You may continue to avoid the issue, if you want.So in order to find out what Obama meant as "the problems", the only way for us to find out is if The Obama is going to tell us. So what are we going to discuss if The Obama doesn't come into this thread and tell us what it is?
And yet, if you said such a thing, and made the claim you had improved the situation, you'd be able to provide examples of those problems, and the solutions you have implemented.No, it was a general statement, not dissimilar to the ones I make concerning working on improving my profession, job, institution.
Well, it IS The Obama we're discussing, so I am not surprised you think that.It seems silly to try and turn that statement into anything serious.
You may continue to avoid the issue, if you want.
No... all you have done is equivocated, obfuscated and misdirected.I've given you a problem...
And yet, if you said such a thing, and made the claim you had improved the situation, you'd be able to provide examples of those problems, and the solutions you have implemented.
Well, it IS The Obama we're discussing, so I am not surprised you think that.
Irrelevant -- you could still answer, with specifics.I would only be asked if it was a formal evaluation. In general conversation, no, I would not be asked.
I doubt that.And I would take this silliness seriously even if we were talking abut Bush or Palin.
Irrelevant -- you could still answer, with specifics.
I doubt that.
Nor to me if you claim the contrary.Doesn't matter what you doubt or don't doubt.
Which, as I said, was irrlevant.But we are not called on to answer general conversation questions. Nor are others asked to answer for us.
As noted before -- if He says there are problems, and He is said to have fixed some of them, it is -more- than reeaonable to ask what those problems are, which ones He has fixed, which problems remain, and what He plans to do about them.Well it just seems that no matter what Obama says or does, you'll find a problem with it no matter what, so why should I give a crap?
No... all you have done is equivocated, obfuscated and misdirected.
In fact, you have done everying you can to -avoid- the issue.
And I really dont have the time to waste on that.
Nor to me if you claim the contrary.
Which, as I said, was irrlevant.
As noted before -- if He says there are problems, and He is said to have fixed some of them, it is -more- than reeaonable to ask what those problems are, which ones He has fixed, which problems remain, and what He plans to do about them.What is irrelevant is questioning this. It really feels like a poor self esteem issue.
If that's what lets you sleep at night.What you are doing is petty. I think I've done enough to show that, so I'm done.
"Private interests" are people or persons influencing the political system for personal gain such as businesses.Arent 'private interests' just groups of people collectively expressing their political position? How is that 'wrong' in terms of this discussion?
As noted before -- if He says there are problems, and He is said to have fixed some of them, it is -more- than reeaonable to ask what those problems are, which ones He has fixed, which problems remain, and what He plans to do about them.
Give Him a pass if you want -- I'm not surprised -- but don't try to blame -your- lack of curiosity on anything having to do with me.
OK... and how is that a problem?"Private interests" are people or persons influencing the political system for personal gain such as businesses.
What democracy-related mess did GWB leave?He may well be talking about the mess Bush left, which needed fixing to say the least.
The questions are perfectly reasonable; anyone with any degree of intellectual curiosity would raise them.But again, it was just a general statement and not something requiring this discourse.
Your ad-hom, the final resort of those without an argumentative leg to stand on, is noted.It is a silly issue that makes the person making it seem like he or she suffers from poor countryesteem.
What democracy-related mess did GWB leave?
The questions are perfectly reasonable; anyone with any degree of intellectual curiosity would raise them.
Your ad-hom, the final resort of those without an argumentative leg to stand on, is noted.
These dont have anything to do with democracy, per se, as none of these things are inherently related to same. So, no.Lord, lack of due process, spying on citizens, normalizing torture, . . . there is a list.
It is not surprising that the incurious would think this.No, they are not and there is nothing to be curious about. It's a manufactured issue and not a real one.
These dont have anything to do with democracy, per se, as none of these things are inherently related to same. So, no.
And, it should be noted, that The Obama has chosen to contine most of these Bush-Era policies.
It is not surprising that the incurious would think this.
Isn't a lack of curiosity of one the criticisms people like you had with GWB?
-Nothing- about democracy necessitates the inclusion of -any- of those things -- so, no.No, they are related. Inherently related.
Equivocation.And while Obama hasn't been as proactive and quick as I'd like...
The nature of our democracy, what's wrong with it, what's been done to fix it, and what will be done to fix the rest is very much of substance.Be curious about things of substance.
-Nothing- about democracy necessitates the inclusion of -any- of those things -- so, no.
Equivocation.
The nature of our democracy, what's wrong with it, what's been done to fix it, and what will be done to fix the rest is very much of substance.
as per the OP, an interesting (i thought) response:
...I just read about Obama's comments to the Kazakh president; my wife and I have lived and worked in Almaty, Kazakhstan, since August 2008—this country has no idea what democracy is, and Nazerbayev prefers to keep it that way. He is the quintessential post-modern dictator. My wife and I teach at a school where the majority of our students' parents are either in government or organized crime (it's often a very fine line, and sometimes it doesn't exist at all). I teach the comparative governments class, and it's painful to watch my Kazakh students learn what terms like "liberal democracy" and "illiberal democracy" mean, then try to make the Kazakh square peg fit the liberal democracy round hole. When I raise even the mildest of criticisms in class, I can see the Kazakhs looking around the room to see who is present, so as to know what will be acceptable to say. It's unbelievable how often I will hear a Kazakh student identify government propaganda for exactly what it is—propaganda—then follow up their analysis by immediately stating something to the effect of "but it's also the truth." No opposition parties are allowed; no negative press coverage is permitted; five-year plans are still being written with all of the passion and fanfare (and possibilities of success) of the Soviet era. And the U.S. president just told this Russian lap dog that the U.S. is still working on democracy, too. I can't stress this enough: THE KAZAKHS WILL TAKE THAT STATEMENT AT FACE VALUE!!! "Hey, I guess that we're not doing so bad, huh?"
Here's the most damning thing that I can say about a country: I spent three years teaching in Kabul, Afghanistan, and it's easy for me to imagine Afghans enjoying a more western liberal society 50 years from now than the Kazakhs. The Afghans, for the most part, have very few illusions about their place in the world and about how far they have to go to catch up; but the Kazakhs? About half of my Kazakh students are still defending the Soviet Union, and the other half are spouting government propaganda along these lines: Kazakhs have to keep out American beef because it's "more expensive, poorer quality, and loaded with drugs" (which wouldn't seem to be a winning trio in the market place, but apparently so as it must be kept out).
I'd like to personally thank Obama for confirming the suspicions and conspiracy theories of my Kazakh students. Unbelievable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?