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

[MaggieMae]

My bad if I assumed that others would get what I mean. It's has, to me, never been an insult to the man.... always an insult at the borg-like followers.

Why should you apologize or explain? Why should you withhold your criticism or even your derision for Obama and his socialist supporters???
Why shouldn't you hate the guy in the healthy way I described earlier in the thread?

Shouldn't those of us who still believe in the Liberty, guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution, be passionate enough about it to vociferously condemn these fascist attacks on our freedom? Shouldn't we have the biscuits to boldly stand between the usurper of our freedoms and our families? Should we politely allow them to stick our children's heads in the yoke, to economically enslave our progeny?

I don't think so. Hate him if you want. Hate the looters who would deprive your children of their unalienable right to freedom. Emotions are our birthright as humans, each one having its own unique value. Don't forget that Love is as damaging as Hate when it's misused.

The only thing you owe these people is respect for their unalienable rights as citizens, same as you expect for yourself. In political terms, you don't owe them anything more than that. Political Correctness is the battering ram of the socialist. He uses it to diminish your will. But you aren't compelled to allow him to do it.

God, Himself, chose to allow us free will. Who among these calls himself God to take it from you? And if you're a Christian and you feel bad about hating your enemy?... pray for his soul and that God makes him right in his mind and actions. But don't forget that even Jesus doesn't require you to take a snake to your bosom.

You're espousing a certain ideology and of course you would not agree with a single thing this administration wants to accomplish. There remains a great number of people who believe there is a middle ground between your beliefs and the core Democratic belief, which is NOT "socialistic" in the true sense of the word.

 

[MaggieMae]

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 ******* 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.

CG, I think you need to remember that it's quite possible that we don't HAVE any more than 30,000 troops to put in Afghanistan. Every military expert I've ever listened to has stated unequivocally that our armed forces are severely diminished as a result of the Iraq war. While some will be pulled from there and redeployed to Afghanistan, I think one of Obama's objectives is not to put any more of the soldiers who have been redeployed three, four, five, six times to Iraq back into Afghanistan. Face it, we really don't KNOW what the nuts and bolts of the final strategic decision involved.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

"Alinsky tactics"?? Now at least we know which talking heads you listen to. If anyone is guilty of using "Alinsky tactics" is FOXNEWS, particularly Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity whose entire agenda is to attack Obama.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Unfortunately, there has never been the "passion" generated in the GWOT as there was over World War II. The only ones really sacrificing ARE our troops and their families. The rest of us sit here and act like armchair generals, log off and go about our personal lives. Sure, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 911, people wanted revenge and were ready to go to war. But in reality, we really didn't have an enemy nation to go to war against. Even Afghanistan, its central government and its people, couldn't be held responsible for the 911 attacks. So trying to generate "passion" has been frustrating.

 

[tigerbob]

The best part about President Obama is that he is enraging the Conservatives. He wouldn't be doing what we elected him to do if the Conservatives were happy

As leader of his county, he should be building bridges, not burning them. Great Presidents are a unifying force, not a dividing one.

If only words translated into action, eh? How many roadblocks has this president met? And by the way, a president has no power of the purse to even put into action proposed policy. So he can talk about building bridges 'til pigs fly, but if there's no money to build them, it's a lost cause.

Part of the problem with the stimulus money is that not enough has yet been earmarked for infrastructure projects, but directed more toward propping up the states so that they don't fall into an abyss. I'm glad that only 40% of it has been spent, and I hope the rest of it really does go to building and repairing bridges, etc., all over the country.

My point was addressed more to rightwinger's delight that Obama was pissing off conservatives as though this was an achievement in and of itself.

Then again, every President meets roadblocks (even those that have a sympathetic congressional majority). Nobody ever said being POTUS was easy.

 

[Oldandtired]

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 ******* 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.

CG, I think you need to remember that it's quite possible that we don't HAVE any more than 30,000 troops to put in Afghanistan. Every military expert I've ever listened to has stated unequivocally that our armed forces are severely diminished as a result of the Iraq war. While some will be pulled from there and redeployed to Afghanistan, I think one of Obama's objectives is not to put any more of the soldiers who have been redeployed three, four, five, six times to Iraq back into Afghanistan. Face it, we really don't KNOW what the nuts and bolts of the final strategic decision involved.

This is factually wrong.
Curious what military experts you listen to. The retired ones? Try listening to the active ones...you know...the ones that know exactly what we need and exactly what we have.
Not those "arm chair" generals you rewfer to in a different post.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Al Pacino should have at least five Oscars on his shelf at home.

And he never died in "Scent of a Woman."

Relevant note, that speech you're talking about:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZjgCK1_tAY[/ame]

Trivia: It was done in one take.

I need to rent that movie again. I can't remember if it ended there or not. Wouldn't it be great if our "justice" system was, in fact, this "honest"?? I'm always completely frustrated when an obviously guilty person gets off on some technicality. Among my peers at the time, I was the ONLY one who insisted from Day One that OJ Simpson would get off scot free due to our justice system's entire premise of "reasonable doubt." I wish I'd had money on it.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

My point, dear, which seems far too complicated for you is that he does not care about the wars. He is passionate when he's talking about his pet agenda - healthcare, social reform, yadda, yadda, yadda. His speech at West Point was a 'tick box' exercise - ie, he had to announce the 30,000 so he's gotta do a speech.... There was no substance. He left the country - and far more importantly - our military in no doubt that he really is not interested in Afghanistan.

Not complicated. It's your OPINION, period.

No president is going to reveal the complete battle strategy when making a major policy speech about a war. Even Bush didn't take the podium and start screaming and yelling and revealing how much enemy blood would be spilled, by gum. Get real.

 

[rightwinger]

He left the country - and far more importantly - our military in no doubt that he really is not interested in Afghanistan.

Thats odd

Was it Obama that bailed out on the Afghanistan fight in 2002?
Didn't Obama campaign on the "Afghanistan is where the real war is" ??
Didn't Obama just agree to double the number of forces that were present in Bush/Cheney?

This doesn't show interest?

 

[MaggieMae]

marc sanford supports the sanctity of marriage amendment.

Unfortunately, the GOP lost one of its potential candidates with a real shot at winning--all because of a personal indiscretion. Yet ol' Newt Gingrich will probably throw his own hat in the ring at some point. Go figure.

 

[Alvin]

He left the country - and far more importantly - our military in no doubt that he really is not interested in Afghanistan.

Thats odd

Was it Obama that bailed out on the Afghanistan fight in 2002?
Didn't Obama campaign on the "Afghanistan is where the real war is" ??
Didn't Obama just agree to double the number of forces that were present in Bush/Cheney?

This doesn't show interest?

No it doesn't. Because it's fact, and one shouldn't let those get in the way of a good talking point.

 

[MaggieMae]

If we want to get technical, he didn't lie to the grand jury. He chose his language very carefully to make a statement that misleading but still technically true.

it wasn't technically true at all....only a hack would say so...he flat out lied, charges were brought up for impeachment but congress didn't impeach him....

you can't explain how his statements were technically true, so you give us this pie of meadowmuffins.....

His statement was technically true. He said that he never had "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. While the plain language reading of that is no sexual contact at all, the term "sexual relations" refers specifically to intercourse. While he did a lot of things with Monica, he never fucked her.

Frankly, I was never convinced that he didn't "have sex" (intercourse) with her. But I also didn't really care.

 

[rightwinger]

He left the country - and far more importantly - our military in no doubt that he really is not interested in Afghanistan.

Thats odd

Was it Obama that bailed out on the Afghanistan fight in 2002?
Didn't Obama campaign on the "Afghanistan is where the real war is" ??
Didn't Obama just agree to double the number of forces that were present in Bush/Cheney?

This doesn't show interest?

No it doesn't. Because it's fact, and one shouldn't let those get in the way of a good talking point.

Pray tell?

What constitutes "interest" in your view? Do youposess any "facts" that show President Obama is not interested in Afghanistan?

 

[nodoginnafight]

He left the country - and far more importantly - our military in no doubt that he really is not interested in Afghanistan.

Thats odd

Was it Obama that bailed out on the Afghanistan fight in 2002?
Didn't Obama campaign on the "Afghanistan is where the real war is" ??
Didn't Obama just agree to double the number of forces that were present in Bush/Cheney?

This doesn't show interest?

In reality Obama DOUBLED the number of forces Bush/Cheney had there BEFORE this new deployment was announced. He's also negotiated a much higher level of participation from the allied forces we had there and negotiated cooperation among other nations that were not previously part of the coalition.

Haters could care less if what they say is true - just so long as it sounds damaging. THAT is what haters do - and no amount of feeble protestations to the contrary can offset that.

The proof is in the pudding.

 

[MaggieMae]

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 ******* 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.

CG, I think you need to remember that it's quite possible that we don't HAVE any more than 30,000 troops to put in Afghanistan. Every military expert I've ever listened to has stated unequivocally that our armed forces are severely diminished as a result of the Iraq war. While some will be pulled from there and redeployed to Afghanistan, I think one of Obama's objectives is not to put any more of the soldiers who have been redeployed three, four, five, six times to Iraq back into Afghanistan. Face it, we really don't KNOW what the nuts and bolts of the final strategic decision involved.

This is factually wrong.
Curious what military experts you listen to. The retired ones? Try listening to the active ones...you know...the ones that know exactly what we need and exactly what we have.
Not those "arm chair" generals you rewfer to in a different post.

Why is it factually wrong? Bin Laden was never a resident of Afghanistan. He was a Saudi. The Taliban represented only a few tribal groups and they gave safe haven to al-Qaeda. We were NOT "at war" with the Afghan people, although we invaded as if we were.

 

[MaggieMae]

CG, I think you need to remember that it's quite possible that we don't HAVE any more than 30,000 troops to put in Afghanistan. Every military expert I've ever listened to has stated unequivocally that our armed forces are severely diminished as a result of the Iraq war. While some will be pulled from there and redeployed to Afghanistan, I think one of Obama's objectives is not to put any more of the soldiers who have been redeployed three, four, five, six times to Iraq back into Afghanistan. Face it, we really don't KNOW what the nuts and bolts of the final strategic decision involved.

This is factually wrong.
Curious what military experts you listen to. The retired ones? Try listening to the active ones...you know...the ones that know exactly what we need and exactly what we have.
Not those "arm chair" generals you rewfer to in a different post.

Why is it factually wrong? Bin Laden was never a resident of Afghanistan. He was a Saudi. The Taliban represented only a few tribal groups and they gave safe haven to al-Qaeda. We were NOT "at war" with the Afghan people, although we invaded as if we were.

Sorry, I posted to the wrong place. Now I can't remember where I intended to put that ^.

That said, however, please post some credible links that prove our armed forces aren't diminished, if I'm listening to the wrong people and the wrong information. I would appreciate that, because I do hope you're correct.

 

[Oldandtired]

This is factually wrong.
Curious what military experts you listen to. The retired ones? Try listening to the active ones...you know...the ones that know exactly what we need and exactly what we have.
Not those "arm chair" generals you rewfer to in a different post.

Why is it factually wrong? Bin Laden was never a resident of Afghanistan. He was a Saudi. The Taliban represented only a few tribal groups and they gave safe haven to al-Qaeda. We were NOT "at war" with the Afghan people, although we invaded as if we were.

Sorry, I posted to the wrong place. Now I can't remember where I intended to put that ^.

That said, however, please post some credible links that prove our armed forces aren't diminished, if I'm listening to the wrong people and the wrong information. I would appreciate that, because I do hope you're correct.

That may be the problem. You want to see your information from a link. I like to get my information from the source. A General will not ask for 40,000 troops if there were not 40,000 troops to take. A general would not ask for 40,000 troops if those troops were war weary and not 100% capable of performing in a life and death situation.

You see...I have a choice of listening to Hannity, or Matthews, or blogs or commentators........or, instead, the ones that are really in the know. I have learned my lesson educating myself with info from links...Instead, I know apply basic logic and listen to those in the know.

So, no, I do not have a link. I have the word of a general who knows a heck of a lot more than any link will ever know.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why is it factually wrong? Bin Laden was never a resident of Afghanistan. He was a Saudi. The Taliban represented only a few tribal groups and they gave safe haven to al-Qaeda. We were NOT "at war" with the Afghan people, although we invaded as if we were.

Sorry, I posted to the wrong place. Now I can't remember where I intended to put that ^.

That said, however, please post some credible links that prove our armed forces aren't diminished, if I'm listening to the wrong people and the wrong information. I would appreciate that, because I do hope you're correct.

That may be the problem. You want to see your information from a link. I like to get my information from the source. A General will not ask for 40,000 troops if there were not 40,000 troops to take. A general would not ask for 40,000 troops if those troops were war weary and not 100% capable of performing in a life and death situation.

You see...I have a choice of listening to Hannity, or Matthews, or blogs or commentators........or, instead, the ones that are really in the know. I have learned my lesson educating myself with info from links...Instead, I know apply basic logic and listen to those in the know.

So, no, I do not have a link. I have the word of a general who knows a heck of a lot more than any link will ever know.

Translation: I have NOTHING to back up a thing I say, but you should trust it more than documented sources because I said so.

 

[Oldandtired]

Sorry, I posted to the wrong place. Now I can't remember where I intended to put that ^.

That said, however, please post some credible links that prove our armed forces aren't diminished, if I'm listening to the wrong people and the wrong information. I would appreciate that, because I do hope you're correct.

That may be the problem. You want to see your information from a link. I like to get my information from the source. A General will not ask for 40,000 troops if there were not 40,000 troops to take. A general would not ask for 40,000 troops if those troops were war weary and not 100% capable of performing in a life and death situation.

You see...I have a choice of listening to Hannity, or Matthews, or blogs or commentators........or, instead, the ones that are really in the know. I have learned my lesson educating myself with info from links...Instead, I know apply basic logic and listen to those in the know.

So, no, I do not have a link. I have the word of a general who knows a heck of a lot more than any link will ever know.

Translation: I have NOTHING to back up a thing I say, but you should trust it more than documented sources because I said so.

So you feel a link is more appropriate than the words of the field general?
Cool with me.

 

[nodoginnafight]

let me see/here the words from the field general.