Not Lies, But not the Truth

[Cecilie1200]

The minute I read the comment "whether we like it or not", I went and found the whole quote to see whether he actually meant it the way it was represented. Guess what? Yea, he meant it the way it was represented.

When Obama said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”, he was addressing a group from the middle east that contains some that believe the US should be a military superpower and some who do not. If he said I instead of We then the statement would tend to support the premise.

And you would have us believe that the "we" Obama represents is a group of Middle Easterners rather than the United States of America, and further that he used "we" the first time in that sentence to refer to said Middle Easterners, and then the next time - "we get pulled into conflicts" - to refer to Americans, without any sort of clarification as to which we was which? Do you really expect us to torture ourselves trying to find an acceptable interpretation of Obama's words that we not only ignore basic grammar, but we assume that Obama himself, President of the United States and chief diplomat thereof, does not have a grasp of it?

Sorry, but I think Obama is many things: misguided, dangerous, hostile to the American way of life. But stupid and inarticulate are not among those things.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

An translation for those that speak only FAUXlish........

He's saying that we need to reduce conflicts, because like it or not BECAUSE of us being a dominant military superpower, whenever something goes south the US is going to be pulled into it.

Because we're on of the dominant superpowers of the world, whenever there is fighting, the countries will ask us to get involved as we have some of the best fighting technology in the world.

Remember Afghanistan during Iran-Contra? We didn't want to get involved, but because of pressure from others to help the Afghans stop the Russians, we got sucked into helping the Afghans.

That was a very unpopular decision, as it led to the rise of the Taliban and OBL, which resulted in 9/11.

And.........like it or not..........it will continue to happen as long as we are a dominant military superpower.

I like being a dominant superpower, I just don't like having to be the world's policeman because of it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Had he simply said:

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because we are a dominant military superpower and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure"

he would have avoided any confusion. But he didn't. Why? Because he is no fan of American exceptionalism . . . whether we like it or not.

 

[Flopper]

The minute I read the comment "whether we like it or not", I went and found the whole quote to see whether he actually meant it the way it was represented. Guess what? Yea, he meant it the way it was represented.

When Obama said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”, he was addressing a group from the middle east that contains some that believe the US should be a military superpower and some who do not. If he said I instead of We then the statement would tend to support the premise.

And you would have us believe that the "we" Obama represents is a group of Middle Easterners rather than the United States of America, and further that he used "we" the first time in that sentence to refer to said Middle Easterners, and then the next time - "we get pulled into conflicts" - to refer to Americans, without any sort of clarification as to which we was which? Do you really expect us to torture ourselves trying to find an acceptable interpretation of Obama's words that we not only ignore basic grammar, but we assume that Obama himself, President of the United States and chief diplomat thereof, does not have a grasp of it?

Sorry, but I think Obama is many things: misguided, dangerous, hostile to the American way of life. But stupid and inarticulate are not among those things.

From the part of the statement that Palin omitted it is clear that the first we is referring to the audience and the second we is referring to the United states. But then her audience doesn't hear the whole statement.

 

[code1211]

'spin', 'pointless bashing'? When the lives of thousands of American sons & daughters and human beings whose only crime was being born in Iraq are extinguished? Over a STUNT?

WOW...

Whatever's clever man. Bashing him over saying "mission accomplished" preemptively, because he was proud of our servicemen, is inane to me. Sorry that hurts your brain but hey, it's just me.

Pride is the most destructive human emotion. A president must put America's sons & daughters ahead of his personal vanity. He is entrusted by We, the PEOPLE to be responsible, sober, conscientious and culpable when exercising his power to send America's sons & daughters off to war.

Bush deserves MUCH MORE than mere bashing...he deserves to stand trial for war crimes.

Along with the Senate and the Congress?

 

[Cecilie1200]

When Obama said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”, he was addressing a group from the middle east that contains some that believe the US should be a military superpower and some who do not. If he said I instead of We then the statement would tend to support the premise.

And you would have us believe that the "we" Obama represents is a group of Middle Easterners rather than the United States of America, and further that he used "we" the first time in that sentence to refer to said Middle Easterners, and then the next time - "we get pulled into conflicts" - to refer to Americans, without any sort of clarification as to which we was which? Do you really expect us to torture ourselves trying to find an acceptable interpretation of Obama's words that we not only ignore basic grammar, but we assume that Obama himself, President of the United States and chief diplomat thereof, does not have a grasp of it?

Sorry, but I think Obama is many things: misguided, dangerous, hostile to the American way of life. But stupid and inarticulate are not among those things.

From the part of the statement that Palin omitted it is clear that the first we is referring to the audience and the second we is referring to the United states. But then her audience doesn't hear the whole statement.

No, it's clear to YOU, only because that's what you WANT to believe. Basic English grammar says it's clear that every "we" in that sentence refers to the same group if no effort is made to differentiate. While I have no trouble believing that you are illiterate and don't know how to communicate effectively in the English language, if that's really how you want to present yourself, I absolutely, categorically REFUSE to be gullible enough to believe that about Barack Obama OR his speechwriters, simply to further your delusions, slavish worship, and craven excuse-making.

 

[Flopper]

And you would have us believe that the "we" Obama represents is a group of Middle Easterners rather than the United States of America, and further that he used "we" the first time in that sentence to refer to said Middle Easterners, and then the next time - "we get pulled into conflicts" - to refer to Americans, without any sort of clarification as to which we was which? Do you really expect us to torture ourselves trying to find an acceptable interpretation of Obama's words that we not only ignore basic grammar, but we assume that Obama himself, President of the United States and chief diplomat thereof, does not have a grasp of it?

Sorry, but I think Obama is many things: misguided, dangerous, hostile to the American way of life. But stupid and inarticulate are not among those things.

From the part of the statement that Palin omitted it is clear that the first we is referring to the audience and the second we is referring to the United states. But then her audience doesn't hear the whole statement.

No, it's clear to YOU, only because that's what you WANT to believe. Basic English grammar says it's clear that every "we" in that sentence refers to the same group if no effort is made to differentiate. While I have no trouble believing that you are illiterate and don't know how to communicate effectively in the English language, if that's really how you want to present yourself, I absolutely, categorically REFUSE to be gullible enough to believe that about Barack Obama OR his speechwriters, simply to further your delusions, slavish worship, and craven excuse-making.

You can't determine a speaker's beliefs by extracting a single phrase from a speech without considering the context of the speech and the audience. Granted the speech writer should have used United States instead of the second we but presidential speeches are rarely perfect. Just look at the Bush speeches. You can extract sentences from those speech that support the premise that he is anti-american, an idiot, or just about anything else.

I sure hope in the next presidential election you guys paint Obama as anti-american, anti-marriage, a socialist, a Marxist, Muslim, baby killer. Oh, I missed his purpose in coming to the planet earth is to lead in a government take-over of healthcare. Have you noticed the Obama resemblance to a Vulcan? I think you will find that these view do not reflect the views of most Americans.

 

[George Costanza]

I interpret the President's statement ("whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower&#8221 as a recognition on his part that there are some segments of our society that feel we should be a dominant military superpower and other segments of our society that feel we should not.

That happens to be very true.

The President is not offering up his own, personal thoughts on whether we should or should not be a dominant military superpower.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From the part of the statement that Palin omitted it is clear that the first we is referring to the audience and the second we is referring to the United states. But then her audience doesn't hear the whole statement.

No, it's clear to YOU, only because that's what you WANT to believe. Basic English grammar says it's clear that every "we" in that sentence refers to the same group if no effort is made to differentiate. While I have no trouble believing that you are illiterate and don't know how to communicate effectively in the English language, if that's really how you want to present yourself, I absolutely, categorically REFUSE to be gullible enough to believe that about Barack Obama OR his speechwriters, simply to further your delusions, slavish worship, and craven excuse-making.

You can't determine a speaker's beliefs by extracting a single phrase from a speech without considering the context of the speech and the audience. Granted the speech writer should have used United States instead of the second we but presidential speeches are rarely perfect. Just look at the Bush speeches. You can extract sentences from those speech that support the premise that he is anti-american, an idiot, or just about anything else.

Spare me this continued, lame-ass attempt to pretend that she quoted him out of context, and that what he ACTUALLY said was something completely different. We have already seen the full quote, and I have already stated that, if anything, it STRENGTHENS her assertion, rather than weakening it.

Presidential speechwriters may not be perfect, but they ARE more skilled, both grammatically and politically, than your average sixth-grader, who would already know about vague use of pronouns. You can spin until you fall down and see God, and it's not going to change the meaning of what he said. If you want to suck ass and make excuses for him, knock yourself out. Don't expect ME to flush MY brain down the toilet and join you, though.

I sure hope in the next presidential election you guys paint Obama as anti-american, anti-marriage, a socialist, a Marxist, Muslim, baby killer. Oh, I missed his purpose in coming to the planet earth is to lead in a government take-over of healthcare. Have you noticed the Obama resemblance to a Vulcan? I think you will find that these view do not reflect the views of most Americans.

Honey, we don't have to paint him as anti-American, anti-marriage, a socialist, a Marxist, etc. He does just fine at that all by himself. And gullible worshippers like you only make it worse the more you try to make excuses. I think you'll find THAT view accurately reflects the views of most Americans.

Keep talking. It saves us a lot of work.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Flopper, you missed one..........

24 percent of the tea baggers think Obama is the anti-Christ.

 

[Flopper]

No, it's clear to YOU, only because that's what you WANT to believe. Basic English grammar says it's clear that every "we" in that sentence refers to the same group if no effort is made to differentiate. While I have no trouble believing that you are illiterate and don't know how to communicate effectively in the English language, if that's really how you want to present yourself, I absolutely, categorically REFUSE to be gullible enough to believe that about Barack Obama OR his speechwriters, simply to further your delusions, slavish worship, and craven excuse-making.

You can't determine a speaker's beliefs by extracting a single phrase from a speech without considering the context of the speech and the audience. Granted the speech writer should have used United States instead of the second we but presidential speeches are rarely perfect. Just look at the Bush speeches. You can extract sentences from those speech that support the premise that he is anti-american, an idiot, or just about anything else.

Spare me this continued, lame-ass attempt to pretend that she quoted him out of context, and that what he ACTUALLY said was something completely different. We have already seen the full quote, and I have already stated that, if anything, it STRENGTHENS her assertion, rather than weakening it.

Presidential speechwriters may not be perfect, but they ARE more skilled, both grammatically and politically, than your average sixth-grader, who would already know about vague use of pronouns. You can spin until you fall down and see God, and it's not going to change the meaning of what he said. If you want to suck ass and make excuses for him, knock yourself out. Don't expect ME to flush MY brain down the toilet and join you, though.

I sure hope in the next presidential election you guys paint Obama as anti-american, anti-marriage, a socialist, a Marxist, Muslim, baby killer. Oh, I missed his purpose in coming to the planet earth is to lead in a government take-over of healthcare. Have you noticed the Obama resemblance to a Vulcan? I think you will find that these view do not reflect the views of most Americans.

Honey, we don't have to paint him as anti-American, anti-marriage, a socialist, a Marxist, etc. He does just fine at that all by himself. And gullible worshippers like you only make it worse the more you try to make excuses. I think you'll find THAT view accurately reflects the views of most Americans.

Keep talking. It saves us a lot of work.

Sorry, I forgot Antichrist.
Socialist? I doubt you know the definition of the word. Most Democrats don't even think of him as a liberal.

Was Obama a socialist when he signed a healthcare bill that will create millions of new customers for the healthcare and health insurance industry? If he was acting as a socialist, he did a really good job of concealing it.

Was Obama a socialist when he avoided any structural changes to the financial system during the financial crisis? Nationalization just was wasn't in Geithner's playbook. The financial crisis was an opportunity to nationalize elements of the financial system. Instead they bailed out the top dogs in the industry allowing them to continue to screw the American public.

Was he acting as a socialist when he send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan? If he were a socialist he would shut the war down and send 30,000 additional teachers and engineers which their parliament requested.

Big government and socialism are not the same thing. Socialism is a political theory advocating state ownership. Just what has been nationalized under the Obama administration?

 

[jeffrockit]

"whether we like it or not"


Means the reality is we are a super power.


What you people fail to accept is that there are some who dont think any country should be a super power.

The world is allowed to have opinions you dont argee with.

This is why republicans are usually really shitty at deplomacy

As I have stated before, some country is going to be the super power, its just the laws of nature. If not us, who do you wish it to be?