“A lot of voters… when you talk about experience with respect to Obama, that’s code for people’s continuing uncomfortableness about his race… a lot of times when people talk about worries about his experience, they’re really touching against their difficulty with the fact that he’s an African-American.”

Seanithan,

The quote you gave was from the second presidential debate – by your own admission.

That particular debate took place on Oct. 7, 2008 I believe?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN07477465

The quote I gave was from the democrat primary debates – from around August 1, 2007.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html

Again, it’s an iterative argument where initial statements are “massaged” over time to change the initial meaning to something more palatable.

I’m done stirring this particular pot now….

Socialists believe in state healthcare and education – obama does not, obama believes in health insurance where the government pays for treatment in a mix of facilities and private education as part of a capitalist economy.

Socialists believe in a mixed economy (as opposed to Communists who beleieve in total government/public ownership) where a combination of production/resources/transit/energy are owned and operated by the government on behalf of the public. Obama – as far as i am aware, is not in favour of nationalising the energy industries/natural resources or means of production in the united states.

What Obama is guilty of is favouring a progressive tax system – which even (small c) Conservative parties in the majority of Europe are in support of, although by many standards most of the centre-right parties in Europe (using our spectrum) would be Democrat affiliates using the American spectrum.

But – Obama is not a socialist, end of story – support of progressive taxation is not the sole tenat of socialism.

That is the exact quote from the 2nd Presidential election, taken from CNN.com. There’s an if there, I’m pretty sure.

I realize common sense depends on one viewpoint, thus I’m stating mine. I didn’t presume to speak for the world.

Obama never qualified his statement with any “IF” – I gave you the exact quote, but instead of admitting you have been misled (or are deliberately attempting to mislead) you continue to qualify your statements (and supposed quotes of Obama) with one baseless new iteration after another.

If there is such a thing as an unbiased voter around here, they would do well to observe your behaviour closely so they can identify and discount such iterative arguments in the future.

Oh, and what passes for “common sense” depends entirely on one’s viewpoint – again, your post being an object lesson. I think I’ll stick with Kissinger on this one….

Kissinger is a fucking nut, but also he said this..

“Most foreign policies that history has marked highly, in whatever country, have been originated by leaders who were opposed by experts.”

My friends do exist and this “dirt” was released. I read it on a few news sources, but I can’t find them now. It was a while back and I don’t remember where they were.

Anyways, like I said regarding Pakistan…

He said if (and only if) Al Qaeda is in our sights in Pakistan and the Pakistani government refuses to act/cooperate we will ONLY THEN enter Pakistan and ONLY THEN attack ONLY the Al Qaeda forces that are existing there. I don’t see a problem with that.

Neo: I don’t think he’s more competent at all. I’ve heard no policy from him at all, just repeated insults. I see him attempt to explain policy but as soon as that starts he pauses to make more insults. Honestly watching the debates was painful. Questions were rarely answered on the repub side.

When a party stoops to non-stop personal attacks in place of actual debate I find it hard to find that person credible.

The Biden quote just states that he agrees with Obama’s statement but says it’s not the place to talk about it. Which is his opinion.

Obama said that we’d address the issue with tough diplomacy first before taking military action. That’s what he meant by “if Pakistan doesn’t cooperate with us in the capture of Al Qaeda” (im paraphrasing). He’s basically saying that if they knowingly harbor terrorists that we will cross their boundaries to eliminate them. Once again, this makes sense to me.