Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, Professor Adjami explains, with examples, how fraudulent Candidate Obama's supporters, such as yourself, were in claiming that this 'transformational' reformer would 'reinstate America to an elevated position in the world.'
So you attack, what the professor? 'hackery'
But not his points?
You are a fraud, and a transparent one at that.
"...attacked Obama for months for being "too international" and for his approval abroad..."
1. Where is the indication that I 'attacked' in the manner that you suggest?
2. Where is the documentation that he was attacked for his 'popularity'?
So, you are pretty much self-identified as a bloviator.
Further, how does "What I am saying is that right-wingers like you and the writer of the article attacked Obama for months for being "too international" and for his approval abroad, and now you're attacking him for the opposite...." flow from the word 'hackery,' which can only correspond to the article in the OP.
Since no one can logically see that the word 'hackery' means "right-wingers like you and the writer of the article attacked Obama for months for being "too international" and for his approval abroad, and now you're attacking him for the opposite...." then you must be fibbing in the use of "What I am saying..."
What you are intending to say is "my original position is so untenable, I had best beat a hasty retreat, and come up with a better response to the article."
Sorry, not better. Try again?
And here is the one that reflects so poorly on your intellect: " The idea that Obama is "steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt" is equally childish, in the most literal sense of the word. Obama's so-called "guilt" is "proven" because he admits that the decisions we make aren't always perfect."
Had your comprihension been even average, you would see that the professor, with some expertise in the area, is commenting on the way Arab viewers see one who attacks his own 'tribe.'
"[in] the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others. "
Get it now?
The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama
"He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.
It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.
Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn't seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that's reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.
Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.
The laws of gravity, the weight of history and of precedent, have caught up with the Obama presidency. We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw uponengagements made, wisdom acquired in the course of decades, and, yes, accounts to be settled with rogues and tyrannies. They might yet help this administration find its way out of a labyrinth of its own making."
Fouad Ajami: The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama - WSJ.com
The real world considers Obama an anti-American CHUMP to be used. [/url]
What's this real world you speak of? I'm guessing it's RW America and some Arabs overseas (that's even if this article is to believed on face value). The "real world" actually consists of more than just those two communities.
[/url]Why isn't Obama holding "Islam" accountable for cleaning up their Islamic terrorists more effectively?
Why isn't Obama insisting that Islam pound home a "true" Islamic message that terrorism is wrong and should not be supported, but should be eliminated??
Obama apologizes to the world for the WTC towers getting in the way of noble muslim terrorist hijackers, and that the US is very very sorry.
The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama
"He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.
It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.
Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn't seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that's reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.
Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.
The laws of gravity, the weight of history and of precedent, have caught up with the Obama presidency. We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw uponengagements made, wisdom acquired in the course of decades, and, yes, accounts to be settled with rogues and tyrannies. They might yet help this administration find its way out of a labyrinth of its own making."
Fouad Ajami: The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama - WSJ.com
So, Bush invades Iraq in the worst foreign policy blunder in recent memory and yet gets defended to the death by the Bushies and the prowar right,
but Obama is a foreign policy disaster because he isn't doing enough about Kashmir??
too funny
...neither of the arguments are based in any actual policy disagreement, only the search for another reason to complain.
And here is the one that reflects so poorly on your intellect: " The idea that Obama is "steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt" is equally childish, in the most literal sense of the word. Obama's so-called "guilt" is "proven" because he admits that the decisions we make aren't always perfect."
Had your comprihension been even average, you would see that the professor, with some expertise in the area, is commenting on the way Arab viewers see one who attacks his own 'tribe.'
"[in] the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others. "
Get it now?
I'm not talking about the article. I'm talking about you and your political ilk.
Further, how does "What I am saying is that right-wingers like you and the writer of the article attacked Obama for months for being "too international" and for his approval abroad, and now you're attacking him for the opposite...." flow from the word 'hackery,' which can only correspond to the article in the OP.
Since no one can logically see that the word 'hackery' means "right-wingers like you and the writer of the article attacked Obama for months for being "too international" and for his approval abroad, and now you're attacking him for the opposite...." then you must be fibbing in the use of "What I am saying..."
What you are intending to say is "my original position is so untenable, I had best beat a hasty retreat, and come up with a better response to the article."
Sorry, not better. Try again?
That your position twists and turns from day to day, depending on what you feel will make a more effective line of attack is hackery to the utmost.
Further, how does "What I am saying is that right-wingers like you and the writer of the article attacked Obama for months for being "too international" and for his approval abroad, and now you're attacking him for the opposite...." flow from the word 'hackery,' which can only correspond to the article in the OP.
Since no one can logically see that the word 'hackery' means "right-wingers like you and the writer of the article attacked Obama for months for being "too international" and for his approval abroad, and now you're attacking him for the opposite...." then you must be fibbing in the use of "What I am saying..."
What you are intending to say is "my original position is so untenable, I had best beat a hasty retreat, and come up with a better response to the article."
Sorry, not better. Try again?
That your position twists and turns from day to day, depending on what you feel will make a more effective line of attack is hackery to the utmost.
A lady's preogative, don't you know!
And here is the one that reflects so poorly on your intellect: " The idea that Obama is "steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt" is equally childish, in the most literal sense of the word. Obama's so-called "guilt" is "proven" because he admits that the decisions we make aren't always perfect."
Had your comprihension been even average, you would see that the professor, with some expertise in the area, is commenting on the way Arab viewers see one who attacks his own 'tribe.'
"[in] the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others. "
Get it now?
I'm not talking about the article. I'm talking about you and your political ilk.
Hey, Blov,
The OP contains not word one from me: it is entirely, 100% sections of the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Professor Fuad Adjami!!
All of it!
Every teensy, weensy, itsy bitsy bit of it!
So, that defeats your third, and I hope final, fall-back postition in attempt to dig your way out of the one sentence post where you referred to 'hackery.'
But I don't think you are dishonest, in trying the three 'trial balloons,' attempting to explain away the silly 'hackery' line,...
I just think you're inept.
Get that? Not 'your ilk,' just you.
Now here is your chance to do the honorable and honest thing, and admit that:
1. Professor Adjami has expertise in the understanding of the middle east that you do not have.
2. There is not one error in the article of the OP.
3. Folks both nationally and internationally now see the President as an empty suit, whose boorish apology tour has not gone over well.
4. You do not understand either the origin or definition of the word 'hack' and have therefore misapplied it.
5. You made a grave and tragic error in submitting that post, but it was done prior to your morning coffee.
6. As with most cover-ups, the attempt to do so is worse than the original 'crime.'
Now, take a sharp pin, and sign the above in blood, and I'll forgive you.
So this replaces the old wingnut anti-Obama talking point that Arabs LIKED him?
I'm not talking about the article. I'm talking about you and your political ilk.
Hey, Blov,
The OP contains not word one from me: it is entirely, 100% sections of the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Professor Fuad Adjami!!
All of it!
Every teensy, weensy, itsy bitsy bit of it!
So, that defeats your third, and I hope final, fall-back postition in attempt to dig your way out of the one sentence post where you referred to 'hackery.'
But I don't think you are dishonest, in trying the three 'trial balloons,' attempting to explain away the silly 'hackery' line,...
I just think you're inept.
Get that? Not 'your ilk,' just you.
Now here is your chance to do the honorable and honest thing, and admit that:
1. Professor Adjami has expertise in the understanding of the middle east that you do not have.
2. There is not one error in the article of the OP.
3. Folks both nationally and internationally now see the President as an empty suit, whose boorish apology tour has not gone over well.
4. You do not understand either the origin or definition of the word 'hack' and have therefore misapplied it.
5. You made a grave and tragic error in submitting that post, but it was done prior to your morning coffee.
6. As with most cover-ups, the attempt to do so is worse than the original 'crime.'
Now, take a sharp pin, and sign the above in blood, and I'll forgive you.
Fuck you and the high horse you rode in on. I wasn't calling the writer of the article a hack. I'm calling you a hack for how quickly to change positions to keep up your attack. It's not my fault you're too ignorant to understand that.
So this replaces the old wingnut anti-Obama talking point that Arabs LIKED him?
How about the one that Obama IS one? Or a Muslim? Or a terrorist?
Hey, Blov,
The OP contains not word one from me: it is entirely, 100% sections of the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Professor Fuad Adjami!!
All of it!
Every teensy, weensy, itsy bitsy bit of it!
So, that defeats your third, and I hope final, fall-back postition in attempt to dig your way out of the one sentence post where you referred to 'hackery.'
But I don't think you are dishonest, in trying the three 'trial balloons,' attempting to explain away the silly 'hackery' line,...
I just think you're inept.
Get that? Not 'your ilk,' just you.
Now here is your chance to do the honorable and honest thing, and admit that:
1. Professor Adjami has expertise in the understanding of the middle east that you do not have.
2. There is not one error in the article of the OP.
3. Folks both nationally and internationally now see the President as an empty suit, whose boorish apology tour has not gone over well.
4. You do not understand either the origin or definition of the word 'hack' and have therefore misapplied it.
5. You made a grave and tragic error in submitting that post, but it was done prior to your morning coffee.
6. As with most cover-ups, the attempt to do so is worse than the original 'crime.'
Now, take a sharp pin, and sign the above in blood, and I'll forgive you.
Fuck you and the high horse you rode in on. I wasn't calling the writer of the article a hack. I'm calling you a hack for how quickly to change positions to keep up your attack. It's not my fault you're too ignorant to understand that.
I think your language shows you've been caught with your - horrifying thought that it is- you pants down!
You are clearly lying in " I wasn't calling the writer of the article a hack. I'm calling you a hack."
The entire post was made up of the words of Professor Adjami.
Your only comment was that it was 'hackery.'
It could only apply to the author.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Oh, but it seems you are.
What "hack op-ed"??? Unless you are confirming that everything Obama ran on during campaign mode is total bullshit.The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama
"He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.
It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.
Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn't seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that's reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.
Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.
The laws of gravity, the weight of history and of precedent, have caught up with the Obama presidency. We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw uponengagements made, wisdom acquired in the course of decades, and, yes, accounts to be settled with rogues and tyrannies. They might yet help this administration find its way out of a labyrinth of its own making."
Fouad Ajami: The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama - WSJ.com
Imagine that a hack op-ed from the WSJ attacking obama. LOL is this supposed to shock anyone?
BTW I love how it tries to spin and state that the"animus toward America has not been radically changed" since obama became president and then it goes on to list numbers and yet refuses to list where they started to directly compare them to where they are now with the exception of ONE of the countries out of many that they could have chosen to look at. Why do they only provide half of the information and still draw conlusions based on incomplete info??
Obama has only been in office a year and if it improved at all don't you think that is, in of itself, something to talk about?? Does change have to be radical in order for it to count? Furthermore, why doesn't the WSJ list ALL of the facts so the reader can draw their own conclusions instead of trying to force their incomplete opinions down the reader's throat??
The MSM is allowed to call a spade a spade, is it not? The MSM is allowed to say that Obama's idealistic campaign speeches were not reality based, they were plain old campaign mode liberal bullshit. The real world considers Obama an anti-American CHUMP to be used.
Why isn't Obama holding "Islam" accountable for cleaning up their Islamic terrorists more effectively?
Why isn't Obama insisting that Islam pound home a "true" Islamic message that terrorism is wrong and should not be supported, but should be eliminated??
Obama apologizes to the world for the WTC towers getting in the way of noble muslim terrorist hijackers, and that the US is very very sorry.
You are forgetting the rules.I love the smell of hackery in the morning.
I'm certainly willing to consider the opposite viewpoint, that is one indicating how thrilled the rest of the nations of the world are with President Obama, to the extent that his various initiatives have been accepted, and instituted.
Simply link a few of the op-eds and articles showing same...
Or are you just the bloviator-in-chief?
Or, would you like to concede that every point made by Professor Adjami is spot on.
BTW,
Fouad Adjami is a Majid Khadduri Professor and Director of the Middle East Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University. He was formerly a faculty member of Princeton University's Department of Politics, a fellow at Princeton's Center of International Studies, and a research fellow at The Lehrman Institute. In 1982, Adjami received the five-year MacArthur Prize Fellowship in the arts and sciences. He has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Washington.
If you knock Barry, you have to be a 'hack.'
I'm certainly willing to consider the opposite viewpoint, that is one indicating how thrilled the rest of the nations of the world are with President Obama, to the extent that his various initiatives have been accepted, and instituted.
Simply link a few of the op-eds and articles showing same...
Or are you just the bloviator-in-chief?
Or, would you like to concede that every point made by Professor Adjami is spot on.
BTW,
Fouad Adjami is a Majid Khadduri Professor and Director of the Middle East Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University. He was formerly a faculty member of Princeton University's Department of Politics, a fellow at Princeton's Center of International Studies, and a research fellow at The Lehrman Institute. In 1982, Adjami received the five-year MacArthur Prize Fellowship in the arts and sciences. He has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Washington.
Your typical act of building a strawman is one against employed in this case. I'm not arguing that the international public is thrilled with Obama. What I am saying is that right-wingers like you and the writer of the article attacked Obama for months for being "too international" and for his approval abroad, and now you're attacking him for the opposite. This shows that neither of the arguments are based in any actual policy disagreement, only the search for another reason to complain.
The idea that Obama is "steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt" is equally childish, in the most literal sense of the word. Obama's so-called "guilt" is "proven" because he admits that the decisions we make aren't always perfect. And guess what? That's true. Nations are the sum of men, and the occasional imperfection of man means an occasional imperfection of nation. The most apt analogy is the relationship between parent and child. Adults are able to see their parents, even with their flaws, and still love them. Children are invested in the myth than the parent can do not wrong, because to say otherwise would mean hatred and disapproval. This latter view is how conservatives view the nation.
Ah, Bloviator-in-Chief.
You throw the term 'hackery,' whatever that means, at a reputable intellectual who makes verifiable statements about the effect, or rather lack of effect, of President Obama.
of actually doing any work such as links and documentation, as I challenged you to do, you continue to blow-hard, with the usual fall-back position: "I'm not arguing that the international public is thrilled with Obama...."
So, Professor Adjami explains, with examples, how fraudulent Candidate Obama's supporters, such as yourself, were in claiming that this 'transformational' reformer would 'reinstate America to an elevated position in the world.'
So you attack, what the professor? 'hackery'
But not his points?
I'm still waiting for my free car, house, and utility bill to be paid for.... so far nothing though...
You are forgetting the rules.I'm certainly willing to consider the opposite viewpoint, that is one indicating how thrilled the rest of the nations of the world are with President Obama, to the extent that his various initiatives have been accepted, and instituted.
Simply link a few of the op-eds and articles showing same...
Or are you just the bloviator-in-chief?
Or, would you like to concede that every point made by Professor Adjami is spot on.
BTW,
Fouad Adjami is a Majid Khadduri Professor and Director of the Middle East Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University. He was formerly a faculty member of Princeton University's Department of Politics, a fellow at Princeton's Center of International Studies, and a research fellow at The Lehrman Institute. In 1982, Adjami received the five-year MacArthur Prize Fellowship in the arts and sciences. He has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Washington.
If you knock Barry, you have to be a 'hack.'
Actually the rule is the same for everyone. If you present an article and wish to be taken seriously and not be percieved as a hack, then present ALL of the facts so the reader can make an informed decision. Where as the auther of this op-ed presented some of the info while leaving out vital data and then drew unsubstantiated conclusions based on incomplete info. That is why it is a hack op-ed.
