[VioletlightHeron]

If the world could vote for the President of the US, wouldn't the concesus selection be the candidate that is worse for our nation's sovereignty?

That doesn't follow.

If the world body politic (if a beast ever existed in the first place) voted for the candidate who would impose the mechanics of the Kyoto Treaty on the US economy (a cap and trade carbon tax scheme, billions on carbon capture and sequestration technology that is not yet proven economically feasible) that would cripple our global competitiveness, that would constitute a violation of our political sovereignty. I'll bet you dollars to donuts Skippy, that Obama would institute such a program to pander to global opinion, which is fickle and predicated on the expectation that the US would continue to hand out foreign aid while ceasing competition in foreign markets. In short, the people of other countries want to revert back to a protectionist economy and expect the US to pull their biscuits out of the fire (ie NATO) when they are threatened. God help us all, but Obama might just be willing to do that.

[mojo_mattv]

Obama just whooped some ass.

[skippy the wonder dog]

If the world body politic ... voted for the candidate who would impose the mechanics of the Kyoto Treaty on the US economy ... that would cripple our global competitiveness, that would constitute a violation of our political sovereignty.

Wake up and smell the circular argument. The proposition is not that allowing the rest of the world to choose your leader would violate your sovereignty. That's obvious.

The proposition is that if the rest of the world could choose your leader, the rest of the world would necessarily choose leaders who would weaken your sovereignty. This does not follow.

Try to separate the specific from the general.

(Indeed, Obama did in fact whoop ass.)

[VioletlightHeron]

The proposition is that if the rest of the world could choose your leader, the rest of the world would necessarily choose leaders who would weaken your sovereignty. This does not follow.

Try to separate the specific from the general.

The last 3 Democratic presidential candidates advocated economic and foreign policy positions that would have delegated political control to international institutions such the UN and the International Criminal Court that would seriously weaken US economic and national security sovereignity. For example, the UN blocked any serious action on Saddam's Iraq after the Gulf War by allowing France, Russia and China to veto serious diplomatic sanctions not out of any serious belief that Saddam was no longer persuing nuclear weapons, but in an effort to serve their own economic issues. China had contracts to help repair and rebuild Saddam's air defense network, Russia had signed contracts for oil exploration and the French oil company Total had oil producing contracts with Saddam's Iraq as well.

In my opinion, world political opinion towards the US is influenced by a belief that we have too much power and influence on the world stage. People resent the fact that our economic and military power gives us the power to change events to our liking and benefit. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama all seem to subscribe to the belief that if we work with international institutions such as the UN to solve economic and military challenges, the world would appreciate and work with us more, when the political leadership of Western Europe, Russia and China use these institutions to specifically thwart our power and influence and enhance their own ability to influence world events.

[The Horrible Esthete]

Obama just whooped some ass.

The sad thing is that competant Republican office/seat holders across this nation, even many who were endorsed by the same media outlets who helped push Obama into the winner's circle, lost their re-election bids as well.

[skippy the wonder dog]

The last 3 Democratic presidential candidates advocated economic and foreign policy positions that would have delegated political control to international institutions such the UN and the International Criminal Court ....

Why don't you actually try proving the proposition, VLH?

Here's a hint: you have to first demonstrate that foreigners' interest in US presidential candidates is rooted in a desire to weaken American sovereignty.

[The Horrible Esthete]

Why don't you actually try proving the proposition, VLH?

Here's a hint: you have to first demonstrate that foreigners' interest in US presidential candidates is rooted in a desire to weaken American sovereignty.

For the record, I personally have no clue whether the proposition is true or false. I was just kinda throwing it out there.

It would certainly be difficult to prove for disprove, but failing to do either successfully doesn't make it "untrue".

I'm sure there are some foreigners whose interest in US presidential candidates is rooted in a desire to weaken American sovereignty, while for others, it isn't so much. I don't know. You don't either.

[skippy the wonder dog]

It would certainly be difficult to prove for disprove, but failing to do either successfully doesn't make it "untrue".

Unless you care about logic. Remember, I didn't say "that's untrue," I said "that doesn't follow."

I'm sure there are some foreigners whose interest in US presidential candidates is rooted in a desire to weaken American sovereignty, while for others, it isn't so much. I don't know. You don't either.

But I do know that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. You're now using the old trick of misplacing the burden of proof, so beloved of UFO conspiracy theorists: "well, you can't prove that little green aliens aren't abducting people to perform bizarre experiments with masochistic sexual overtones, so we have to admit that it's possible."

You can't prove that McCain's first action on taking office would not be to turn America's nuclear arsenal on its own cities and incinerate you all. You just don't know! Does this make it a reasonable assertion?

[NegPhil]

Tim --

I'm about to head to Grant Park to talk to everyone gathered there, but I wanted to write to you first.

We just made history.

And I don't want you to forget how we did it.

You made history every single day during this campaign -- every day you knocked on doors, made a donation, or talked to your family, friends, and neighbors about why you believe it's time for change.

I want to thank all of you who gave your time, talent, and passion to this campaign.

We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next.

But I want to be very clear about one thing...

All of this happened because of you.

Thank you,

Barack

[direwolf74]

Tim --

I'm about to head to Grant Park to talk to everyone gathered there, but I wanted to write to you first.

We just made history.

And I don't want you to forget how we did it.

You made history every single day during this campaign -- every day you knocked on doors, made a donation, or talked to your family, friends, and neighbors about why you believe it's time for change.

I want to thank all of you who gave your time, talent, and passion to this campaign.

We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next.

But I want to be very clear about one thing...

All of this happened because of you.

Thank you,

Barack

Cool! I had no idea you were working on the campaign. It's wonderful that America finally stood up and did the right thing. As a Canadian I'm extremely proud to be your neighbor today. The last 8 years has been a complete fuckin' disaster that has affected the entire world. Obama has a lot of work ahead of him to repair the damage, but I think he's definitely the man for the job. Congratulations!

:thumb:

[The Horrible Esthete]

It would certainly be difficult to prove for disprove, but failing to do either successfully doesn't make it "untrue".

Unless you care about logic. Remember, I didn't say "that's untrue," I said "that doesn't follow."

I'm sure there are some foreigners whose interest in US presidential candidates is rooted in a desire to weaken American sovereignty, while for others, it isn't so much. I don't know. You don't either.

But I do know that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. You're now using the old trick of misplacing the burden of proof, so beloved of UFO conspiracy theorists: "well, you can't prove that little green aliens aren't abducting people to perform bizarre experiments with masochistic sexual overtones, so we have to admit that it's possible."

You can't prove that McCain's first action on taking office would not be to turn America's nuclear arsenal on its own cities and incinerate you all. You just don't know! Does this make it a reasonable assertion?

Again, I didn't argue that the world would definitively choose a president for the US that would work to compromise its own soverignty. I asked if it would. And the reason I posed the question is that it would not be a shock to me if the world-at-large would select a leader for the US that limited its global influence as opposed to bolstering it.

Does the fact that foreigners have hijacked American commercial jets and wrecked them into US government buildings and business centers serve as an indication that some might like to see our soverignty weakened?

If so, does that validate my question? How about just giving your opinion in the form of an answer instead of trying to so desperately to pick apart the logical legitimacy of my query?

[skippy the wonder dog]

...it would not be a shock to me if the world-at-large would select a leader for the US that limited its global influence as opposed to bolstering it.

This does follow, but that wasn't your query, precisely. Your global influence is not the same thing as your sovereignty. You don't have a sovereign right to be the biggest kid on the block.

Does the fact that foreigners have hijacked American commercial jets and wrecked them into US government buildings and business centers serve as an indication that some might like to see our soverignty weakened?

I'd say, not precisely -- I doubt any of the 9/11 terrorists thought of their cause in terms of American sovereignty. You're starting to use that word very loosely.

How about just giving your opinion in the form of an answer instead of trying to so desperately to pick apart the logical legitimacy of my query?

I already gave my answer: one does not follow from the other. I do not agree that foreigners would base their preference for President on a desire to interfere with or weaken America's right to conduct its own affairs. I think that suggestion is fundamentally xenophobic, in fact.

[VioletlightHeron]

The way I see it Skippy, sovereignity has been much more than a country's ability and right to control and direct their own internal political affairs. That's the legal definition of sovereignity, sure, but nations and leaders have been forever conflating that right to direct one's own affairs with a nation's ability to influence events in other countries that have a direct impact on the welfare of one's own nation.

I would argue that the motivations behind other nations attempts to limit the US's global influence can either be benign or malevolent. Countries like France don't wish us direct harm; they are generally motivated by the desire to increase their economic power or political influence on other global actors.

Countries such as Russia, China, Iran, etc do have malevolent intentions toward us. Putin, the Iranian mullahs and the Chinese Communist leadership want to usurp our economic and military ability to influence events on the global stage and are not above using American leadership who naively believe that diplomacy alone can solve these international crisises for the own geopolitical ends. Do I think Obama and the American Left have an inbred desire to weaken American interests? No, I think they place too much faith in the power of international institutions and their own grand delusions in the power of personal persuasion and diplomacy.

[skippy the wonder dog]

VLH, are you asserting that the US has a sovereign right to take military action other than in direct self-defence?

That's not sovereignty, except in the eyes of military hegemonists.

[VioletlightHeron]

VLH, are you asserting that the US has a sovereign right to take military action other than in direct self-defence?

That's not sovereignty, except in the eyes of military hegemonists.

Are you suggesting that the US had no right to use force in the Balkans or in Somalia? Coz there were no direct attacks on the US in those cases and pretty good reasons for justifying use of force. I await the other dropped shoe and the head exploding.