It was actually a subtle slam against the Obama administration for not doing enough. I thought it was pretty clear but I guess not. Many times the written word fails to communicate attitude.
So would you have been in favor of Obama spending more time/money/lives to fight a global problem or are you saying they didnāt do enough with what they had?
I would have been in favor of Obama gaining respect and fear from our enemies. Intervening at the proper times in certain circumstances that called for it. For example, calling Isis the āJV teamā was a horrendous mistake. He should have been far more aggressive with them BEFORE they gained their sick little following (60,000 strong now?). Be vigilant and act like a President, not a laid back, chilled out Professor. There are many examples where the US should have acted and didnāt. There are other examples where he acted and shouldnāt have. Iraq for example, not only did we pull out too soon we actually told our enemies when we were going to pull out. This then helped create more terrorism. Does it ever help to let the enemy know what you are going to do in advance?
Lookā¦I am not going to make a long list of Obamaās foreign policy failures as it might give a couple of posters anxiety attacksāHa. Suffice it to say that ā¦umā¦I want to put this delicately. Obama was not a good foreign policy President. The history is only too clear on that point.
Iām not talking about policy differences - Iām talking about standards in conduct and behavior.
Now, I understand the problem - you simply struggle to understand what standards in conduct and behavior even are.
Example: Democratic President uses constitutionally dubious executive order to create a liberal policy, and a Republican President uses a constitutionally dubious executive order to create a conservative policy.
Zeb says the Democratic President was bad and wrong to do that, but the Republican President was ok and good - why? Because a conservative policy was advanced!
Wrong answer. Both Presidents were wrong, because the real wrong was the fact that both of them used power they didnāt have, and thatās a bigger problem than whether a policy you like it didnāt like got created.
This is the kind of stuff Iām talking about - standards in conduct and behavior, double standards (āwhen you do it, itās āHateā, when I do it, itās notā). It appears you donāt understand these kinds of issues.
Hereās where you start getting insulting and itās really not needed.
Obviously, I am not in favor of any politician using dubious means. But to add to your little scenario. When the conservative does it at least I benefitted. And if the conservative did it to undo what the liberal did it makes just a bit more sense, no? Either way, I can appreciate the benefit while still not admiring the methods. Do you understand the shades of grey in politics? There is black and whiteā¦but
Question for you: Do politicians on both sides abuse their power on occasion? Do they ever lie to reach an end that could not have been reached otherwise? And my follow up is how does that make you feel if and when it occurs?
Itās not an insult- itās merely a recognition that you struggle to see a greater good beyond basic political benefit. And thatās been a source of confusion in our exchanges - I assume every person, liberal or conservative or otherwise, appreciates that concept.[quote=āzeb1, post:270, topic:229190ā]
Obviously, I am not in favor of any politician using dubious means. But to add to your little scenario. When the conservative does it at least I benefitted. And if the conservative did it to undo what the liberal did it makes just a bit more sense, no? Either way, I can appreciate the benefit while still not admiring the methods. Do you understand the shades of grey in politics? There is black and whiteā¦but
[/quote]
This illustrates my point above perfectly. [quote=āzeb1, post:270, topic:229190ā]
And my follow up is how does that make you feel if and when it occurs?
[/quote]
As you can see from my posts, I criticize without regard to party or partisanship in there kinds of matters.
This is such a god mode example of why IQ is useless in determining comparability with cultures. N Korea and S Korea residents are genetically identical yet one is a culture of repressed backwater ārevere our leader as a Godā while the other is a thriving country.
I get all of that, but itās in no way what I was asking. Iām asking if you would have been in favor of Obama spending more lives/time/money than he did OR if you think he spent an appropriate amount and he didnāt accomplish enough with what he had to work with.
Your argument has been, time and time again, that IQ is the best objective indicator of social/cultural compatibility. If N Korea and S Korea are genetically identical, and by your logic, have the same average IQ, wouldnāt they both be equally compatible with America?
And if theyāre controlled by an evil ruling class, they are no longer compatible with other cultures, right? So your environment can and does overrule any potential IQ in regards to culture compatibility?