Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
You see nothing wrong with appeasement for peace? When did we have peace in the world, without oppression and dictatorships, as a result of appeasement?
About the same time we had peace in the world without oppression and dictatorships as a result of bluster, saber rattling, and wars of dubious choice?
...First of all I would cut out all this anti-Obama stuff because first
of all, its ineffective, with marches that have Obama dressed in
african garb with maxist, socialism etc written on cards...
That hurts my international image as a viable, intellectual party.
It insults potential countries I want to do business with and
influence ... and it make me look like a party of dumb bunnies.
What I would do is start co-opting victories Obama make, as
a Republican idea. And have a lot of writers NOT go in lock-step
but cast a broad net of possible steps the Administration can do,
and when he does, Claim it as a victory for AMERICA and
make sure that a Republican/Conservative name stay in front
of the event...
RFSilver, why do you think being across-the-board anti-Obama everything is not an effective Republican strategy? ...smile...
I enjoy asking you questions and agree with Rare's assessment... a young, fresh mind. I want to encourage you to pretend we are at a small family gathering, and we're simply asking your point of view. ...smile...
Appeasement has NEVER worked in conflict. Read up on your history and get a clue.
If you don't like the author's use of the completely appropriate word, send him an email and complain - I'm sure he'll react just as I have.
Debating and analyzing obama's appeasement to the bullies of the world is not bashing, it is a legitimate issue, if you don't agree, I suggest you not post in the thread.
As I said previously, it doesn't bother me at all about the word - it is you and another who can't seem to let it go. I can't help if you posted a link that bolster my argument, I'm sure it was not intentional and maybe YOU should read AND comprehend before posting.
Please, don't tell me to "get a clue", use of military action or force is not always necessary when sending our military to die for unjust causes, when negotiating might work first. Some people, I will not mention names here, seem all too eager to send people to their graves. Maybe I should read and comprehend? you've got to be kidding. I can read definitions of words just fine, it's the choice of words by some posters which are ill chosen, and not justified.
You get the gist of the article and the gist of the OP. Obama, appeasing despots and dictators and offering up the US to criticize and denigrate to curry favor from other nations.
Some people notice these things.
The article is about "supplication", e.g. asking for help from a higher power. That's not such a bad idea these days.
The author used the word in the context of appeasement, weakening the US.
Kind of like the word "prostrate" as in laying prostrate. As in obama is prostrating himself for the world, meaning bending over - supplication and prostrate go well together.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
And when was that?
Uhhhhhhhhhhh.............................. NEVER!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.