Obama to demand more from Europe in Berlin speech

[bhkad]

Oh indeed. The fact that there may be a million there is shocking and should be a clue to Americans this is the wrong man for the job.


Although this set up of the Obama is an interesting thing. Almost like watching a train wreck and adding a semi to the tracks.

When this man becomes the next carter, it's going to be fun. :shock:

Barack Obama: Self-Appointed Messiah. Extremism in Defense of Liberty

 

[Slainte]

Not exactly. The media and the youth of Europe are greeting him that way. The voters in Germany and France elected pro American governments.

Huh?

Germany and France likely would have elected the same governments if Kerry had won in '04. I fail to see how either Sarkozy or Merkel constitute a European endorsement of the Bush administration!

Opinion polls about the upcoming US elections show Obama miles and miles in front in Europe!

 

[Summerwind]

It is impossible to be a self-appointed messiah. Period.

 

[bhkad]

The difference is, he doesn't deny that he is pro-Obama. I have no problem with people supporting McCain.....but at least be honest about it.
When you claim to not be a supporter....and your posts tell a completely different story....its very telling.
And....I think this IS debating the topic....because you have to understand the context of the underlying post in order to honestly and openly debate the issue.

When you either...(1) admit that your constant anti-Obama posts are due to your support of McCain....or (2) post a single thread critical of McCain....maybe I'll believe youl

Liberals just can't seem to grasp that Conservatives generally do things for reasons having to do with more than just petty emotionalism.

During the 2004 Presidential campaign some Libs thought we lobbied so hard against Kerry because we were just being stubborn.

YIKES!

The reason was because we knew that leaving Iraq would be a disaster for this country, for the cause of freedom in the world and for stability in the Middle East.

Also, during the 2004 campaign the Libs thought that simply aligning themselves with ex-Servicemen like Kerry, Chuck Hagel and that furka Murtha, that they could win the Conservative vote.

YIKES!

The reason their status as veterans didn't matter was that they were on the wrong side of the war issue.

It is clear that many liberals think that Conservatives are as shallow as they are.

The reason anyone is and every good American should be against Obama has to do with his seamy associates, his lack of experience and most seriously, his SOCIALISM.

Barack Obama is a Socialist.

And what's wrong with Socialism? (My next thread subject maybe!)

Here's a quote from an American responding to a Washington Post article on Obama.

Bottom line is that socialism turns prosperous nations into cesspools. There are very few people who would work if you offered them free housing, free food, and free healthcare instead. The US is now at a crossroads. We can continue on the path that has made us the most prosperous nation in history, or we can go down the dark road to socialist squalor. If you want the latter, vote Obama.

Posted by: Avenger | May 19, 2008 2:15 AM

Record Obama Crowd, the Size of a City | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

 

[bhkad]

It is impossible to be a self-appointed messiah. Period.

Just because the majority votes on it does not make it good. The Algerian people voted away their rights when they voted the Islamist Party into power in their democratic election of 1991. But before the Islamists could take control the military rebelled and that set off a decade of violence in that country of appx 25,000,000 people, which left more than 200,000 dead.

Algerian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many things implemented at the wish of the majority are unjust, unfair, or morally repugnant. Nazism was a majority case. Slavery was a majority decision in the antebellum South. Lynchings are majority decisions by the assembled mob. No: That something is the wish of the majority does not make it right. Majority rule is a fine principle only inasmuch as it preserves the rights of the minority and the rule of law, even if the minority are those who risk their own resources to start, own, and maintain businesses. What about their rights when the majority would rather take their profits by force?

What's Wrong With Socialism | Gongol.com

And becoming a Hitler-like Messiah is not only possible but is being demonstrated by the SOB (Socialist, Obama).

As friendly and appealing as (Obama's ed.) socialist propaganda may sound on the surface, it is littered with philosophical junk. Its foundation is rotten and its intellectual workmanship shoddy. We risk most our own well-being whenever we grant socialism undeserved credibility.

What's Wrong With Socialism | Gongol.com

 

[Summerwind]

Just because the majority votes on it does not make it good. The Algerian people voted away their rights when they voted the Islamist Party into power in their democratic election of 1991. But before the Islamists could take control the military rebelled and that set off a decade of violence in that country of appx 25,000,000 people, which left more than 200,000 dead.

Algerian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And becoming a Hitler-like Messiah is not only possible but is being demonstrated by the SOB (Socialist, Obama).

Nothing you've presented changes the facts that one can only attempt to be a self-appointed messiah, one cannot accomplish it.

 

[Truth Detector]

At least he's acting like one. We haven't had a leader that's acted like a President for practically a decade.....all we've had is "the decider".

.....because you say so. :roll:

 

[Truth Detector]

So I'm to gather that you don't want Europe to be more engaged in these conflicts? How bizarre.

Ah yes, another Liberal myth that once the beloved Barrack Hussein Obama is ordained the leader of the Free World, the World will be more inclined to be engaged in future conflicts.

One thing is certain, reality is a stranger when reading Liberal rhetoric.

:rofl

 

[GottaHurt]

Germany and France likely would have elected the same governments if Kerry had won in '04.

Likely? Stick to the facts.

Fact, Cherac and Schroeder were anti-Bush, Sarkosy and Merkel are both pro Bush. That shows a shift in thinking from the previous administrations. The old socialist parties of Cherac and Schroeder were exposed for the frauds that they were.

I fail to see how either Sarkozy or Merkel constitute a European endorsement of the Bush administration!

Please take the time to read through the link below, very interesting read.

Britain and America: Merkel-Sarkozy take pro-American positions despite hostility of their populations

Opinion polls about the upcoming US elections show Obama miles and miles in front in Europe!

It doesn't matter what the polls in Europe say, they won't be voting in our election.

In 2004, the exit polls at 2pm EST had John Kerry in a landslide, by 7pm EST, he was on suicide watch.

Remember, you have to actually cast a ballot, blogging doesn't count.

Iraq Obama - Complete withdrawal / Invade Pakistan

 

[Truth Detector]

By showing that were are rejecting the "isolationist" policies of Bush....meaning alienating our allies and choosing to "go it alone" rather than appeal to our common interests.

Another favorite Liberal myth that wants to argue that 34 nations joining us is somehow "going it alone."

This same inane Liberal myth also professes that unless France, Germany, Russia and China are with you, you are also "going it alone."

Obama's speech will show that he is interested in our allies in Europe and that he wants to begin to work with them again and begin to repair the damage of the last 8 years.

Obama's speech will only serve to continue to illustrate the empty headed rhetoric of an ultra Liberal. But hey, since when does REALITY play any part of Liberal politics, EH?

So again....who do you think is the right man for the job. Its one thing to constantly criticize.....why not offer an alternative?

The answer to this is easy, McCain. But technically, anyone with common sense would be better.

Speaking of constant criticism, how about all that Bush bashing?

By the consistent tone of your posts....its pretty obvious that although you don't claim to be a McCain supporter, you obviously are.

OMG, you “outted” him!! HE COULD BE A MCCAIN SUPPORTER!! OMG!!!

I think he just prefers common sense.

 

[Summerwind]

Ah yes, another Liberal myth that once the beloved Barrack Hussein Obama is ordained the leader of the Free World, the World will be more inclined to be engaged in future conflicts.

One thing is certain, reality is a stranger when reading Liberal rhetoric.

:rofl

Please indicate where I said anything that you are suggesting that I said? I addressed nothing mythical or Obama. The question remains, are you able to address it?

 

[Orion]

Fact, Cherac and Schroeder were anti-Bush, Sarkosy and Merkel are both pro Bush. That shows a shift in thinking from the previous administrations. The old socialist parties of Cherac and Schroeder were exposed for the frauds that they were.

In European countries there is a historic trend of shifting back and forth between more socialist and then more conservative politicians. I would argue that this is more part of that ebb and flow than it is to do with support of Bush. Right now in the Western world conservativism is rising again to take the place of liberal governments. Then, it will eventually be displaced again.

 

[bhkad]

Nothing you've presented changes the facts that one can only attempt to be a self-appointed messiah, one cannot accomplish it.

Ok. So instead of being a messiah, how about we agree that Obama is just a mess?

Socialism is the death of a nation. Even the lazy indolent leftists that sit around all day, smoke dope and watch Maury do paternity tests will be worse off in the long run because evenntually all the hard working quality people will give up working and start taking the handouts. Then there will be noone to pay the bills. The government will continue printing money at full speed to make up for the short falls and eventually any money you have saved will be worthless. Leftists are ridiculous godless fools.

Posted by: | May 19, 2008 2:29 AM

Record Obama Crowd, the Size of a City | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

 

[Truth Detector]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Ah yes, another Liberal myth that once the beloved Barrack Hussein Obama is ordained the leader of the Free World, the World will be more inclined to be engaged in future conflicts.

One thing is certain, reality is a stranger when reading Liberal rhetoric.

Please indicate where I said anything that you are suggesting that I said? I addressed nothing mythical or Obama. The question remains, are you able to address it?

Did you not make this statement in rebuttal to the OP?

“Summerwind; So I'm to gather that you don't want Europe to be more engaged in these conflicts? How bizarre. “

In response to this?

Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und
Obama to demand more from Europe in Berlin speech - swissinfo

And here is Obama already pretending to be president at a campaign stop using my tax dollars.

Pathetic.

BTW did anyone else notice the Jimmy carter cabinet members with Obama's campaign in the ME.

It appears to any REASONABLE person, that you are indeed suggesting that you were “insinuating” that a Barrack Hussein Obama Presidency would result in “more” engagement and cooperation from Europe.

If that was NOT your premise, then I am mistaken or you need to learn better prose.

 

[Summerwind]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Ah yes, another Liberal myth that once the beloved Barrack Hussein Obama is ordained the leader of the Free World, the World will be more inclined to be engaged in future conflicts.

One thing is certain, reality is a stranger when reading Liberal rhetoric.



Did you not make this statement in rebuttal to the OP?

“Summerwind; So I'm to gather that you don't want Europe to be more engaged in these conflicts? How bizarre. “

In response to this?

Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und
Obama to demand more from Europe in Berlin speech - swissinfo

And here is Obama already pretending to be president at a campaign stop using my tax dollars.

Pathetic.

BTW did anyone else notice the Jimmy carter cabinet members with Obama's campaign in the ME.

It appears to any REASONABLE person, that you are indeed suggesting that you were “insinuating” that a Barrack Hussein Obama Presidency would result in “more” engagement and cooperation from Europe.

If that was NOT your premise, then I am mistaken or you need to learn better prose.

I question your ability to determine what a reasonable person would interpret. Nuff said.

 

[Truth Detector]

I question your ability to determine what a reasonable person would interpret. Nuff said.

Your response is hardly surprising. :roll:

 

[MSgt]

By showing that were are rejecting the "isolationist" policies of Bush....meaning alienating our allies and choosing to "go it alone" rather than appeal to our common interests.
Obama's speech will show that he is interested in our allies in Europe and that he wants to begin to work with them again and begin to repair the damage of the last 8 years.

The funny thing about you people who keep boasting about the "damage" done with our allies is that most of you haven't a clue what has been going on and what that damage was. This has far less to do about politics than it does about post Cold War world environoment. President Bush's only mistake with some of our allies was that he allowed them a way out from addressing their true selves (by giving them WMD excuses) on the international stage and he was too bold with some of his statements. France was all about exerting their feeble power by chastizing us on the world stage about Iraq, but two years after we toppled Saddam Hussein, they excitedly dropped in a consulate building in Iraq didn't they? Years and years of fighting in Afghanistan and nations like Germany and others who turned their backs on us in regards to Iraq have still not joined us completely and continue to do the bare minimum while boasting that they are with us when it comes to Afghanistan. Strange considering that our joint Euro/American venture in the former Yugoslavia saw America launch more than sixty percent of the sorties for their immediate concerns.

The damage that was done between allies has far more to do with Europe's identity than our cowboy antics to dismiss their concerns over Iraq. Until the invasion into Iraq, nations like France and Germany got away with it because typical Americans didn't care beyond their borders. But since "To topple or not to topple" occurred, they have been exposed. Even their small contribution into Afghanistan has been more than public knowledge. Senator Obama will merely sooth French and German sentiments so that they feel like they are at our table again, which is grown into the American/British table. In the end, they will have to grow up and leave the twentieth century behind. It won't be us stepping backwards. We were finally ready to move forward after 9/11. They were not. Muslim immigration into their nations will eventually force it. Eventually, they will join us one way or another. And it doesn't matter what we do next....they will participate somewhat just to try to prove that they are a part of the "team."

 

[Summerwind]

Your response is hardly surprising. :roll:

I'm glad that it isn't surprising when I quickly and efficiently locate the core of our disagreement and address it concisely.

 

[WI Crippler]

Opinion polls about the upcoming US elections show Obama miles and miles in front in Europe!

Maybe my poor American public education has failed me, but I could have sworn there was more than 3 countries that comprised Europe.

 

[GarzaUK]

This has far less to do about politics than it does about post Cold War world environoment.

If this was true Europeans would have rejected the Afganistan war outright or in fact every war America pursued after the Cold war. In fact the majority of Europeans supported the war in Afganistan. Because the objectives were clear and concise. Get the people of 9/11 and make sure Afghanistan was not a training ground for Islamic terrorists.
When it comes to Iraq... look most Europeans thought that Iraq had WMD's, however it was when your leadership strating changing the reasons like
1. Iraq was a training ground for AQ - FALSE even Tony Blair said it
2. Saddam and Bin Laden were buddies - FALSE
3. To Free Iraq of Saddam - thats fine, but why now? And why when the US were supporting other questionable regimes? And why did your leadership say that Saddam could stay in power if he gave up WMD's??
4. Because he tried to kill your President's daddy
5. Yellow Cake

All this above made Europeans realise that your leadership did not give a damn about WMD's, they wanted this war and they said some pretty BS to get it. Thats why I was against the Iraq War, plus I didn't think it would a good idea....turns out right.

President Bush's only mistake with some of our allies was that he allowed them a way out from addressing their true selves (by giving them WMD excuses) on the international stage and he was too bold with some of his statements.

What so we have to follow the US, agree with and do anything what they say like an obedient dog? Europeans are a free people, with their own opinions. You cant chastice them for having their own mind and disagreeing with you.
The US totally overreacted over this, changing French Fries to Freedom fries. But this is nothing new, in 1917 some parts of the US banned playing Beethoven, in 1941, throwing Americans with Japanese orgins into conc camps without trial etc etc. America really does get war fever. I dont know why you guys picked on the French so much, since the whole security council including Russia and China would have vetoed. But hey better not piss of the Chinese too much eh?

France was all about exerting their feeble power by chastizing us on the world stage about Iraq, but two years after we toppled Saddam Hussein, they excitedly dropped in a consulate building in Iraq didn't they?

Wow! Only two years after?? They really could wait to get their greedy hands on Iraq right? Why did they wait for two years when the first 3-6 months after Saddam was toppled Iraq was pretty stable.
Also setting consuls in Nation's Captials is pretty common and the norm. It would be strange if France DIDN'T put a consulship there.
Besides all the oil contracts had long gone to US companies anyway.

Years and years of fighting in Afghanistan and nations like Germany and others who turned their backs on us in regards to Iraq have still not joined us completely and continue to do the bare minimum while boasting that they are with us when it comes to Afghanistan. Strange considering that our joint Euro/American venture in the former Yugoslavia saw America launch more than sixty percent of the sorties for their immediate concerns.

So Europe disagreeing with Iraq is "turning their backs on us"? The last time I checked when the US disagrees with a war, they generally dont fight it. 1914-17 and 1939-1941 spring to mind. But when Europe disagrees with a war, we are lambasted??

The damage that was done between allies has far more to do with Europe's identity than our cowboy antics to dismiss their concerns over Iraq. Until the invasion into Iraq, nations like France and Germany got away with it because typical Americans didn't care beyond their borders. But since "To topple or not to topple" occurred, they have been exposed. Even their small contribution into Afghanistan has been more than public knowledge. Senator Obama will merely sooth French and German sentiments so that they feel like they are at our table again, which is grown into the American/British table. In the end, they will have to grow up and leave the twentieth century behind.

I really wish it was an American/British table, but your leadership doesnt even listen to the British leadership. It is actually an all American table, with a "we will do what we want and to the hell with the lot of you." If the US wants to the title of leader of the free world it has to be a leader. People NEVER follow arrogance.

It won't be us stepping backwards. We were finally ready to move forward after 9/11. They were not.

Really? Well you better back up a bit. Because the US people believe they are headed in the wrong direction.

Muslim immigration into their nations will eventually force it. Eventually, they will join us one way or another. And it doesn't matter what we do next....they will participate somewhat just to try to prove that they are a part of the "team."

Yeah of course we are all eager to please America. :roll: A team is not a team if one player dictates the play.

 

[GarzaUK]

Maybe my poor American public education has failed me, but I could have sworn there was more than 3 countries that comprised Europe.

LOL true. The UK, France and Germany are the "big three" in Europe. They are basically the ones who hold international influence.

 

[Slainte]

Fact, Cherac and Schroeder were anti-Bush, Sarkosy and Merkel are both pro Bush. That shows a shift in thinking from the previous administrations.

What the hell makes you "pro-Bush"?

Name me one thing Bush has done which you think Merkel and Sarkozy support, which you don't think Kerry would do.

The old socialist parties of Cherac and Schroeder were exposed for the frauds that they were..

You are awaree that Sarkozy is from the SAME party as Chirac and that Merkel is in coalition with Schroeders old party.

Please take the time to read through the link below, very interesting read.

Britain and America: Merkel-Sarkozy take pro-American positions despite hostility of their populations

Tbh honest not that interesting. Most Europeans know that we need to work with America, regardless of who the President is, I just think it would have been easier to do that with either Gore or Kerry.

It doesn't matter what the polls in Europe say, they won't be voting in our election.

Right, but you seemed to imply only young people and the media liked Obama and also possibly that a silent majority would prefer McCain. Opinion polls show that is completely false.

In 2004, the exit polls at 2pm EST had John Kerry in a landslide, by 7pm EST, he was on suicide watch.

Did they have him in front by 45 to 60 points at any time?

 

[mikhail]

I think due to the way the press has covered the election most people dont even know who john mccain is.Im sure if Amerians where shown video of cameron and gordon brown giving speehes they would prefer cameron he gives a better speech cameron also introduced john mccain as the next president of the united states recently.

 

[bhkad]

Maybe my poor American public education has failed me, but I could have sworn there was more than 3 countries that comprised Europe.

Chalk it up to that poster's liberal elitism to leave the rest of Europe out of the voting.

:yes:

 

[Slainte]

Maybe my poor American public education has failed me, but I could have sworn there was more than 3 countries that comprised Europe.

I bet geography was your favourite subject huh?

I used those polls because they were easy to find and contained the European country I believed would be most favourable to McCain (the UK) and least favourable (France).

There are others which reflect similar sentiments:

Pew Global Attitudes Project: Overview: Global Economic Gloom - China and India Notable Exceptions

+

Barack Obama beats John McCain in European vote: US election 2008 - Telegraph

If you know of any European country that would prefer McCain by all means share...