What salient points? This is your thread. Why don’t you actually make an effort to take a position and defend it on your own?
But it’s not nearly as funny either.
Ha ha, racism is funny.
Because there are no salient points there.
The first criticism is that Obama had different expectations of the trip than LonesomePolecat thought he should, and the LonesomePolecat thinks that’s an “embarassment”. As I don’t give the tiniest little gaseous emission what LonesomePolecat is embarassed by, I am not concerned about this.
The next was that Obama bowed improperly. I dunno if he actually did, but let’s run with it - this matters if “bowing properly” is important. As I’m not a partisan nitpicker, and because it looks like a war didn’t break out over it, I have a hard time being concerned about this too.
And then we’re treated to LonesomePolecat’s opinions about what Obama “needed”. This is actually a good start - this thread desperately needs some kind of metric for what the expected “accomplishments” of the trip are supposed to be (which is why I asked for one earlier). The thing is, though, that LonesomePolecat’s expectations are delusional, and it’s quite certain that Obama never intended to achieve a single one of them, any more than he intended to bring back the Chinese leaders’ heads back on pikes. So what we basically have here is the strawman metric from LonesomePolecat’s mind. That it wasn’t met doesn’t concern me either.
So yeah. LonesomePolecat’s exectations of this trip, and Obama, are ludicrous, despite his so obvsiously reasonable and nonpartisan perspective. They’re not worth even mentioning. (Aside from his racist slur, that is.)
Ha, ha, Diogenes can’t come up with an intelligent response.
Intelligent response to what? Your witty racial slur, or your list of your ridiculous, Michael Savage talking points.
And yet, you did. You have taken the “negative” standpoint on LonesomePolecat’s statements. Thank you for engaging in this debate. Well done.
I did because you specifically asked me to. I won’t wash windows or change diapers on cue, but I can stand to respond to idiocy, if requested to.
ETA: And I don’t qualify shooting him down as “debate”. Debate takes two, and his post didn’t rate that high.
And I thank you for your reply. Instead of snark and smarm you actually crafted a reply to the arguments being presented. Thanks. We need more of that and less rancor.
Are you saying this trip was a roaring success? Considering that gas is all we’ve gotten from you so far, suppose you tell us what he achieved.
If it was just me, I wonder how it is that the lamestream media thought it was pretty inappropriate, too.
I find it odd that you seem to believe you can somehow determine my “metric” (that buzz word is getting pretty corny) is somehow delusional when you have not established any “metric” of your own by which Obama’s farcical misery tour should be judged.
It is vastly amusing that you believe your take on this tour is somehow impartial and objective, especially since you haven’t given us any idea of how we’re supposed to judge the results of this tour.
Slur, shmur. We need to laugh that miserable riverboat minstrel out of office as quickly as possible.
You didn’t shoot down anything, bub. You just snarled for a few paragraphs.
You didn’t offer anything to shoot at. Obama bowed? Who gives a shit?
Naah. You clearly have no idea what diplomacy is, so it would go over your head.
So?
Your metric was delusional because it had no relation to reality. No sane person would expect Obama to march in and have the foreign leaders licking his boots in a matter of minutes. You characterized the Chinese politely refusing to immidiately concede everything, and proceeding to state their own perspective, as a lack of respect. (And you seem to think that Clinton and Bush commanded absolute obedience from non-allied nations, which makes me wonder what you’re smoking.)
What happened on the trip was called “diplomacy”. You may not have heard of it. You should look it up.
Actually, that makes me impartial and objective by definition - I have not taken a “side” at all.
Wow. You’re something else.
As far as I’m concerned I put your entire post in the incinerator and reduced it to ash, roasted on the flames of it’s own burning stupidity. But I did that with an analysis based in reality, so you might not have recognized it happening.
I understand there are drugs for treating projection nowadays.
I’m adopting this as my signature.
I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or not.
So that makes it ok? The last time I checked, shrubs are green. That’s hurtful!
You have added exactly zero to this thread (as have I, except pointing out your party line Obama-stumping). However, you claim to want a topic to debate. Read everything below the Buckwheat comment, and there are your debate points.
Your first post added nothing and was combative. Since then, you’ve only come in to tell the OP how he incorrectly posted for a debate. Fine. I disagree, but fine.
Now that you have some points in front of you, debate them, or quit typing and get out of the thread.
I’m not sad, I’m holding my breath.
“Go away son, your’e bothering me.”
Foghorn Leghorn
If you’re referring to the stuff I responded to, there’s not much there to debate. “No, Obama didn’t go in and conquer China, enslaving them to his iron will like a white republican would surely have. Most of us aren’t surprised that this didn’t happen,” is all the response it really merits.
So there’s still nothing to debate in this thread, except possibly the debate about whether the debate in this thread is debateworthy.
That’s debatable.
Sorry. Could NOT help myself. Happy Thanksgiving y’all.