Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'll appologize staight out for a couple of things. The title, based on the old "teach a man to fish" addage, assumes almost a critique of leftist social policy, which it is not. It does, however, fit what I want to talk about, though I'm not sure that the option of "teaching how to fish" would solve any of the problems addressed below. The other thing is my almost absolute ignorance of the Democratic primaries, so anything that is said in ignorance, if you could just show me where I'm off, word.

Anyways, Obama gave a speech in Germany yesterday, which attracted over 200 000 people. Transcript: http://www.kcpcrepair.com/dr/content/obama-germany-speech-transcript

It is full of much of what I have come to expect from Obama's speeches, which is difficult to communicate, but, to me at least, boils down to a new choice of narrative and rhetoric. Any time I have seen or read what Obama says, it seems so empty. It seems so appeasing to the specific words that people want to hear, that I'm afraid it is these memes tat people respond so emotionally to, without any consideration for the substance of what Obama is actually saying.

From the German speech:



That sounds awesome, right? Like he picked very specific policy criticisms from the left and just said that he would fix them. Lets list what he is alluding to solving:

-Integration of international intelligence and terrorism fighting agencies
-combating CO2 emmissions from factories both domestic and foreign
-reducing the impact of CO2 on the planet (which presumes carbon capture technology)
-Securing Russian Nuclear sites
-Preventing the spread of nuclear science
-destroying the drug trade in Afghanistan
-Fixing Somolia
-ending Darfur genocide
-bring security and justice to al corners of the world
-ending child poverty
-house refugees
-end aids
-ensure human rights in nations like Burma, Iran, and Zimbabwe
-prevent other genocides

So, don't get me wrong, I don't actually think any of those are bad ideas, in principal. I don't believe any of them are within Obama's control, and political intervention into these issues, to me at least, seems doubious.

Some are ok, Russia should be engaged in non-proliferation and it is potentially possible. However, in light of what has been seen in the Arab press following the ICCs charge against the president of Sudan, preventing genocide in Darfur would require America creating a new Iraq type situation. Without going point for point with Mr. Obama, my position is that while these might sound good, the attempt to implement some will cause more global disaster than Bush has.

And here is what I mean by giving out fish. He is doing it in 2 ways. The first is the most obvious. He is suggesting the use of government power to directly make people's lives better, rather than giving them the tools to better themselves (I'll admit this could be off, I'm not aware of Obama's specific policies regarding these issues, but I have not seen him say anything that would suggest he is not just talking about expanding the power of the American government to try and help people in other countries). Like I said above, maybe that is the only solution to these problems, I don't know.

The second way is the one I am more interested in. Lets think of the promises, the memes themselves as the fish. By saying the words "never again in Darfur" he is giving everyone who wants a solution in Darfur a fish. He isn't teaching them to fish, ie, he doesn't seem to address what options may be available in elliminating aids, just assures people that it will be eliminated, as though the only detriment to solving aids was that the American president wasn't paying attention to it.

Blah, this is probably at the TLDR point anyways, so I will leave it with this. By no means is this an attempt to sway personal political opinions about candidates. I am airing a concern I personally have, and to be honest, would love to be wrong about this one. I am not trying to make a case for John McCain, and do not personally support his campaign. I am also not trying to tell people not to vote, or to challange any systemic part of this issue. I really am interested in discussing Obama's rhetoric as it relates to pandering to specific leftist criticisms of the Bush presidency.

hi inimalist.
wondering why you focus on germany as barack obama has visited afghanistan iraq and isreal already, and is in paris today and coming on here to london town at the weekend.

End AIDS? LoL, the pharmaceutical core won't be pleased with him.

It seems more like a speech that talks about the benefits of international cooperation and how no problem is just caused by one group. He picked his words very carefully but you can't penalize a politician for doing something politically intelligent. Remember he's a US citizen in Germany speaking to a German crowd when he says "what we do" "will we stand" and such it's not meant to be about the presidency alone it's supposed to be about how he'll work with other nations to try to create a concerted effort to solve the world's problems.

He's not going to solve all of them (and I'm sure Obama knows that no one will) but you'll note he doesn't say that he will. It's carefully worded to place the burden on everyone. The second line uses a few nice buzzwords but sums up what he's saying.

No single nation is totally responsible for the problems and in the end everyone feels the impact of them.


IMO, he makes a good point. Unfortunately it's not as easy as he makes it sound (but it's kind of his job to make it sound easy).

Originally posted by Robtard
End AIDS? LoL, the pharmaceutical core won't be pleased with him.

As long as they can make it expensive and require people to take it several times they'll be happy as clams.

Originally posted by superr
hi inimalist.
wondering why you focus on germany as barack obama has visited afghanistan iraq and isreal already, and is in paris today and coming on here to london town at the weekend.

There is no focus on Germany, specifically using his speech as it was the most recent and I heard the part I quoted on the news, hence this thread

If you think I am characterizing Obama poorly or improperly, please show me my error

Originally posted by Robtard
End AIDS? LoL, the pharmaceutical core won't be pleased with him.

nor will African elites

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It seems more like a speech that talks about the benefits of international cooperation and how no problem is just caused by one group. He picked his words very carefully but you can't penalize a politician for doing something politically intelligent. Remember he's a US citizen in Germany speaking to a German crowd when he says "what we do" "will we stand" and such it's not meant to be about the presidency alone it's supposed to be about how he'll work with other nations to try to create a concerted effort to solve the world's problems.

He's not going to solve all of them (and I'm sure Obama knows that no one will) but you'll note he doesn't say that he will. It's carefully worded to place the burden on everyone. The second line uses a few nice buzzwords but sums up what he's saying.

No single nation is totally responsible for the problems and in the end everyone feels the impact of them.

I agree, but I think this is much to do with the first type of "giving out fish" than the second. This deals more with the actual implication of the fixes, or fish, rather than with the rhetoric he uses and how it is attracting to people by nature of the emotion behind it.

In this light it is much less important that he is not saying "I will end aids" or whatever, since it is the impact of the words on the people that I am interested in.

To overgeneralize, to me it seems like he is saying "Hey, this is why you hate bush, so I'll say that, now you love me". Though again, huge overgeneralization.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
IMO, he makes a good point. Unfortunately it's not as easy as he makes it sound (but it's kind of his job to make it sound easy).


Thats more my point

Preventing the genocide in Darfur is something Americans are in a particular position to have no ability effect. To even insinuate that he will be someone who ends genocide in Darfur (even if that isn't his exact word, but the interpretation of the listener, giving him plausable deniability when he can't) is very dishonest, if it isn't followed by a frank discussion about the social culture of arab states and their resistance to international bodies. Hell, the ICC has made the Sudanese president a hero.

Maybe this is my longwinded way of saying "politicians are slippery", but it, and this is my opinion only of course, it seems that people seemed to have forgotten that about Obama, or he says what people want to hear in a way that they think he is a regular trustworthy citizen.

Last night on CNN, Anderson Cooper did a segment on Obama's Berlin speech. He accidentally called him "President Obama", and then he immediately shook his head and corrected himself "I'm sorry, senator Obama.". You could hear some stagehand laughing in the background. And I really can't blame him. When he met with Merkel, and the various Middle Eastern leaders, he acted and walked around like he owned the place. Homeboy thinks he's president already.

A lot of news podcasts that I listen to seem to say the same thing. Especially given the numbers he is drawing overseas, completely unheard of for a presidential nominee.

"A citizen of the world".

lol, you mean he owned a passport before holding political office

Originally posted by inimalist


-Integration of international intelligence and terrorism fighting agencies
-combating CO2 emmissions from factories both domestic and foreign
-reducing the impact of CO2 on the planet (which presumes carbon capture technology)
-Securing Russian Nuclear sites
-Preventing the spread of nuclear science
-destroying the drug trade in Afghanistan
-Fixing Somolia
-ending Darfur genocide
-bring security and justice to al corners of the world
-ending child poverty
-house refugees
-end aids
-ensure human rights in nations like Burma, Iran, and Zimbabwe
-prevent other genocides


That is nice of him to list all those problems..unfortunately I didn't see one solution to any of those problems.

Id rather him fix the problems here..in America..you know the country he is running for president of?

And whatever happened to the US staying out of other countries affairs like the Democrats say the dirty, dirty Republicans should do".

It was an international audience he was speaking 2.

Originally posted by KidRock
And whatever happened to the US staying out of other countries affairs like the Democrats say the dirty, dirty Republicans should do

The single most hypocritical issue of the left, imho, is Darfur.

For all purposes, Sudan is a theocratic Arab nation with a population of devout Muslims who, if it came down to it, are without a doubt more sympathetic if not verbally supportive of the philosophies of Jihad than of Western secularism.

However, for as long as I have been politically aware (I'm 23), liberals have called rabidly for intervention in Darfur. The more leftist, the more rabid the call. In fact, if you drew a correlation between opposition to the Iraq invasion and support of a Sudan invasion among leftists, I imagine a r value of close to .8, lol.

It would be different, but occupying Darfur would be just as difficult, if not moreso, than occupying Baghdad. The citizens of Sudan are no more interested in American soldiers within their borders than the Iraqis were.

Leftists aren't against war or intervention.

But I highly doubt Obama is suggesting an American-only effort to deal with Darfur, for example.

I don't think that was being suggested

However, he does seem to be insinuating that, if elected president, one could depend on him to try and fix the situation, which, imho, sounds really nice and will motivate especially those who feel ostracized from the politcal system to vote for him, however, its not something he has any control over, and it is likely any American involvement will be seen as imperial.

No, the point of this thread is not to say Obama will be as bad as Bush

I think he is basically saying that a global community is needed to address these issues.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Last night on CNN, Anderson Cooper did a segment on Obama's Berlin speech. He accidentally called him "President Obama", and then he immediately shook his head and corrected himself "I'm sorry, senator Obama.". You could hear some stagehand laughing in the background. And I really can't blame him. When he met with Merkel, and the various Middle Eastern leaders, he acted and walked around like he owned the place. Homeboy thinks he's president already.

To be fair, he isn't going to "own" the place even if he becomes president.

Originally posted by chithappens
I think he is basically saying that a global community is needed to address these issues.

yes, I see this, and agree

Originally posted by chithappens
It was an international audience he was speaking 2.

So? He isnt running for president of the world.

Originally posted by KidRock
So? He isnt running for president of the world.

Isn't he?

Originally posted by KidRock
So? He isnt running for president of the world.

I try to jump on the "hate KidRock" bandwagon, but I think you are failing to see that just about all states are connected. You're failing to take a step back and see the holistic picture. Sure, there's shit that happens in the U.S. that doesn't really affect other countries, however, take a step back from that perspective and you can even make connections to the rest of the world.


The U.S.A. affects the rest of the planet in one form another. Other countries SHOULD take an interest in the United States political system. I certainly pay attention to both foreign and domestic affairs of the UK, China, Russia, France, Japan, Germany, India, Israel, etc. Why? Because we're all connected together. Why do you think the price of a barrel of oil in Asian markets matters here in the U.S.? I bet you could correlate the business activities of China, at some level, to the homeless in the U.S and vice versa.


My point is, it's not all about the U.S.


The nations of the world are interwoven together through many different dimensions.



lol

I feel like Obi Wan talking to Boss Nass.



Obama isn't talking about solving these problems. He's bringing them up to show the world the he has a global perspective, that he's aware that the nations of the Earth are all afflicted with problems. That the Earth's nations are just part of the same puzzle. The U.S. president is not important to the U.S. alone. He (could have been she) is important to the entire world.


When one project in the defense department has more funding in one year that one nation (full of millions people) can put out via their GNP, we should be very much in the minds of other nation's people come election time.


inimalist is right, though. He's saying and doing what people want to hear. A lot of empty rhetoric. However, one thing that DOES appeal to me about Obama is his willingness to TRY to forge better relations with the global community and individual nations.

I think we are all inclined to take the cynical route when it comes to politicians (and we all know Bush has been playing the fool his entire political career) as of now.

I don't blame anyone for being suspicious. I hope he wins the election and brings about some cohesion that begins to amend the U.S.'s very battered international reputation.

Originally posted by KidRock
That is nice of him to list all those problems..unfortunately I didn't see one solution to any of those problems.

Id rather him fix the problems here..in America..you know the country he is running for president of?


Recognizing problems elsewhere in the world doesn't mean he's abandoning problems that are centered here in America.

Becomming the president doesn't just mean he'd be the leader of America, it makes you the leader of the free world. So speaking of global affairs certainly isn't a bad thing.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think that was being suggested

However, he does seem to be insinuating that, if elected president, one could depend on him to try and fix the situation, which, imho, sounds really nice and will motivate especially those who feel ostracized from the politcal system to vote for him, however, its not something he has any control over, and it is likely any American involvement will be seen as imperial.

No, the point of this thread is not to say Obama will be as bad as Bush

i think his use of "we" alot in the speech isn't really meant to imply that as leader of the US he would get the US involved in things such as Darfur. the fact is that the world sees the US as ignoring alot of these kinds of issues throughout the world and as the worlds most powerful country it can persuade other nations to do more....

i dont believe the US will actually commit any large scale resources to world causes such as AIDS epidemics (not at a governmental level when institutions such as the Bill Gates foundation are doing it) but merely to exert political pressure on other nations to help in the fight against AIDS, terrorism etc

i believe the speech was also intended as the 1st step toward repairing the US's damaged reputation across the world...many countries in Europe have distanced themselves from the US over the last 7 years and this is an attempt at beginning to rectify that and to start a joint effort against global problems

it was certainly shrewd but i didn't see any notion of American imperialism or intervention...then again...maybe that's where the shrewdness really came into play...."the greatest trick the devil ever pulled...etc etc"

Originally posted by BackFire


Becomming the president doesn't just mean he'd be the leader of America, it makes you the leader of the free world. So speaking of global affairs certainly isn't a bad thing.

Unless your George Bush..then you should just "mind your own business!!"

We are not in Iraq to bring democracy... if that's what you are implying

Originally posted by BackFire
the free world.

What classifies as the free world?

I assume the free world to be countries in which the people can choose their leaders in regular and repeated free and fair elections,as opposed to one party states, dictatorships military or otherwise.Semi benign autocracies such as Saudi Arabia. Theocracies and any other denial of democracy.

I feel blessed to live in a land that is free on this basis,but strange as it seems to me it appears that there are places where democracy is not what the people want

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What classifies as the free world?

Its an obsolete hangover-term from McCarthyism.

I feel a touch dissapointed his trip to london is such a quite affair,but maybe the private talks are potentially important. McCain s visit was so low key i must have blinked and missed it.
the british government dosent want to show bias were told

Originally posted by jaden101
i think his use of "we" alot in the speech isn't really meant to imply that as leader of the US he would get the US involved in things such as Darfur. the fact is that the world sees the US as ignoring alot of these kinds of issues throughout the world and as the worlds most powerful country it can persuade other nations to do more....

i dont believe the US will actually commit any large scale resources to world causes such as AIDS epidemics (not at a governmental level when institutions such as the Bill Gates foundation are doing it) but merely to exert political pressure on other nations to help in the fight against AIDS, terrorism etc

i believe the speech was also intended as the 1st step toward repairing the US's damaged reputation across the world...many countries in Europe have distanced themselves from the US over the last 7 years and this is an attempt at beginning to rectify that and to start a joint effort against global problems

it was certainly shrewd but i didn't see any notion of American imperialism or intervention...then again...maybe that's where the shrewdness really came into play...."the greatest trick the devil ever pulled...etc etc"

again, however, this deals with the actual implementation of the ideas

I agree with you, and if this is really how obama feels, good show

What do you think of these as rhetoric?

My dictionary -collins concise- varies deffinition of rhetoric from
The study of the technique of using language effectivly--to
Speech or discourse that pretends to significance but lacks true meaning

well its good to hear speeches that use language effectivly and are not peppered with bloopers and regionalisms
Much of speech rambled across history for the benefit of the berlin audience, but i can believe that barack wants to open up the US internationally

Originally posted by inimalist
again, however, this deals with the actual implementation of the ideas

I agree with you, and if this is really how obama feels, good show

What do you think of these as rhetoric?

No one can answer that fairly until he gets into office.

Originally posted by inimalist
again, however, this deals with the actual implementation of the ideas

I agree with you, and if this is really how obama feels, good show

What do you think of these as rhetoric?

depends on who the rhetoric is aimed at...i think it'll do wonders for his status throughout the world but in the US...his outlook and focus on world affairs may be seen as a detriment to domestic issues and thus might not be well received in the US

it all depends on whether the US people see it as him wanting the US to solve all the problems or whether he simply wants to encourage other nations to do so

i think the sentiment of what he is proposing is sound though....but then how can you criticise someone who's proposing to help solve the worlds problems...whether or not directly or indirectly