BS: War in 2009?

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 07:28 PM

Well, bb, you can make fun of my "Bobert Facts" but yer "bb facts" fall squarely in the middle of what is know as mythology...

Proclamation = Mythology...

That is all you have done here, bb... You have proclaimed... You say you are a scientist??? Well there are hypothesises which are "proclamations" and nothing more and then there is emperical evidence... That's what make science stuff work... Or not... So far you are stuck in the hypothesis stage whcih falls sorely shy of the evidence phase of science...

In other words, you are blowin' a bunch of partisan smoke...

Try another tack... If you need a jump start, I'd recommend buyin' up a few recent issues of the National Observer... That all they do for a livin'...

(((BeardedBruce Gives Birth to His Own Grandfather"...)))

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 07:47 PM

Was that Bobert facts or brain farts?

Two years for Mac and 6 months for Obama as per Joe, the foreign relations expert:

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America."

"Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"He's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen."

"We're going to face a major international challenge. Because they're going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him. And they're going to find out this guy's got steel in his spine

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 07:57 PM

Well, Sawz...

How about finishing the quote???

Yeah, mighty easy to take someone outta context...

So, I challenge you to go back and finish what Biden said...

But you won't because it doesn't fit your little sicko partisan world...

And you can take that to the bank... The odds in Vegas are 10,000 to 1 that you won't finish the quote because it makes the entire partisan bullcrap of yours and yer buddies look like, ahhhhh, partisan bullcrap....

Finish the quote, Sawz, or shut the "F" up...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 07:58 PM

Still waitin'....

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 08:36 PM

Cat gotcher tongue, Sawz???

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 08:57 PM

((((Yawn)))

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 09:09 PM

Well Mr Bobert Sir Don't beat me no mo but I can't find it. If you will show me where it is at, I will post it. I don't want no Hillbilly ass whuppin' from you, please.

During my unfruitful search I did find this in the New York Times where O was doing damage control fer Joe:

Obama Chides Biden for "Rhetorical Flourishes"
By Jeff Zeleny

RICHMOND, Va. – With his candidacy already buoyed by how voters believe he would handle the economic crisis, Senator Barack Obama on Wednesday sought to turn the focus of the presidential race back to national security and the threats facing America.

"A period of transition in a new administration is always one where we have to be vigilant, we have to be careful," Mr. Obama said. "We have to be mindful that as we pass the baton in this democracy that others don't take advantage of it – that's true whether it's myself or Senator McCain."

A new line of criticism from the Republican ticket that Mr. Obama is not ready for the presidency has been fueled this week by comments from Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic vice presidential candidate. Mr. Biden told supporters at a Seattle fund-raiser on Sunday that if Mr. Obama were elected, the world's leaders would surely test him as a young American president, just as they did President John F. Kennedy.

Mr. Obama gently chided his running-mate, saying: "I think Joe, sometimes, engages in rhetorical flourishes."

"But I think that his core point is that the next administration is going to be tested, regardless of who it is. The next administration is going to be inheriting a host of really big problems," Mr. Obama said. "The question is will the next president meet that test by moving America in a new direction, by sending a clear signal to the rest of the world that we are no longer about bluster and unilateralism and ideology?"

Mr. Obama said that while the economic crisis has dominated the national conversation, a range of international challenges also faced the next president, so he convened a meeting of his top national security advisers for a briefing here. Mr. Biden joined the closed-door session by telephone from Colorado, where he was campaigning on Wednesday.

Mr. Obama said that he did not convene the meeting of his national security team in response to the criticism that has stirred since Mr. Biden's comments were reported. He said it was simply an appropriate moment for him to receive a briefing about the developments across the globe since the economic crisis dominated the conversation.

"We actually had this planned about two to three weeks ago, and it was prompted by the fact that we focused single-mindedly on the financial crisis," Mr. Obama said. "I think it's very important at a time when we are so focused on the economy – and rightly so – that we not lose sight of the fact that we remain threatened and that there are a whole host of international challenges that we're going to have to deal with."

Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said the Obama national security meeting was nothing more than an attempt to gloss over the comments from Mr. Biden.
"It's not leadership for Barack Obama to promise to be straight with Americans, only to dismiss serious statements and concern from his own running mate as simple rhetorical flourishes," Mr. Bounds said in a statement. "Joe Biden guaranteed a generated international crisis if Barack Obama is elected, and a smile-for-the-cameras press conference isn't going to mitigate the risk of an Obama presidency."

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 09:17 PM

Come on, Sawz... With the reems and reems of right wingerd blogacrap you post every day, you are tellin' me that you don't have the pudder knowledge to find Biden's complete remarks???

Come on, man... That is bull... Hey, you posted the rightie bull and now it's time to get with the rest of the quote... Dig deeper... It ain't like Holy Grail stuff here... Maybe you could just Google in "Half truthts that McCain has told"... Yeah, that would be a start...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 10:30 PM

Well gee if you caint trust the New York times who can you trust?

Are they lying about what Obama said?

I didn't see you posting all of what Liddy said.

Sides what difference does it make what Mac said. He is out of tha piccure now.

Now we need to shine the big 5000 million candle power spotlight on what Obama and Joe said so we can whup a big impeachment movement. And find some dingba er courageous Barney Firfe type person to whine incessantly about it.

First of all he has pissed away all that money that could have been spent on education for his personal needs.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 09:45 PM

Day One: Obama faces a Cold War threat and a warning from Israel
By Joe Murphy
Last updated at 1:39 AM on 07th November 2008


Barack Obama was confronting a looming international crisis just hours after his White House election triumph.

The U.S. President-elect faced a triple threat with Russia, Israel and Afghanistan all threatening to test his mettle.

Locked away in his Chicago home, Mr Obama received his first national security intelligence briefing yesterday as he wrestled with appointments for his Cabinet.
He ventured out twice, once to visit his local gym and then his downtown offices.

Each time he was escorted by a convoy of black vehicles carrying heavily armed secret service agents.

Aides said he planned no public appearances until later in the week.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was first to lay down a challenge to America's new leader - by increasing tension in a stand off reminiscent of the Cold War.
In a provocative speech from the Kremlin, he threatened to base warheads along the Polish border if Mr Obama goes forward with a Bush administration plan to create a missile shield in Eastern Europe.

Then Israel warned last night that the new U.S. Commander-in-Chief's campaign claim that he was ready to open talks with Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of weakness.

After eight years of staunch support from President Bush, the Israelis are now watching Mr Obama closely - even though he does not take power until January - looking for indicators as to how he will handle the nuclear threat from Tehran.

'We live in a neighbourhood in which dialogue - in a situation where you have brought sanctions and you then shift to dialogue - is liable to be interpreted as weakness,' said Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni.
Asked if she supported any U.S. talks with Iran, she quickly said: 'The answer is no.'
In a step that will further increase Israel's anxiety about Obama, Tehran announced last night that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had broken a 29-year tradition and sent his congratulations to the President-elect - the first time an Iranian leader has offered such wishes since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Ahmadinejad congratulated the Democrat on 'attracting the majority of voters in the election'.

He said he hoped Obama will 'use the opportunity to serve the (American) people and leave a good name for history' during his term in office.
Iran and the U.S. have had no formal diplomatic relations since 1979 when militant Iranian students held 52 Americans captive 444 days.
President Bush has repeatedly clashed with Tehran over its nuclear program and its opposition to the U.S.-led invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai demanded that Mr Obama 'put an end to civilian casualties' by changing U.S. military tactics to avoid airstrikes in the war on the Taliban.

He spoke out after seven wedding party guests were accidentally killed by an American airstrike in the southern Kandahar province. Afghan officials said last night 13 gunmen were killed in the attack.
Mr Obama has vowed to switch the U.S. military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and is reportedly planning to ask Britain to send 3,000 extra troops to bolster extra American forces in the region.
But his aides fear a public backlash if he moves swiftly in Afghanistan before acting on his pledge to start a withdrawal from Iraq.

Gordon Brown became one of the first world leaders to congratulate Obama in a ten-minute telephone call last night. Aides said they discussed Obama's plans for a phased withdrawal from Iraq and his commitment to boost forces in Afghanistan.
Speaking from the South Lawn of the White House, President Bush said he would be meeting Mr Obama next week and is making 'unprecedented efforts' to make a smooth transition during his final 74 days in office.

As if the instant foreign policy tests were not enough, Mr Obama was also facing more economic problems with the Dow Jones Index dropping for a second successive day.
Wall Street greeted his election win by plunging nearly 500 points on Wednesday and it was down again by 274 points in afternoon trading.
Enlarge    Regime change: Mr Obama has offered the role of Chief of Staff to controversial Rahm Emanuel in his first selection for the new administration

While new presidents often take weeks before naming their Cabinet, Mr Obama was quick out of the blocks yesterday, offering the chief-of-staff job to tough-talking congressman Rahm Emanuel, a veteran of the Clinton administration, and more appointments are expected next week.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 10:29 PM

Sorry, BB, a "looming international crisis"? That sounds an awful lot like a direct quote from "The Headline Writer's Book of Purple Prose".

And I'm afraid you won't be able to convict Obama of dereliction of duty unless Bush turns all his power over to Obama tomorrow.

I'm sure we all agree it would be far better for the country if he did so.

But unfortunately it looks like we're stuck with GWB til January. Perhaps you can convince GWB to go back to Crawford tomorrow for good. Let us know how it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 07:39 AM

One thing we now know about Obama, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that he is a visionary. He finds ways of doing things that nobody expects or anticipates. That's how he won the election. Expect him to come up with solutions to foreign policy issues that have not been anticipated by anyone, and don't be surprised if they cause all of the above articulated concerns to simply become non-issues.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 10:26 AM

I do so expect. But the truth is, he IS having to gear up to an international crisis. This is not anything new--we're been facing international crises since 1774 almost without let.

A

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 11:31 AM

We already have war in 2009. Two of them. Both of them launched by George Bush. Both of them unnecessary, in my opinion, and both of them unjustified. Let's hope that we see a beginning to ending them ASAP.

It will be Obama's unpleasant task now to deal with the catastrophic mess that Bush has left him. I wish him the best of luck, because it won't be easy.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 03:28 PM

"Sorry, BB, a "looming international crisis"? That sounds an awful lot like a direct quote from "The Headline Writer's Book of Purple Prose"."

Since I did not write it, but merely bring it up in support of my original posting, I fail to see why the style gets you so upset. If the style is to be the sole means by which you judge comments, you had best let others here know that you have established yourself as God, and Amos, Bobert, and others need no longer dare have opinions.



"And I'm afraid you won't be able to convict Obama of dereliction of duty unless Bush turns all his power over to Obama tomorrow."

NOT what I am trying to do- I have stated that there would be an increased chance ( from 10 to 30%) OF A WAR IN WHICH TWO SIDES USED WMD, should the Democratic candidate win this election.

So, LH, the present wars do NOT qualify, and I have not yet "won" my "bet".

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 05:22 PM

There is no way of winning (or losing) a bet that is based on a 30% probability forecast.

Things either happen or they don't. If they do...or if they don't....neither way would prove the initial assertion of a 30% probability.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 06:14 PM

LH:

"Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:26 PM

Dick-

If I win, the money will not be worth anything.


How would you account for a 30% chance of war? Who decides ( actual discrete value will be either 0 or 100%)?"

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 06:47 PM

Sure, sure....but one does not really bet for the money, one bets for the satisfaction of being right and saying to the other guy, "There, see? I told you so." ;-)

I know this going right back to my primary school days. It's all about proving the other guy wrong. The money is just to provide some material risk on top of the possibility of humiliation...kind of like putting the cherry on top of the cake. Betting is a game of ego enhancement at the expense of the other guy.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 10:00 PM

BB--

You seem to be the one who does not enjoy having his chain pulled. I hold to my view that your quote is in fact purple prose of the most entertaining variety.   I salute you for providing it. And I look forward to more.

As Amos points out, we have had "looming international crises" since about 1774.

Which makes the term--you guessed it--meaningless.