Another great moment away from the teleprompter

"what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

-Principal in Billy Madison
 
So the idea is, since you don't have any real issues to bash Obama with, you just pick something and pretend, oh, my gosh, what the what the?

Seriously. What is wrong with what he said?
 
Seems like a reasonable position for Obama to hold. This has to be easily the weakest criticism of Obama on the forums yet. This gives the face scratch smear a run for its money.
 
He said that private contractors serving overseas in place of US soldiers in combat situations is expensive and can cause problems. I agree that in some circumstances, contractors like Blackwater have their uses but for the most part, armed engagement is for the US military. Don't really see any issue here...... weak sauce is weak.
 
Here's another great moment away from the teleprompter. John McSquirm, on birth control, Viagra, and health care coverage thereof:
 
He rambled on and on about the use of private contractors and then delivered this weird thing about a "Monopoly on Violence". He appeared to be winging it and making it up as he went along for the most part.

There is no smear here, its just a guy talking out of his butt for a few minutes and then trying to wrap it up with something dumb.
 
corplinx said:
He rambled on and on about the use of private contractors and then delivered this weird thing about a "Monopoly on Violence". He appeared to be winging it and making it up as he went along for the most part.
Click to expand...
That rambling "on and on" was at least two different clips edited together with a fade to/from black. It looked to me as if, each time, he was responding to a question. The meandering in topic being due to a follow-up question. Of course, without context, all we have is speculation.


corplinx said:
There is no smear here, its just a guy talking out of his butt for a few minutes and then trying to wrap it up with something dumb.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to be ironic?
 
corplinx said:
He rambled on and on about the use of private contractors and then delivered this weird thing about a "Monopoly on Violence". He appeared to be winging it and making it up as he went along for the most part.

There is no smear here, its just a guy talking out of his butt for a few minutes and then trying to wrap it up with something dumb.
Click to expand...
Funny, I could easily summarize his position on the use of private contractors in war zones based on what he said. You can't?
 
corplinx said:
He rambled on and on about the use of private contractors and then delivered this weird thing about a "Monopoly on Violence".
Click to expand...

Although it sounded weird, Obama is at least partially correct. Max Weber gave a famed lecture in 1919 in which he discussed this principle:

Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence.
Click to expand...

Where Obama goes a bit further than Weber is that he seems to find this state of affairs right and proper, while Weber just remarked on it as fact. Of course, a conservative would probably argue that the right to use violence in certain instances (in self-defense, for instance) is a natural (or God-given) right. The state may have to enact laws to make that clear, but the state is not the grantor of that right.

Still, in practical terms Weber is right, and Obama is at least close. Extending that logic to the Iraq situation is muddled (which state has the right to commit violence in Iraq these days is very much a tough question).
 
corplinx said:
He rambled on and on about the use of private contractors and then delivered this weird thing about a "Monopoly on Violence". He appeared to be winging it and making it up as he went along for the most part.

There is no smear here, its just a guy talking out of his butt for a few minutes and then trying to wrap it up with something dumb.
Click to expand...

You mean he wasn't on a script? And he actually understands the philosophical underpinnings of what constitutes a nation-state as opposed to a bunch of guys who happen to have the capability of imposing their will through violence? I'm not seeing anything bad here. Sure, he could have given an answer that only took three words, like "military contractors bad", but I might be more inclined to vote for someone who might spend a few sentences on a complicated topic.
 
Meadmaker said:
You mean he wasn't on a script? And he actually understands the philosophical underpinnings of what constitutes a nation-state as opposed to a bunch of guys who happen to have the capability of imposing their will through violence? I'm not seeing anything bad here. Sure, he could have given an answer that only took three words, like "military contractors bad", but I might be more inclined to vote for someone who might spend a few sentences on a complicated topic.
Click to expand...
Ugh! This is the 2008 USA presidential elections forum. How dare you use logic and reason!
 
Going on about using contractors is mostly just pandering to left leaning conspiracy nuts. That is all. What are we supposed to rebut about "uhhh, contractors make good money and special forces become contractors when the leave the force instead of working at mcdonalds, THAT JUST NAWT RITE".

Dawkins wrote about how some ideas are on the surface so silly that they don't merit debate. I find much of the ill-informed and conspiratorial talk about contractors in that category and I don't take politicians seriously who pander to it.

In another week, Obama will be his hand over his heart, wearing a lapel pin twice the current size, and talk about how great it is that our troops are so well trained that they are highly sought out for private security used for security functions overseas.

Armed forces blow up Fallujah, contractors guard people or things- wait, I promised I wouldn't get into this garbage.

Now, are contractors overpaid? That is a rational argument. Are they being used for functions we should be using military for? Are we using military for functions we should be contracting for? There are many legitimate issues but I just listened to a politician flounder for minutes on end and say nothing really and now I am having to read his apologists' excuses for it.

I need an aspirin.
 
Last edited:
corplinx said:
Are they being used for functions we should be using military for?
Click to expand...
Obama would say yes. In fact, he did.

He didn't say that they were overpaid, as such, but he did say it was destructive to morale to have people doing military style jobs while earning civilian style wages. He noted that it created an incentive to leave the military and take up mercenary contractor jobs.
 
corplinx said:
There are many legitimate issues but I just listened to a politician flounder for minutes on end and say nothing really and now I am having to read his apologists' excuses for it.
Click to expand...
Let me see if I have this straight:

The candidate you don't like expresses his position on a topic and explains why he holds that position is pandering and not really saying anything. Those who explain to you why what that candidate says is relevant and valid position are excusing apologists, even if they are very vocal that they don't plan to vote for that candidate.

Got it. Thanks, corp.
 
Upchurch said:
Those who explain to you why what that candidate says is relevant and valid position are excusing apologists, even if they are very vocal that they don't plan to vote for that candidate.

Got it. Thanks, corp.
Click to expand...


You are so deluded you are turning what Brainster said about the Monopoly of Violence comment into a blanket apologetic. I think you've been blowing on that tuba too hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom