|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 5, 2011 11:11:03 GMT -8
It is said that one can learn a lot about a person by examining the character of those with whom that person associates. In the case of Barack Obama, it is therefore worth the effort to take a look at Samantha Power. So the answers to the questions posed in the thread title are (A) Yes and (B) Someone who is in a position to encourage Barack Obama to move in directions that the vast majority of Americans would find disturbing. Here are two provocative paragraphs from Kurtz's piece. . . Power might best be characterized as a pragmatic radical. Her outlook is “post-American,” an excellent example of what John Fonte has called “transnational progressivism.” Power means to slowly dismantle American sovereignty in favor of a constraining and ultimately redistributive regime of international law. It’s an odd position for a member of the president’s National Security Council, but then Power is no ordinary NSC staffer.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The important thing about Power is not that she favors humanitarian intervention, but that she seeks to use such military actions to transform America by undoing its sovereignty and immobilizing it, Gulliver-style, in an unfriendly international system.www.nationalreview.com/articles/263872/samantha-power-s-power-stanley-kurtz?page=1AzWm PS: I await, with the usual excited anticipation, Bob's typically testy response, a response which will almost certainly lack any credible substance beyond the notion that a background in city planning qualifies one to find fault with intellectual arguments offered by others. In addition, I feel confident that Bob's response will include, perhaps even consist principally of, an attack on the author of the linked piece. (I hope that was not too harsh.) |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 5, 2011 12:43:08 GMT -8
I read one other article on the radical Samantha Power. You may have a long wait to get anything of substance out of =Bob. Anyone who reads this and is able to think and reason will just shake their heads in disgust at Obama and those he keeps council with. You might get a couple non-thinkers to respond.  |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 5, 2011 14:18:24 GMT -8
What now? Preemptive personal attacks on =bob Come on now  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 5, 2011 18:18:20 GMT -8
What now? Preemptive personal attacks on =bob Come on now I'm afraid so. I am suitably ashamed of myself!  However, I assure you that I have been the recipient of such responses like about 500 times. At some point one tires of having someone so obviously intelligent missing the point with regularity. In any event I vow never again to lose control of my emotions! AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Apr 5, 2011 20:42:04 GMT -8
It is said that one can learn a lot about a person by examining the character of those with whom that person associates. In the case of Barack Obama, it is therefore worth the effort to take a look at Samantha Power. So the answers to the questions posed in the thread title are (A) Yes and (B) Someone who is in a position to encourage Barack Obama to move in directions that the vast majority of Americans would find disturbing. Here are two provocative paragraphs from Kurtz's piece. . . Power might best be characterized as a pragmatic radical. Her outlook is “post-American,” an excellent example of what John Fonte has called “transnational progressivism.” Power means to slowly dismantle American sovereignty in favor of a constraining and ultimately redistributive regime of international law. It’s an odd position for a member of the president’s National Security Council, but then Power is no ordinary NSC staffer.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The important thing about Power is not that she favors humanitarian intervention, but that she seeks to use such military actions to transform America by undoing its sovereignty and immobilizing it, Gulliver-style, in an unfriendly international system.www.nationalreview.com/articles/263872/samantha-power-s-power-stanley-kurtz?page=1AzWm PS: I await, with the usual excited anticipation, Bob's typically testy response, a response which will almost certainly lack any credible substance beyond the notion that a background in city planning qualifies one to find fault with intellectual arguments offered by others. In addition, I feel confident that Bob's response will include, perhaps even consist principally of, an attack on the author of the linked piece. (I hope that was not too harsh.) Fact of the matter is that we have been heading in this direction for a long long time. The only aberration was the imaginary war in Iraq that need not have been. What a horrible mess of things we made there! |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 6, 2011 21:10:50 GMT -8
It is said that one can learn a lot about a person by examining the character of those with whom that person associates. In the case of Barack Obama, it is therefore worth the effort to take a look at Samantha Power. So the answers to the questions posed in the thread title are (A) Yes and (B) Someone who is in a position to encourage Barack Obama to move in directions that the vast majority of Americans would find disturbing. Here are two provocative paragraphs from Kurtz's piece. . . Power might best be characterized as a pragmatic radical. Her outlook is “post-American,” an excellent example of what John Fonte has called “transnational progressivism.” Power means to slowly dismantle American sovereignty in favor of a constraining and ultimately redistributive regime of international law. It’s an odd position for a member of the president’s National Security Council, but then Power is no ordinary NSC staffer.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The important thing about Power is not that she favors humanitarian intervention, but that she seeks to use such military actions to transform America by undoing its sovereignty and immobilizing it, Gulliver-style, in an unfriendly international system.www.nationalreview.com/articles/263872/samantha-power-s-power-stanley-kurtz?page=1AzWm PS: I await, with the usual excited anticipation, Bob's typically testy response, a response which will almost certainly lack any credible substance beyond the notion that a background in city planning qualifies one to find fault with intellectual arguments offered by others. In addition, I feel confident that Bob's response will include, perhaps even consist principally of, an attack on the author of the linked piece. (I hope that was not too harsh.) Fact of the matter is that we have been heading in this direction for a long long time. The only aberration was the imaginary war in Iraq that need not have been. What a horrible mess of things we made there! One can only hope that after a few (5? 10?) years it will be clear that Iraq is a much better place than under Saddam or his psycho sons. I tend to think that such will be the case, but we won't know for sure right away. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 15, 2011 15:50:02 GMT -8
It is said that one can learn a lot about a person by examining the character of those with whom that person associates. In the case of Barack Obama, it is therefore worth the effort to take a look at Samantha Power. So the answers to the questions posed in the thread title are (A) Yes and (B) Someone who is in a position to encourage Barack Obama to move in directions that the vast majority of Americans would find disturbing. Here are two provocative paragraphs from Kurtz's piece. . . Power might best be characterized as a pragmatic radical. Her outlook is “post-American,” an excellent example of what John Fonte has called “transnational progressivism.” Power means to slowly dismantle American sovereignty in favor of a constraining and ultimately redistributive regime of international law. It’s an odd position for a member of the president’s National Security Council, but then Power is no ordinary NSC staffer.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The important thing about Power is not that she favors humanitarian intervention, but that she seeks to use such military actions to transform America by undoing its sovereignty and immobilizing it, Gulliver-style, in an unfriendly international system.www.nationalreview.com/articles/263872/samantha-power-s-power-stanley-kurtz?page=1AzWm PS: I await, with the usual excited anticipation, Bob's typically testy response, a response which will almost certainly lack any credible substance beyond the notion that a background in city planning qualifies one to find fault with intellectual arguments offered by others. In addition, I feel confident that Bob's response will include, perhaps even consist principally of, an attack on the author of the linked piece. (I hope that was not too harsh.) All you'll get out of me is "Yawn" because all you offer is a syllogistic argument based upon the premise that "it is said" and a couple of quotes from the right rather than making your own argument based upon your own research. But BTW, Will, I base my arguments upon my MA in political Science, not my time spent being a planner. But then, I suppose a life spent teaching German or whatever language it was you taught, makes you an expert on international relations. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 15, 2011 15:50:30 GMT -8
I read one other article on the radical Samantha Power. You may have a long wait to get anything of substance out of =Bob. Anyone who reads this and is able to think and reason will just shake their heads in disgust at Obama and those he keeps council with. You might get a couple non-thinkers to respond. Yawn. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 18, 2011 11:27:34 GMT -8
I read one other article on the radical Samantha Power. You may have a long wait to get anything of substance out of =Bob. Anyone who reads this and is able to think and reason will just shake their heads in disgust at Obama and those he keeps council with. You might get a couple non-thinkers to respond. Yawn. =Bob There is one now! |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 19, 2011 14:49:08 GMT -8
There is one now! When I read a boring troll I tend to yawn. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 19, 2011 14:51:08 GMT -8
Fact of the matter is that we have been heading in this direction for a long long time. The only aberration was the imaginary war in Iraq that need not have been. What a horrible mess of things we made there! One can only hope that after a few (5? 10?) years it will be clear that Iraq is a much better place than under Saddam or his psycho sons. I tend to think that such will be the case, but we won't know for sure right away. AzWm So what? Are you arguing that we should go to war in every country that has a brutal dictator? If that's the case, why aren't we at war with Saudi Arabia? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 19, 2011 20:16:42 GMT -8
One can only hope that after a few (5? 10?) years it will be clear that Iraq is a much better place than under Saddam or his psycho sons. I tend to think that such will be the case, but we won't know for sure right away. AzWm So what? Are you arguing that we should go to war in every country that has a brutal dictator? If that's the case, why aren't we at war with Saudi Arabia? =Bob Uh, no, Bob. Such a conclusion is totally unwarranted by anything I posted. My comment refers solely to Iraq. As a matter of fact, it seems more and more obvious that invading another country, no matter how good the reasons for doing so may appear at the beginning, is highly problematic to say the least. AzWm |
|
