies by_* talking to them directly*_! Ohh the horror! They have no clue on how to conduct foreign politics, and are surely headed for disaster.

But hey... I won't let details keep getting in the way of your smear campaign here on Nodak! :thumb:

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Read the articles.

'Nuff said.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Who told you that these allies make up US policy Ryan.........Oh that is right, you never said that the US is in talks with terrorists, you said others were. What the hell does that have to do with US policy?? We don't set their policies, nor should we. We only set US policies. Wrong Pot, wrong kettle, wrong pigment of the color black, kind of a charcoal gray!!! :wink:


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

R y a n said:


> They have no clue on how to conduct foreign politics


But you do, right? oke:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

djleye said:


> Who told you that these allies make up US policy Ryan.........Oh that is right, you never said that the US is in talks with terrorists, you said others were. What the hell does that have to do with US policy?? We don't set their policies, nor should we. We only set US policies. Wrong Pot, wrong kettle, wrong pigment of the color black, kind of a charcoal gray!!! :wink:


I never said they make up US policy.

I was using the comparison that these arch enemies are using face to face talks as a means of trying to settle disputes across a negotiation table. These folks are literally sworn enemies, and yet they do not feel that talking to one another equates to appeasing their enemy.

The comparison is being widely used across other political blogs around the US today, poking a finger in the eye of Bush and McCain for foolishly trying to make that case about Obama and his declaration for considering talking to certain regimes.

It is a valid comparison. I'm sure some here will say "Yeah but it was Obama who said he'd do it personally"... Well we all know that in reality when it come down to it, that would likely never happen. We'd send a delegation or envoy over to do the actual meeting. Noone except those trying to make a stir really believes that would happen. Hence the entire story is already a by gone.

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Shu said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > They have no clue on how to conduct foreign politics
> ...


 :lol: By having talks with sworn enemies like that, the Bush Administration is by extension implying that very fact to those country's political leaders.

That is irony. Thanks for pointing it out. oke:

Seeing as how the rest of the entire free world feels that way about Bush's foreign political acumen, and having witnessed it myself, I'd say there is no way I could do worse than what he has done. That is not a stretch in the least.

I'm curious how many here on this board really truly realizes how much the world hates Bush and his foreign policy decisions? I have friends in quite a few foreign countries that I speak with on a weekly basis, including Germany, Australia, South Africa, Sweden, the UK and India. All of them hate Bush with a intense passion that is breathtaking to listen to and see. You may not care, but it does matter. Our country although respected in many many ways, is also widely scorned. They don't mind Americans as indivuals per se, but the government is not respected anywhere right now. It will take us a decade to recover.

:eyeroll:


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

So I was right, you could do better than the President. Thanks for clarifying that.

I gotta hand it to you Ryan, you are full of confidence.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I gotta hand it to you Ryan, you are full of confidence.


confidence and something else :wink:


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)




----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

And some wonder why folks stop posting in the Politics forum, or won't even bother posting at all ...


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, son.

a lot of folks fail to accept your "home grown comparisons".....they are not even close, but liberals can make up anything they want and feed it to the their media....most folks are still smart enough to read between the lines, ryan.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

didn't mean to hurt your feelings heres something for you to read that might explain this topic and make you understand what a simplistic position Obama took and how hes not fit to run this country.

By Charles Krauthammer 
Friday, May 23, 2008; Page A17

When the House of Representatives takes up arms against $4 gas by voting 324-84 to sue OPEC, you know that election-year discourse has entered the realm of the surreal .

Another unmistakable sign is when a presidential candidate makes a gaffe, then, realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation, decides to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy :eyeroll: .

Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chávez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives -- i.e., preconditions -- have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.

Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?

There are always contacts through back channels or intermediaries. Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to say nothing of the hundreds of official U.S. statements outlining exactly what we would give them in return for suspending uranium enrichment.

Obama pretends that while he is for such "engagement," the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity. No one is debating the need for contacts. The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation, and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world's superpower.

Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?

During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.

Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin -- and then nearly fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?

A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.

As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.

What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon: the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets . . .


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, son.
> 
> a lot of folks fail to accept your "home grown comparisons".....they are not even close, but liberals can make up anything they want and feed it to the their media....most folks are still smart enough to read between the lines, ryan.


LMFAO uke:

Right.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Great post Bob.

I can get around what he is trying to say. I get the point he is trying to make. However, I fail to believe that Obama understood the context at that moment. The man is a Harvard trained lawyer. He is no fool as some here make him out to be. Rather, to me it is much more likely that he had an entirely different scenario on his mind when he answered, and didn't realize the hole he was digging.

I never said he didn't screw the statement up, nor did I say I agreed with his position in its entirety.

I was simply frustrated at how quickly people are trying to find ways to take him to task. Some could care less what the dirt is about, as long as they can spread it. They are wholly and completely fearful of an Obama presidency and therefore are looking for any "out" they can find to justify their desire to see any Republican in office.

Thanks for that article. At least it has historical context and facts that support his gaffe...

Have a great weekend folks.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I am sure you already know, but let me assure you I post my opinions based on what any of these politicians stand for, not party politics. I noticed you picked up on my McDuffus. Ya, that's how I feel about him McDuffus.

It has been American policy for years not to negotiate directly with terrorists or rogue nations. I remember well when airplanes started getting hijacked to Cuba. They tried negotiating with them and it was nearly always a disaster. Finally like our long held policy by all presidents not to negotiate we adopted that policy with airline hijackers. Hijackings went lower, but did not stop entirely hence the metal detectors and things we see today. Since 9/11 that has magnified.

I'm not simply a fiscal conservative, I am a social conservative also. I feel that makes me diametrically opposed to what I know of Obama. Very few people in the Democratic party could turn me off more than Obama. I think he will loose next fall as we learn more and more about him.

I am sure Obama will play the race card to the hilt. Did you know that the UN is now in the United States investigating us for human rights violations? It was on the news today, and many feel it is directly linked to Obama's play for the White House. Who asked for it I would like to know.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Obamas problem is that hes like many of us unwilling to admit when we say something stupid. If he would of simply saids he's thought the subject over and realized his position on it was not a good idea I would of cut him some slack we all say stupid things occasionally.

Hes simply not experienced enough of a politician to run this country. Clinton would be better. Unfortunatley for the Dems they didn't realize this until it too far along to turn back.

Its deifinitely been something else to watch this election unfold this year I've been watching this stuff closely for 35 years and never thought we would be down to this..

Personally I think the republicans screwed up not supporting Mitt Romney he was the best republican candidate by far IMO.

McCain is a fool. So now the presidency of the USA is down to two people unfit for the job :eyeroll:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

He is being taken to task for continuing down the path. Now that he is trailing in key states which are critical for a Dem victory and that the biggest reason is he lacks the trust of the voters in those states on foreign policy he is now trying to make it seem as if John McCain is misquoting him.

Ryan, a heads up for you Bush is not running this year. I doubt there is anyone who believes outside of the kool aid drinkers that McCain is just another 4 years of Bush.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

R y a n said:


> Great post Bob.
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

McCain is a fool. So now the presidency of the USA is down to two people unfit for the job

and that is the truth, even the koolaid drinking liberals can't deny....eh Ryan......  :lol: :lol:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Ryan, a heads up for you Bush is not running this year. I doubt there is anyone who believes outside of the kool aid drinkers that McCain is just another 4 years of Bush.


Hi Ron

Glad to see you back here. Hopefully you'll post in the politics forum more often. I enjoy your thoughts.

In regards to the Bush presidency continuing under McCain, I have heard that talked about on national news shows, political blogs, and political TV shows. It isn't limited to the "kool aid" drinkers.

It isn't coincidence that he has the lowerst approval rating in history.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> In regards to the Bush presidency continuing under McCain, I have heard that talked about on national news shows, political blogs, and political TV shows. It isn't limited to the "kool aid" drinkers.


This isn't aimed at you Ryan, it's aimed at those sites you heard or read this on.
Fist McCain is perhaps the most liberal republican in Washington, and they think he will be like Bush?????
McCain's best friend in Washington is Lieberman (spelling?) and could very likely be his running mate. And they think he is like Bush.

Any of these sites that think McCain is even remotely close to Bush are a few fries short of a happy meal.

I wish they were right. He is a lot worse because he is liberal.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> It isn't coincidence that he has the lowerst approval rating in history.


Check your history which I assume only goes back 75 years when president approval and disapproval ratings were first recorded. Not surprisingly you're wrong as usual. Not only are you wrong but Bush has scored one of the highest approval ratings (92%) of the last 12 Presidents. A full 19% above the highest score fro Clinton. Only his father came close to that mark with a once score of 89% approval.



> it's aimed at those sites you heard or read this on


Why not aim it at Ryan? It is exactly people like Ryan those sites are spoon feeding this stuff to because they know they will swallow without thinking. You're going to hear it a lot more starting in a few weeks.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> In regards to the Bush presidency continuing under McCain, I have heard that talked about on national news shows, political blogs, and political TV shows. It isn't limited to the "kool aid" drinkers.


RYAN, Talking points is what it's called, you say McCain is another 4 years of Bush and people start to believe it. Every Obamaiet on the news shows continually bring this up, I guess it is all they can come up with. Same goes for the Repubs continually comparing Barack to his Rev Wright.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

cwoparson said:


> > It isn't coincidence that he has the lowerst approval rating in history.
> 
> 
> Check your history which I assume only goes back 75 years when president approval and disapproval ratings were first recorded. Not surprisingly you're wrong as usual. Not only are you wrong but Bush has scored one of the highest approval ratings (92%) of the last 12 Presidents. A full 19% above the highest score fro Clinton. Only his father came close to that mark with a once score of 89% approval.
> ...


I think you should also post when these high approval rates were taken.My guess.....GWB's is right after we sent the army into Afganistan or Iraq.GHWB right after we sent the troops into Kuwait.

Ryan is talking about right now......makes a big difference.His history is probaby just fine.Right now GWB's approval rating could be one of the lowest in history.So his spin could be just as good as yours.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken, I agree with you. However, I don't know if I believe either poll, the high or the low. The reason I say this is that some polls at times are 30 points apart. A poll is only as good as the questions asked by the polling people. Tell me you want a particular outcome, and I can make the poll say anything you want. First politicians lie to us, then the news, and now the polls. 
I think this nation is to partisan to ever give any president a 92% approval rating. I also think it's to partisan for any one party to abandon their president to the point he would ever get below 30 to 35 percent. I think both polls were twisted for sensationalism. 
If polls are correct then Bush's approval rating is nothing compared to the low approval of our current democratic congress. Which not by extension or imagination but purely logic means that the public approves of Bush over the democratic congress. Maybe we should be thinking about that.
Yes, McCain being another four years of Bush is democrats crying the sky is falling. They should be happy, no matter who wins a liberal will be in the White House. Oh, that's not completely correct. If McCain wins a liberal will be in the White House, and if Obama wins a socialist will be in the White House. If you work and pay taxes you better hope it's McCain.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> GWB's approval rating could be one of the lowest in history


Could be Ken, could be. Ryan said it was the lowest. Ryan is wrong and so is his history. Ryan is doing just what the left wing Demwits want him and others to do, spreading false propaganda. I gave you no spin, just facts. You may not like it but you're going to have to live with it anyway. Here is another fact for you. Only one of the other three Presidents with lower approval ratings left office with their lowest approval rating. President Bush hasn't left office yet so we'll see what that is next year.

Plainsman that 92% came from ABC. CNN gave 89%, and CBS gave 90% during the same time frame. You certainly can't say either of the three were biased towards a Republican and all three were higher than their beloved Clinton. Point is if one wants to bad mouth the President thats all fine and dandy but, first be accurate and second don't ad lib false information such as "in history". Tell the whole story. I think you'll have to admit though that the hatred for President Bush and the Republicans is so high on the left that, that will never happen. I do agree with you that polls are guided for a specific outcome in most cases. Most importantly though is polls are nothing more than a snapshot that will usually change overnight.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Why not aim it at Ryan?


Because Ryan was not the primary person in forming this false assertion. I prefer to point out to Ryan what McCain is like compared to Bush. Their differences are so vast that the chances of a continuation of the Bush administration is virtually a childish fear. I would rather convince Ryan than simply argue with him.

When McCain mentioned that we may be in Iraq for 50 or 100 years or whatever I am sure he was thinking in the terms of history that he, you , and anyone old enough is familiar with. We have been in Germany and Japan for over a half century. How long have we been fighting in the streets in these counties? We have not since WWII ended. If you pay attention to the question asked of McCain so you know the context then you understand this is what he was talking about. Unfortunately politics isn't honest today, and to twist things to make it look like we were going to be doing the same thing in Iraq 100 years from now isn't simply spin it's outright dishonesty. People need to have that pointed out. When we do, and if they are open minded enough the truth should slam into them like a freight train. They have been outright lied to. If you stop to think about it people who expect you to believe such thinly veiled bs are insulting.

Unfortunately this changes politics from who has the best policy to who is the best liars.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Then we solidly disagree. I think most if not all those that post on this forum know that McCain is not like Bush. I also think your pointing this out is in vain because they already know the truth but will gleefully continue with the rhetoric and your right, it is insulting.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I think a president can get that high approval for going after terrorists that do the kind of damage that AlQuida did on 9/11.90% might be low in that case.

I really haven't heard or seen many people opposed to going after them in Afganistan.Iraq is another story.

cwoparson....I don't think Bush is the lowest in history either.Nixon would probably be lower.Same with Andrew Johnson.Herbert Hoover was pretty low also.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

I don't know about Hoover and Jackson as we didn't start keeping poll records on Presidential approval and disapproval ratings until Roosevelt was in office. So those two would just be guess only, which may be true. Truman dropped to 22% and Nixon hit 23%. Right now Bush is tied with Carter at 28%. Clinton, Reagan, Ford, and Johnson all hit the 35-36% disapproval rating at one time. That's why I put absolutely no stock in these kind of polls.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson said:


> Then we solidly disagree. I think most if not all those that post on this forum know that McCain is not like Bush. I also think your pointing this out is in vain because they already know the truth but will gleefully continue with the rhetoric and your right, it is insulting.


Actually I don't think so. I think some people have their favorite news source that they trust and never question their integrity. 
I may be pointing these things out in vain, but I will keep doing it. If it soaks through to one person it's worth it to me. I'm not going to see my civil rights disappear for political power, or some persons fantasy that peace will prevail around the world and all murders will end if only handguns were banned. You and I know that is hyperbole, but I don't think Obana, Hillary, ------- ya they do, but it's a useful tool to convince idiots to vote for them.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Not Andrew Jackson.....Andrew Johnson....became president when Lincoln was asassinated.He was close to the only president to be impeached.

Polls are good ways to assess the country's mood.But they are only good for the time they are taken.Bush went from 90% to 30% because of the unpopular war in Iraq and the recession.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Actually Johnson was impeached by the House, but was acquitted by the Senate. Ditto for Clinton.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> I have friends in quite a few foreign countries that I speak with on a weekly basis, including Germany, Australia, South Africa, Sweden, the UK and India. All of them hate Bush with a intense passion that is breathtaking to listen to and see. You may not care, but it does matter. Our country although respected in many many ways, is also widely scorned. They don't mind Americans as indivuals per se, but the government is not respected anywhere right now. It will take us a decade to recover.


 A blanket statement that is usually wrong, and is very wrong in this case. I have spoken with several Iraqi families very recently and they have told me that they think that GW "is a great man"! They had nothing but great things to say about what we are doing over there! Perhaps your friends are drinking the liberal media Kool-Aid that is being spoon fed to them about how horrible the good old USA is!!!


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

agree, the liberal press will do anything, say anything to advance their agenda....Olbermann is the worst jerk of all. he makes me sick! uke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Djleye, speaking of Iraq I hear on the news that McCain has invited Obama to go to Iraq with him. He thinks Obama is not up to speed since it has been two years since he visited Iraq. I think Obama would rather stay in the US so he can continue to imagine all the bad things happening over there, but we will see.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 66371.aspx

interesting article, assume it is the one Plainsman mentions....the last paragraph is very revealing...Obama is implementing some of this famous "change" in his former position. oops.....said his advisers...this is precious....and becoming a theme for Obama........ahhhh.."change" :lol:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

hunter9494 said:


> agree, the liberal press will do anything, say anything to advance their agenda....Olbermann is the worst jerk of all. he makes me sick! uke:


You haven't listened to Limbaugh and his buddies lately.....they are so low they bring up Kennedy's past even when the man is dieing of a brain tumer. uke: uke: uke:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Be nice now. After all Obama knows all about wars and our military. After all his uncle helped liberate the concentration camps at Auschwitz. Guess someone forgot to tell Obama that the Russian army liberated Auschwitz, not the Americans. Remember when the media jumped all over McCain for confusing al Qaeda terrorist as being Shiite instead of Sunni. Bet they give Obama a pass on this one also just as before. But who knows, maybe Obamas uncle was in the Russian army.

Now it is being reported that Obama's mother didn't even have a brother. Just thought I'd add that.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

And Michael Savage knows all about making fun of Kennedy when he is dieing. :eyeroll:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

tumor.......and at least he lived a full life compared to Mary Jo......


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> bring up Kennedy's past even when the man is dieing of a brain tumer.


So what. Just because the guy is dieing everyone should forget about all the crap this guy has forced upon us in the past? I guess you are conveniently forgetting about all the snide remarks from James Carville and George Stephanopolous when Reagan was dieing. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson said:


> > bring up Kennedy's past even when the man is dieing of a brain tumer.
> 
> 
> So what. Just because the guy is dieing everyone should forget about all the crap this guy has forced upon us in the past? I guess you are conveniently forgetting about all the snide remarks from James Carville and George Stephanopolous when Reagan was dieing. :eyeroll:


Yes, the liberals were cheering on the media, and laughing about Reagan. They expressed happiness. I'm not happy about anyone dieing, but why can the worst people all of a sudden by wonderful just because they are terminal? Kennedy is what he is. Live, dead, not sick at all, etc. makes no change to reality. 
I could not stand the man, but if he steps aside there is no need to quarrel about him. If he stays in the Senate he deserves no free pass. I worry that fools will pass something he wants simply out of sympathy. 
Sure it's a shame he is terminal, but we all are. How much sympathy has there been for the woman trapped under water that he walked away from. How can anyone hold this man up to be admired? 
Happiness should not be expressed, sympathy would be preferred, but reality is reality.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

exactly.


----------

