Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on May 22, 2008, 10:02:22 AM
-
No matter what polls indicate, Obama sealed his own presidential fate by comparing him to Reagan by saying paraphrased "Reagan met with the Soviets" his comparison was not even close to what he proposed by meeting with Iran. To top it off just the day before yesterday in a speech he said that Iran, Venezuala and Cuba were no threat and yesterday he said Iran WAS a threat and should be delt with.
Joe,
I would like to see where Obama said that, and I quote you, "Iran, Venezuala and Cuba were no threat".
Either Obama just sank his own campaign by spewing ignorance, or you are outright lying.
Please show getbig the original quote from Barack Obama where he said this.
-
"Enquiring" minds want to know!
-
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1211419518316200.xml&coll=7
n Portland on Sunday, Obama said Iran, Cuba and Venezuela "don't pose a serious threat to us" since they spend but one-one-hundredth of what we spend on our military. They're not like the Soviets. "If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us," he said, "they wouldn't stand a chance."
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2008m5d21-Obamas-CarterLike-Naivety
-
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1211419518316200.xml&coll=7
n Portland on Sunday, Obama said Iran, Cuba and Venezuela "don't pose a serious threat to us" since they spend but one-one-hundredth of what we spend on our military. They're not like the Soviets. "If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us," he said, "they wouldn't stand a chance."
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2008m5d21-Obamas-CarterLike-Naivety
"No threat" and "not posing a serious threat" are 2 different things.
-
don't pose a serious threat to us
"serious"?
Joe said "NO" threat.
I want to see where Obama said:
he said that Iran, Venezuala and Cuba were no threat
-
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1211419518316200.xml&coll=7
n Portland on Sunday, Obama said Iran, Cuba and Venezuela "don't pose a serious threat to us" since they spend but one-one-hundredth of what we spend on our military. They're not like the Soviets. "If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us," he said, "they wouldn't stand a chance."
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2008m5d21-Obamas-CarterLike-Naivety
That sounds accurate to me.
-
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1211419518316200.xml&coll=7
n Portland on Sunday, Obama said Iran, Cuba and Venezuela "don't pose a serious threat to us" since they spend but one-one-hundredth of what we spend on our military. They're not like the Soviets. "If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us," he said, "they wouldn't stand a chance."
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2008m5d21-Obamas-CarterLike-Naivety
lol. Doh! :D
-
"No threat" and "not posing a serious threat" are 2 different things.
Correct. I'm sure Joe has another quote somewhere, or he wouldn't have used the words "NO THREAT" in his post.
-
Correct. I'm sure Joe has another quote somewhere, or he wouldn't have used the words "NO THREAT" in his post.
That's a good example of a neo-con self spin job in order to perpetuate a belief or bias about an opposing or different view point.
-
That's a good example of a neo-con self spin job in order to perpetuate a belief or bias about an opposing or different view point.
You're correct, OzmO.
Joe should focus on telling us why McCain is a good solution to America's problems, not why "Obama will do a worse job than Mccain".
And if he does insist on living in the negative, well, Obama has plenty of flaws. He can talk about any number of them. Falsifying quotes to make Obama look bad - well, that makes me distrust anything he says about the candidates.
-
"No threat" and "not posing a serious threat" are 2 different things.
How is this different? You know what escalation means? Or perhaps the name of America's version of the German General Staff is?
-
"No threat" and "not posing a serious threat" are 2 different things.
How is this different? You know what escalation means? Or perhaps the name of America's version of the German General Staff is?
I look at it this way:
You have a 44 magnum are facing 3 different Enemies one at the time.
- "Serious threat" enemy has a 357 magnum
- "Not a serious threat" enemy has a small stick
- "No threat" enemy has no weapon, no legs and no arms.
If you think about what he said, it is very different.
-
Sounds like hair splitting to me.
-
Sounds like hair splitting to me.
Your judgment on these issues is poor, you have proven that. Stick to gay marriage threads and using derogatory terms like "halfrican". The adults are talking.
-
Sounds like hair splitting to me.
No threat means no threat. Not a serious threat still means there is a threat.
Translate it to money:
I don't have very much money.
I don't have any money.
It's easy to interpret and propagandize something like that and manipulate people's emotions and beliefs. Especially the dumb ones.
-
No threat means no threat. Not a serious threat still means there is a threat.
Translate it to money:
I don't have very much money.
I don't have any money.
It's easy to interpret and propagandize something like that and manipulate people's emotions and beliefs. Especially the dumb ones.
If you listen to that clip, he was clearly trying to say Iran isn't a big deal. This is really a distinction without a difference.
I could say my son is no serious threat to kick my butt, or I could say he is no threat at all. He is a threat if I was drunk, half asleep, and drugged.
-
If you listen to that clip, he was clearly trying to say Iran isn't a big deal.
He was "clearly", "trying to say" something.
Something different from what he said?
What makes you an expert on mindreading? He said one thing, you somehow interpret it to "clearly" mean something else. I know you might honestly believe you know what he was "trying to say", but those of us based in reality choose to hear his actual words. Not words we "clearly" believe he was "trying to say".
-
If you listen to that clip, he was clearly trying to say Iran isn't a big deal. This is really a distinction without a difference.
I could say my son is no serious threat to kick my butt, or I could say he is no threat at all. He is a threat if I was drunk, half asleep, and drugged.
Iran is still a deal none the less. However, in comparison to Russia they are not a"big" deal. Lithuania, is not a deal at all.
Your son is still a threat, he can still hurt you. A soap dish can not by its self on its own accord. Obama didn't say Iran was a soap dish. Obama said Iran was your son.
Figuratively speaking of course. ;D
-
I look at it this way.
I love my mom, so I would never associate her with hate. So I would never even use 'hate' and 'mom' in the same sentence.
Much like 'Iran' and 'no threat' should not be used in the same sentence.
Obama created a huge cloud of doubt and uncertainty, doubt spells disaster.
-
I look at it this way.
I love my mom, so I would never associate her with hate. So I would never even use 'hate' and 'mom' in the same sentence.
Much like 'Iran' and 'no threat' should not be used in the same sentence.
Obama created a huge cloud of doubt and uncertainty, doubt spells disaster.
No doubt here, becuase i understand English ;D, AND I'm not all that big on Obama, so that doesn't cloud my understanding. HEHE.
BTW, is Iran your mom? Iran is not something that we see affectionately so Hate and Mom comparison doesn't work well.
-
Iran is still a deal none the less. However, in comparison to Russia they are not a"big" deal. Lithuania, is not a deal at all.
Your son is still a threat, he can still hurt you. A soap dish can not by its self on its own accord. Obama didn't say Iran was a soap dish. Obama said Iran was your son.
Figuratively speaking of course. ;D
Only time my son hurts me is with a hit and run sucker punch. I told him I'll be able to kick his butt when I'm 90 years old. :)
Every country is a "threat" in some way. But that's not the point he was trying to make.
-
Only time my son hurts me is with a hit and run sucker punch. I told him I'll be able to kick his butt when I'm 90 years old. :)
Every country is a "threat" in some way. But that's not the point he was trying to make.
The point he was trying to make is that compared to Russia, Iran is not that much of a threat. he didn't say: NO threat.
Comparison: You son = Iran, Chuck Liddell = Russia
If you were sleeping, your son could drop a brick on your head. If you were awake, Chuck Liddell could put you to sleep. ;D
-
that's not the point he was trying to make.
Again, you ignore his words and try to insert some other point "he was trying to make".
He never said iran was "no threat". Joe said he did.
-
Which is true, no threat,no serious threat or grave threat, depends on which day Obama speaks.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/is_iran_a_threat_or_not_senato.html
Within the space of a day, the candidate has changed his position.
May 18, 2008:
[If Iran] "tried to pose a serious threat to us they wouldn't . . . they wouldn't stand a chance."
May 19, 2008:
"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
-
Which is true, no threat,no serious threat or grave threat, depends on which day Obama speaks.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/is_iran_a_threat_or_not_senato.html
Within the space of a day, the candidate has changed his position.
May 18, 2008:
[If Iran] "tried to pose a serious threat to us they wouldn't . . . they wouldn't stand a chance."
May 19, 2008:
"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
Obama didn't say "no threat". Joe did.
Good stuff joker, perhaps you can post the surrounding words so that we can all get an idea of the context he was saying them in.
-
“Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust,” he said.”
I took the you tube links from
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2008m5d21-Obamas-CarterLike-Naivety
You can bet that Obama will be compared with Carter for the whole election campaign.
Including the Hostage crisis.
-
Nope hair splitting...minimizing the threat so he can sit down with these idiots...240 please just tell us all that u love the guy and vote for him.
-
The point he was trying to make is that compared to Russia, Iran is not that much of a threat. he didn't say: NO threat.
Comparison: You son = Iran, Chuck Liddell = Russia
If you were sleeping, your son could drop a brick on your head. If you were awake, Chuck Liddell could put you to sleep. ;D
He said Iran et al. "don't pose a serious threat to us" and that Iran is "tiny compared to Russia." If you listen to his clip and put the words in context, he was essentially trying to say they are harmless. At least that's my spin. :)
-
Nope hair splitting...minimizing the threat so he can sit down with these idiots...240 please just tell us all that u love the guy and vote for him.
Thank you.
-
Nope hair splitting...minimizing the threat so he can sit down with these idiots...240 please just tell us all that u love the guy and vote for him.
I don't like either candidate. There are lots of reasons to hate on obama, and I agree with many of them. I'm hoping a 3rd party guy emerges :)
-
"If you listen to that clip, he was clearly trying to say Iran isn't a big deal. This is really a distinction without a difference".
His body language, tone and words all convey the above. He was implying that Iran is not a significant threat. Well, many intelligent American leaders would disagree with that statement. In fact, a day later, after his campaign probably identified the issue, he changed his words to say Iran is a major threat. Any country that is lead by Islamic extremists that hate western nations and are working on nuclear capabilities are a potential major threat. Obama is intelligent but just too inexperienced to be our commander-in-chief.
-
"If you listen to that clip, he was clearly trying to say Iran isn't a big deal. This is really a distinction without a difference".
His body language, tone and words all convey the above. He was implying that Iran is not a significant threat. Well, many intelligent American leaders would disagree with that statement. In fact, a day later, after his campaign probably identified the issue, he changed his words to say Iran is a major threat. Any country that is lead by Islamic extremists that hate western nations and are working on nuclear capabilities are a potential major threat. Obama is intelligent but just too inexperienced to be our commander-in-chief.
Yep. I agree.
-
Nope hair splitting...minimizing the threat so he can sit down with these idiots...240 please just tell us all that u love the guy and vote for him.
No hair splitting?
Minimizing the threat so he can sit down with them?
Gates says we should talk to them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403553.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403553.html)
the chairmen of the Joint cheifs of Staff Agrees.
A number of senior U.S. military officials have emphasized the need for robust diplomacy toward Iran, while not ruling out the use of force. "I'm a big believer in resolving this diplomatically, economically and politically," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview with The Washington Post. "The military aspect of this, which I think is a very important part of the equation and must stay on the table," Mullen said, is an option of "last resort."
Petreaus Agrees we should talk to them.
And so does Obama.
Yet here we are trying to spin Obama's statements.
Now if that's not showing political bias against Obama i don't know what is. You guys are reaching.
and then we have that Senile Idiot, McCain, Saying we shouldn't? Or questioning Obama's Judgement when Gates and Generals, JCS says we should?
Oh brother.
PS. Are the 2 of the most powerful Generals in the US military and the Defense secretary doing the same thing as Obama when it comes to minimizing the threat so we can sit down with them?
OMG.
-
“Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust,” he said.”
I took the you tube links from
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2008m5d21-Obamas-CarterLike-Naivety
You can bet that Obama will be compared with Carter for the whole election campaign.
Including the Hostage crisis.
You guys crack me up.
Talk about taking it out of context...............ge ez Louise!
When he said, Iran poses no serious threat he was comparing it to the USSR of the 1980's. Then when he said it, on that clip, he comparing it to current conditions, without the the USSR and USA in a cold war.
-
the stuff i pointed out about Obama is far more tangible and real.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=215863.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=215863.0)
This stuff you guys pointed out here is stupid.
-
He said Iran et al. "don't pose a serious threat to us" and that Iran is "tiny compared to Russia." If you listen to his clip and put the words in context, he was essentially trying to say they are harmless. At least that's my spin. :)
Then he qualified his statements by putting in back into a current perspective.
-
Then he qualified his statements by putting in back into a current perspective.
You mean this qualification?
"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
-
You mean this qualification?
"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
Well has he not?
the wall fell 17 or something years ago.
When he didn't make it clear it was all based on statements comparing Iran to 1980's USSR.
-
Gates says we should talk to them.
the chairmen of the Joint cheifs of Staff Agrees.
A number of senior U.S. military officials have emphasized the need for robust diplomacy toward Iran
Petreaus Agrees we should talk to them
And so does Obama.
They're libs. They're all libs.
And when bush gave NKorea a million barrels of oil to stop shooting missiles at hawaii?
That was appeasement. They're all appeasing libs!
-
Well has he not?
the wall fell 17 or something years ago.
When he didn't make it clear it was all based on statements comparing Iran to 1980's USSR.
He was clear as mud (or vog >:().
They "don't pose a serious threat to us."
"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
Kinda hard to reconcile those two statements.
-
He was clear as mud (or vog >:().
They "don't pose a serious threat to us."
"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
Kinda hard to reconcile those two statements.
You're attempting to change the thread from:
"Joe said Obama said there was NO threat"
down to arguing about two unrelated statements, about varying levels of threat. Joe said zero threat. You're thread-jacking to protect him. shame on you.
-
He was clear as mud (or vog >:().
They "don't pose a serious threat to us."
"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
Kinda hard to reconcile those two statements.
I agree......... when you take them out of context.
-
I agree......... when you take them out of context.
Nah. In context, they are contradictory.
-
Nah. In context, they are contradictory.
How so?
Or are you just being silly?
-
How so?
Or are you just being silly?
Hard to tell huh? :D I was being serious.
I agree with shootfighter's comments:
"If you listen to that clip, he was clearly trying to say Iran isn't a big deal. This is really a distinction without a difference".
His body language, tone and words all convey the above. He was implying that Iran is not a significant threat. Well, many intelligent American leaders would disagree with that statement. In fact, a day later, after his campaign probably identified the issue, he changed his words to say Iran is a major threat. Any country that is lead by Islamic extremists that hate western nations and are working on nuclear capabilities are a potential major threat. Obama is intelligent but just too inexperienced to be our commander-in-chief.
-
Hard to tell huh? :D I was being serious.
I agree with shootfighter's comments:
Not the clip i saw.
He qualified his statements, correctly when he compared Iran to 1980's Russia, and in the second clip he compared Iran correctly when he compared their present threat.
And he's still correct when he pretty much says if Iran screwed with us now they'd get crushed.
It's pretty black and white :D, unless of course you have a pre-exsiting bias the VOG's your objectivity.
-
Not the clip i saw.
He qualified his statements, correctly when he compared Iran to 1980's Russia, and in the second clip he compared Iran correctly when he compared their present threat.
And he's still correct when he pretty much says if Iran screwed with us now they'd get crushed.
It's pretty black and white :D, unless of course you have a pre-exsiting bias the VOG's your objectivity.
I don't have the voggiest idea what you're talking about. :)
Seriously, I think we just have different interpretations of his comments, body language, etc.
-
It's funny that BB uses "body language" to tell us what Obama REALLY means when he speaks.
No need to listen to his words. beach bum is watching that man's hips ;)
-
I don't have the voggiest idea what you're talking about. :)
Seriously, I think we just have different interpretations of his comments, body language, etc.
I don't have the voggiest idea either. ;D
-
I don't have the voggiest idea either. ;D
:D
People who have lived here their entire lives say they've never seen it like this.
(http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2006/Oct/10/FPI610100338AR_b.jpg)