The Problem with Barack Obama... to me...

[California Girl]

Your pussy-assed OP is a whine.

In your opinion, maybe. But to me it is a comment on the man who is our POTUS. The difference in his delivery between things he really believes in and when he is just going through the motions.

I'll guarantee him one thing.... If any harm comes to one more member of my family because he fucked this decision up... I will personally hound him until my (or his) dying day.

Be honest with us

You will hold it against Obama regardless of how Afghanistan turns out

Nope, I sincerely hope he has done enough - I have a personal stake in him being right. I don't expect you - or the libertards here - to understand that but truthfully, I couldn't give a shit what you think.

 

[G.T.]

Nope, I sincerely hope he has done enough - I have a personal stake in him being right. I don't expect you - or the libertards here - to understand that but truthfully, I couldn't give a shit what you think.

Everyone's got a personal stake in this, but usually we don't diss the Coach before we find out if his decisions won the ball-game or not. There's something to you doing that, and you know that you're just being obtuse and also being a bitch to me for calling you on it.

I can be called idiot and libtard all day long, but what the fuck you want me to do clap for you for your uber intelligent name calling skills?

 

[California Girl]

McChrystal is stuck between a rock and a hard place - he's not going to dis his CiC in public. He knows how to play politics... sadly.

You're a fool if you honestly think I hate Obama.... but, at the end of the day, frankly, I don't actually give a shit what you believe I think. If you need to believe that I hate him, fine. It is of no consequence to me. It does tell me something about you.... other than being an idiot.... you also can't accept fact. If I actually hate Obama - why on earth would I not say so? You're a joke.

Because as long as you pretend here and there you're not a hater, you can lambast anyone who disagrees with you as a lefty partisan hack and look like you're not a hypocrit? Cynical plan, I must say.

And you're now basing your disagreement not on McChrystal anymore, but that you think McChrystal's playing nice now? Yea, you're actively looking to spin-up reasons to hate on Obama. I wouldn't point it out if it weren't truly there, and you prove it over and over again like you just did with your McChrystal comment.

If you're going to bust on Obama for not providing enough troops based on a McChrystal report, and McChrystal himself agrees with the new way forward, what...pretell, are you basing your negative feeling on besides hatorade drinking?

Hop off of his nuts, why don't you.

I base my comments about McChrystal on what the Military are saying - to me, because I know quite a few. I know what Senior military think of Obama's 30,000 compromise. If you were capable of seeing past Obama's shit don't stink to the reality of the situation, maybe I wouldn't view you as a libertard partisan hack.

You're begining to bore me GT. You and your stupid fucking whine about 'hate' just because I dislike the man's politics. I suspect it is based on how you felt towards Bush - you hated him so I must hate Obama, right? Wrong. You are, in fact, an idiot.

 

[rightwinger]

In your opinion, maybe. But to me it is a comment on the man who is our POTUS. The difference in his delivery between things he really believes in and when he is just going through the motions.

I'll guarantee him one thing.... If any harm comes to one more member of my family because he fucked this decision up... I will personally hound him until my (or his) dying day.

Be honest with us

You will hold it against Obama regardless of how Afghanistan turns out

Nope, I sincerely hope he has done enough - I have a personal stake in him being right. I don't expect you - or the libertards here - to understand that but truthfully, I couldn't give a shit what you think.

I believe your scape goating to be somewhat hypocritical. Obama is more than doubling the troop strength in Afghanistan. Soldiers are deployed in Brigade Combat Teams not as individuals. Fewer soldiers mean fewer BCTs not fewer soldiers in each BCT. Any reduction from what was requested means we can not cover as many regions in Afghanistan not that individual soldiers would be more succeptable.

Your idle threat against Obama if "one of yours" gets hurt is outrageous drama queen ranting

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why would someone who hates Obama not come out and say, "I hate Obama?" I don't know why?

Why would someone who hates women not just come out and say, "I hate women."

But the proof is in the pudding

 

[G.T.]

McChrystal is stuck between a rock and a hard place - he's not going to dis his CiC in public. He knows how to play politics... sadly.

You're a fool if you honestly think I hate Obama.... but, at the end of the day, frankly, I don't actually give a shit what you believe I think. If you need to believe that I hate him, fine. It is of no consequence to me. It does tell me something about you.... other than being an idiot.... you also can't accept fact. If I actually hate Obama - why on earth would I not say so? You're a joke.

Because as long as you pretend here and there you're not a hater, you can lambast anyone who disagrees with you as a lefty partisan hack and look like you're not a hypocrit? Cynical plan, I must say.

And you're now basing your disagreement not on McChrystal anymore, but that you think McChrystal's playing nice now? Yea, you're actively looking to spin-up reasons to hate on Obama. I wouldn't point it out if it weren't truly there, and you prove it over and over again like you just did with your McChrystal comment.

If you're going to bust on Obama for not providing enough troops based on a McChrystal report, and McChrystal himself agrees with the new way forward, what...pretell, are you basing your negative feeling on besides hatorade drinking?

Hop off of his nuts, why don't you.

I base my comments about McChrystal on what the Military are saying - to me, because I know quite a few. I know what Senior military think of Obama's 30,000 compromise. If you were capable of seeing past Obama's shit don't stink to the reality of the situation, maybe I wouldn't view you as a libertard partisan hack.

You're begining to bore me GT. You and your stupid fucking whine about 'hate' just because I dislike the man's politics. I suspect it is based on how you felt towards Bush - you hated him so I must hate Obama, right? Wrong. You are, in fact, an idiot.

Now I hate Bush based on <insert reality here> , and I'm an idiot for hating Bush, based on <insert reality here>, but you're perfectly even handed. I get it. I'm bored also, but @ least my boredom deals in reality.

Whatever you "Senior" military officials have said to you would be "opinion" and I would bet you my entire kickstand and volleyballs package that there are "Senior" officials who agree with the decision. But , you just neeeeeeeeeeeed to bash him for ssssssssssomething.

I also do think Obama's shit probably stinks, but what's that got to do with anything

I'll bet he's got some impressive dumps once in a while, fancy food is absolutely disgusting.

I don't like a lot of shit Obama does. That's a fact momma dukes, but do you deal in fact or nah?

 

[MaggieMae]

I keep reading on here (and elsewhere) how these mythical 'right wingers' all loathe/hate Obama. To be clear, I don't hate Obama. Actually, there was a time - back in 2004 - when I thought he might be a Democrat I would vote for as POTUS. Rare as hens teeth! And, as I am 28, I have never seen a Republican that I thought I might vote for as POTUS.

But when I stopped watching his speeches, and started reading the transcripts instead, I found I was - yet again - disappointed. He's not an honest man. I'm not saying he's less honest than the rest, just that will not vote for a dishonest politician. I find that quite hard every election day.

Anyway, while watching his Afghan speech this evening (1am UK time), I remembered what it is that first started me questioning him. So, to explain it, here are two videos of his speeches.

The first is one of his speeches to the SEUI. This is Obama, passionate, caring, totally commited to the cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM

This is his Afghan speech from last night. Nothing - no passion, no commitment, no rallying the American people to a just cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXxBAOXCqEw

That's what I don't like about Obama. He's a community organizer - and we need a world class leader. Now, if anyone wants to define that as 'hate', then feel free but I don't hate the man - I fundamentally disagree with his policies. But the issue I have with Obama - he is just not good enough to lead our country.

Discuss, or not... either is fine by me.

I'll have to get back this afternoon to the rest of the comments, but my initial reaction (being considerably older than you are, and having lived through many contentious political rivalries, as well as directly participated in a few), that NO president EVER can be expected to live up to ALL that he says during the campaign for the office.

Nor can they be judged by their first year in office. Nothing in life stays the same from one day to the next, and a wise president will "flipflop" and change strategy as events occur, always putting his political capital in jeopardy. It's a risk they all take, because inevitably what they "promised" or opined about last year may be starkly different this year.

Also, there has never been a president in history who was fully prepared for the pitfalls of that office, and they ALL go through a learning phase. They ALL come into office promising "change" from their predecessor's term, and I truly believe they are sincere and try to carry out their pledges with no hidden agenda. Then they start hitting all those roadblocks: Congess, the media, unhappy losers... attacks on our homeland, an economic meltdown... Even Ronald Reagan found out the same hard way that his adoring public was all to eager to turn on him when HE was unable to accomplish all he set out to do overnight.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I keep reading on here (and elsewhere) how these mythical 'right wingers' all loathe/hate Obama. To be clear, I don't hate Obama. Actually, there was a time - back in 2004 - when I thought he might be a Democrat I would vote for as POTUS. Rare as hens teeth! And, as I am 28, I have never seen a Republican that I thought I might vote for as POTUS.

But when I stopped watching his speeches, and started reading the transcripts instead, I found I was - yet again - disappointed. He's not an honest man. I'm not saying he's less honest than the rest, just that will not vote for a dishonest politician. I find that quite hard every election day.

Anyway, while watching his Afghan speech this evening (1am UK time), I remembered what it is that first started me questioning him. So, to explain it, here are two videos of his speeches.

The first is one of his speeches to the SEUI. This is Obama, passionate, caring, totally commited to the cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM

This is his Afghan speech from last night. Nothing - no passion, no commitment, no rallying the American people to a just cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXxBAOXCqEw

That's what I don't like about Obama. He's a community organizer - and we need a world class leader. Now, if anyone wants to define that as 'hate', then feel free but I don't hate the man - I fundamentally disagree with his policies. But the issue I have with Obama - he is just not good enough to lead our country.

Discuss, or not... either is fine by me.

I'll have to get back this afternoon to the rest of the comments, but my initial reaction (being considerably older than you are, and having lived through many contentious political rivalries, as well as directly participated in a few), that NO president EVER can be expected to live up to ALL that he says during the campaign for the office.

Nor can they be judged by their first year in office. Nothing in life stays the same from one day to the next, and a wise president will "flipflop" and change strategy as events occur, always putting his political capital in jeopardy. It's a risk they all take, because inevitably what they "promised" or opined about last year may be starkly different this year.

Also, there has never been a president in history who was fully prepared for the pitfalls of that office, and they ALL go through a learning phase. They ALL come into office promising "change" from their predecessor's term, and I truly believe they are sincere and try to carry out their pledges with no hidden agenda. Then they start hitting all those roadblocks: Congess, the media, unhappy losers... attacks on our homeland, an economic meltdown... Even Ronald Reagan found out the same hard way that his adoring public was all to eager to turn on him when HE was unable to accomplish all he set out to do overnight.

some terrific points full of what we need a whole lot more of on these threads - PERSPECTIVE.
Thanks

 

[California Girl]

Be honest with us

You will hold it against Obama regardless of how Afghanistan turns out

Nope, I sincerely hope he has done enough - I have a personal stake in him being right. I don't expect you - or the libertards here - to understand that but truthfully, I couldn't give a shit what you think.

I believe your scape goating to be somewhat hypocritical. Obama is more than doubling the troop strength in Afghanistan. Soldiers are deployed in Brigade Combat Teams not as individuals. Fewer soldiers mean fewer BCTs not fewer soldiers in each BCT. Any reduction from what was requested means we can not cover as many regions in Afghanistan not that individual soldiers would be more succeptable.

Your idle threat against Obama if "one of yours" gets hurt is outrageous drama queen ranting

My dear rightwhiner, you are very welcome to think whatever your little liberal brain will allow you to. I base my opinions on Iraq and Afghanistan on what real live military officers tell me, I respect their views far more than some anonymous loon on a forum.

You also are entitled to use your Alinsky tactics of attacking me, accusing me of whatever you want - it means less than nothing to me. I quickly tire of the whining about 'faux' outrage' 'idle' threats etc etc etc. It works only on those who give credence to it. I don't. So you waste time and effort in making these stupid comments. They are designed to inflame - in fact they do not. They bore.

 

[rightwinger]

Nope, I sincerely hope he has done enough - I have a personal stake in him being right. I don't expect you - or the libertards here - to understand that but truthfully, I couldn't give a shit what you think.

I believe your scape goating to be somewhat hypocritical. Obama is more than doubling the troop strength in Afghanistan. Soldiers are deployed in Brigade Combat Teams not as individuals. Fewer soldiers mean fewer BCTs not fewer soldiers in each BCT. Any reduction from what was requested means we can not cover as many regions in Afghanistan not that individual soldiers would be more succeptable.

Your idle threat against Obama if "one of yours" gets hurt is outrageous drama queen ranting

My dear rightwhiner, you are very welcome to think whatever your little liberal brain will allow you to. I base my opinions on Iraq and Afghanistan on what real live military officers tell me, I respect their views far more than some anonymous loon on a forum.

You also are entitled to use your Alinsky tactics of attacking me, accusing me of whatever you want - it means less than nothing to me. I quickly tire of the whining about 'faux' outrage' 'idle' threats etc etc etc. It works only on those who give credence to it. I don't. So you waste time and effort in making these stupid comments. They are designed to inflame - in fact they do not. They bore.

You don't think your "I'll guarantee him one thing.... If any harm comes to one more member of my family because he fucked this decision up... I will personally hound him until my (or his) dying day. " is a bit melodramatic???

Save me your drama queen rhetoric.

 

[MaggieMae]

He lacks balls.

I'll agree with this to an extent....he lacks balls when it comes to addressing the Nation concerning something that affects all of us.....but he has balls when addressing his base on items that only they care about....like government run healthcare. He only represents 22% of the population at this point....those are his hard core supporters....the rest he has either lost or is losing because of his arrogance.....that's my bottom line.

and for the record...I do support his sending more troops to Afghanistan....but if he's going to hobble them with a fucked up ROE then may as well bring all the troops home and then America can just wait for a President who has got balls to go back over there and kick the living shit out of them after the next terrorist attack on American soil.

So where are you getting THAT number? Here's ALL the polls, and none of them are at 22%. Of course you might be thinking Rasmussen is the ultimate last word in polls, and you would be correct if you're looking for Republican-only input.

Health Policy

 

[MaggieMae]

They are not going to support anything he does anyway

You have that right.

If he walked in to Congress for the State of the Union Address next month and stood in front of America and said that President Bush and the Republican Congress had a great idea a few years ago regarding reforming Social Security, giving full credit to the Republican plan and announced he was going to push that through come hell or high water, they would still find a reason to oppose it.

I guess that is he nature of the beast.

Immie

It wasn't always that way, and even a decade ago there wasn't this pure unadulterated hatred for the opposition. President Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill were almost always at odds, but they genuinely liked each other as people and did a lot of back-room wheeling and dealing in order to get things done. Same with Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton, believe it or not. They used to even have 3AM private phone calls when one or the other would have an idea that just popped into his head. COMPROMISE needs to make a return, or this country will be spinning it's wheels right into oblivion.

 

[California Girl]

I believe your scape goating to be somewhat hypocritical. Obama is more than doubling the troop strength in Afghanistan. Soldiers are deployed in Brigade Combat Teams not as individuals. Fewer soldiers mean fewer BCTs not fewer soldiers in each BCT. Any reduction from what was requested means we can not cover as many regions in Afghanistan not that individual soldiers would be more succeptable.

Your idle threat against Obama if "one of yours" gets hurt is outrageous drama queen ranting

My dear rightwhiner, you are very welcome to think whatever your little liberal brain will allow you to. I base my opinions on Iraq and Afghanistan on what real live military officers tell me, I respect their views far more than some anonymous loon on a forum.

You also are entitled to use your Alinsky tactics of attacking me, accusing me of whatever you want - it means less than nothing to me. I quickly tire of the whining about 'faux' outrage' 'idle' threats etc etc etc. It works only on those who give credence to it. I don't. So you waste time and effort in making these stupid comments. They are designed to inflame - in fact they do not. They bore.

You don't think your "I'll guarantee him one thing.... If any harm comes to one more member of my family because he fucked this decision up... I will personally hound him until my (or his) dying day. " is a bit melodramatic???

Save me your drama queen rhetoric.

I'm not gonna save you from jack shit, rightwhiner. Save yourself.

 

[MaggieMae]

I keep reading on here (and elsewhere) how these mythical 'right wingers' all loathe/hate Obama. To be clear, I don't hate Obama. Actually, there was a time - back in 2004 - when I thought he might be a Democrat I would vote for as POTUS. Rare as hens teeth! And, as I am 28, I have never seen a Republican that I thought I might vote for as POTUS.

But when I stopped watching his speeches, and started reading the transcripts instead, I found I was - yet again - disappointed. He's not an honest man. I'm not saying he's less honest than the rest, just that will not vote for a dishonest politician. I find that quite hard every election day.

Anyway, while watching his Afghan speech this evening (1am UK time), I remembered what it is that first started me questioning him. So, to explain it, here are two videos of his speeches.

The first is one of his speeches to the SEUI. This is Obama, passionate, caring, totally commited to the cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM

This is his Afghan speech from last night. Nothing - no passion, no commitment, no rallying the American people to a just cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXxBAOXCqEw

That's what I don't like about Obama. He's a community organizer - and we need a world class leader. Now, if anyone wants to define that as 'hate', then feel free but I don't hate the man - I fundamentally disagree with his policies. But the issue I have with Obama - he is just not good enough to lead our country.

Discuss, or not... either is fine by me.

Excellent post and observation. The thing is . . . and I've said this for quite some time . . . Obama is a narcissist. He feeds off of the stage and the spotlight and he needs that feedback that he got in the first vid to actually show some passion. He didn't get that last night. He didn't get much of anything in the way of feedback if you ask me, just a lot of blank faces. He can not muster up the passion without constant reinforcement from others. He can not muster up the passion because he doesn't believe in what he doing either. You are spot on . . . when 'it' matters to him he seems to always find the bravado to put forth. He doesn't want to send more troops he has to send more troops. His inner Barry is in conflict with the job that President Barry has to do so he reverts to his standby 'Spock' face and demeanor. Too bad . . . . imagine how the troops took his speech last night.

The "troops" in the audience, disciplined West Point Cadets, are instructed to stay mute and to not even clap (if they're motivated) except at the beginning and the end of any such speech, so I don't know why you were looking for passion.

You can see a variety of comments from military people at this site, some well thought out and some the usual type of anti-Obama stuff we see everywhere.

The Surge is on

 

[MaggieMae]

I keep reading on here (and elsewhere) how these mythical 'right wingers' all loathe/hate Obama. To be clear, I don't hate Obama. Actually, there was a time - back in 2004 - when I thought he might be a Democrat I would vote for as POTUS. Rare as hens teeth! And, as I am 28, I have never seen a Republican that I thought I might vote for as POTUS.

But when I stopped watching his speeches, and started reading the transcripts instead, I found I was - yet again - disappointed. He's not an honest man. I'm not saying he's less honest than the rest, just that will not vote for a dishonest politician. I find that quite hard every election day.

Anyway, while watching his Afghan speech this evening (1am UK time), I remembered what it is that first started me questioning him. So, to explain it, here are two videos of his speeches.

The first is one of his speeches to the SEUI. This is Obama, passionate, caring, totally commited to the cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM

This is his Afghan speech from last night. Nothing - no passion, no commitment, no rallying the American people to a just cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXxBAOXCqEw

That's what I don't like about Obama. He's a community organizer - and we need a world class leader. Now, if anyone wants to define that as 'hate', then feel free but I don't hate the man - I fundamentally disagree with his policies. But the issue I have with Obama - he is just not good enough to lead our country.

Discuss, or not... either is fine by me.

People are always different before they get elected, but I think this is more a case of tailoring the speech to the audience. Smart politicians have always done that (including Al Pacino), but it's only with the advent of You Tube that the public is able to compare them side by side. The SEIU is very different to West Point.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/arNYCyTJ-DM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/arNYCyTJ-DM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

My favorite Pacino speech is the one in "And Justice For All" where he had to defend a dispicable person, whom he KNEW was guilty as sin, and in the end couldn't do it. Also, the one he gave to school regents and peers of the kid who took him on one last whirlwind party in NYC before he died in "The Scent of a Woman." Needless to say, Al Pacino is my favorite actor of all time. Now yall can get back on topic. Sorry.

 

[MaggieMae]

I wouild be extremely disappointed in any president that was "passionate" about sending 30 thousand young americans into harm's way.

You don't think he should show some enthusiasm (you know, we're gonna kick your ass you bad guys) like he did in the first vid? I do. He was robotic last night, as usual. He read the teleprompter well, though, and he looked into the camera four times (well, I counted four times; I tuned him out after 20 minutes or so).

He wasn't at a pep rally.

 

[MaggieMae]

I wouild be extremely disappointed in any president that was "passionate" about sending 30 thousand young americans into harm's way.

The very best of war time leaders - like Churchill - managed to combine the compassion of sending soldiers into war, with passion for the just cause. I expected more from Obama - I think you give him too much credit. His lack of passion wasn't about the seriousness of the issue, it was because he just doesn't give a shit.

For one thing, Churchill and Roosevelt sounded passionate because they were on radio, not television. So they had to give imaginations a boost just to generate interest. And if he "didn't give a shit," dear, he never would have run for president. He knew from the outset that he would be criticized more than any president in history, so he didn't do it for any potential glory.

That's what's wrong with the way you think. You start of with a rather good post, open for serious debate, and then you go off and say something stupidly childish which just makes people pissed off rather than agreeing to disagree like adults.

 

[MaggieMae]

Therein lays my issue - you 'feel' that I 'hate' him - I don't hate him. I clearly stated what I dislike and why. And yet, you still have to start whining about 'hate'. That is pathetic.

Baloney. I certainly would feel hatred toward a sitting president if I thought deep down he "didn't give a shit." Why lie about it?

 

[California Girl]

I wouild be extremely disappointed in any president that was "passionate" about sending 30 thousand young americans into harm's way.

You don't think he should show some enthusiasm (you know, we're gonna kick your ass you bad guys) like he did in the first vid? I do. He was robotic last night, as usual. He read the teleprompter well, though, and he looked into the camera four times (well, I counted four times; I tuned him out after 20 minutes or so).

He wasn't at a pep rally.

No, he wasn't. Nor was Churchill when he called Britain to war with Germany - but he managed to rally a tiny, underfunded nation to take on one considerably larger. He did it with dignity, passion and compassion. That is my point. Now you may disagree with me, that's fine. But.... I am kind of sick and tired of being told I 'hate' Obama. I try hard not to 'hate' any individual - I hate the action, not the person. That's the way I was raised.

Just because other assholes hated Bush, does not mean that those of us who disagree with Obama hate him. It's pathetic and childish to accuse others - whose hearts you do not know - of hatred.

 

[MaggieMae]

The problem with Obama is that he's not Hillary Clinton, someone that actually has balls and isn't afraid to use them.

And I can only imagine the criticism SHE would be taking on her every move. Hillary was as much reviled by the rabid right as Obama during the campaign. Remember the website STOP HER NOW! ?? Ha...be careful what you wish for cons.