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

[Yurt]

its so easy to prove someone a liar sometimes...

sexual relations

Dictionary: sexual relations
pl.n.

1. Sexual intercourse.
2. Sexual activity between individuals

WordNet: sexual relation

The noun has one meaning:

Meaning #1: the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur
Synonyms: sexual intercourse, intercourse, sex act, copulation, coitus, coition, sexual congress, congress, relation, carnal knowledge

sexual relations: Definition from Answers.com

lmao...the dictionary has TWO definitions, but apparently we have a dishonest poster who ignored that part of his or her link

 

[Oldandtired]

if your background is military, you obviously didn't learn anything. You say that your project manager scenario is synonymous with the Afghan situation.... and then you go on to make a big deal about how there are not lives at stake in yours.... Anyone who had been awake while serving in the military would realize that it is precisely because there ARE lives at stake that your scenario is fatally foolishly flawed. We have units on the ground... and they need to have confidence in their leader. Their lives depend on him. If the CinC fired every military field commander that had presented options that were ultimately rejected or modified by the civilain command authority, we wouldn't have any admirals or generals left to lead our troops.

You are an intelligent poster....few and far between on this board. So lets back up and start again....and I take back my barbs...especially my first one.

I learned a lot my friend. More than I care to admit.

My analogy is flawed. Yes. But it was designed to make a poiint. Not compare apples to apples....but to make a point.

In the military, one does not doubt the opinion of his senior. It may cost the life of a fellow soldier. Likewise, one does not doubt the word of a subordinate who was given the responsibility of reconnaissance. That too may cost the life of a soldier.

But I fear we will never see eye to eye on this. But one thing I know for sure. McChrystal was chosen to come up with a strategy. His strategy was tweaked. Sounds ok perhpas....but when it comes to war, I prefer the opinion of the one chose to come up with the strategy.

in the military, commissioned officers are encouraged to doubt the opinions of their seniors at every step. And they voice that doubt behind closed doors... and, after discussion - oftentimes heated - the senior makes up his mind...and the subordinate officer opens the door and leaves, and carries out the order or implements the strategy as if it were his own idea. That is what McChrystal did and is doing. That is why it would be FOOLISH to replace him, or any military leader, simply because his ideas were not adopted whole hog.

And in MY opinion, when it comes to war, I want the Commander in Chief to be just that.

I missed this post. Sorry.
Interesting.......I will respond....but not now.......I am short on time....need to hand out payroll checks....15 minutes...

 

[Yurt]

Retired military, regardless of ideology, shoiuld never be compared to a nazi.

oh please, grammar nazi and spelling nazi are simple slang for obsessive assholes on the internet who go around message boards constantly correcting grammar and spelling as if message boards are theses

I agree...But I have found Maineman, although way off base with my sentiments, someone who adds to the debate with more than just criticism.

who cares what you think of that creepy stalker....are you two lovers? why they hell are you defending him over stupid shit like this? if he threatened your family, your job and your home i highly doubt you would feel that way....he has been banned multiple time at 3 different boards for doing that....yet you think he is smart....and adds to the debate....

that truly is a sad reflection on you....

 

[maineman]

sentence from your post bolded for your attention:

its so easy to prove someone a liar sometimes...

sexual relations

Dictionary: sexual relations
pl.n.

1. Sexual intercourse.
2. Sexual activity between individuals

WordNet: sexual relation

The noun has one meaning:

Meaning #1: the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur
Synonyms: sexual intercourse, intercourse, sex act, copulation, coitus, coition, sexual congress, congress, relation, carnal knowledge

sexual relations: Definition from Answers.com

lmao...the dictionary has TWO definitions, but apparently we have a dishonest poster who ignored that part of his or her link

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Very well though out post CG. I basically feel the same way about his presidency and personality thus far.

Im still hoping he does a 180, grows some balls, and kicks all the lobbyists and special interests to the curb for real and gets all the tax cheats and lawbreakers out of the administration.

those two videos, when watched right after the other, make me doubt his conviction over doing right by the soldiers in afghanistan. I am hoping he was trying to appear somber and reserved because of the gravity of the situation and his audience.....i hope.

 

[maineman]

You are an intelligent poster....few and far between on this board. So lets back up and start again....and I take back my barbs...especially my first one.

I learned a lot my friend. More than I care to admit.

My analogy is flawed. Yes. But it was designed to make a poiint. Not compare apples to apples....but to make a point.

In the military, one does not doubt the opinion of his senior. It may cost the life of a fellow soldier. Likewise, one does not doubt the word of a subordinate who was given the responsibility of reconnaissance. That too may cost the life of a soldier.

But I fear we will never see eye to eye on this. But one thing I know for sure. McChrystal was chosen to come up with a strategy. His strategy was tweaked. Sounds ok perhpas....but when it comes to war, I prefer the opinion of the one chose to come up with the strategy.

in the military, commissioned officers are encouraged to doubt the opinions of their seniors at every step. And they voice that doubt behind closed doors... and, after discussion - oftentimes heated - the senior makes up his mind...and the subordinate officer opens the door and leaves, and carries out the order or implements the strategy as if it were his own idea. That is what McChrystal did and is doing. That is why it would be FOOLISH to replace him, or any military leader, simply because his ideas were not adopted whole hog.

And in MY opinion, when it comes to war, I want the Commander in Chief to be just that.

I missed this post. Sorry.
Interesting.......I will respond....but not now.......I am short on time....need to hand out payroll checks....15 minutes...

I've got to take my wife out to dinner and a movie soon, so I will look forward to reading your response upon my return.

 

[maineman]

oh please, grammar nazi and spelling nazi are simple slang for obsessive assholes on the internet who go around message boards constantly correcting grammar and spelling as if message boards are theses

I agree...But I have found Maineman, although way off base with my sentiments, someone who adds to the debate with more than just criticism.

who cares what you think of that creepy stalker....are you two lovers? why they hell are you defending him over stupid shit like this? if he threatened your family, your job and your home i highly doubt you would feel that way....he has been banned multiple time at 3 different boards for doing that....yet you think he is smart....and adds to the debate....

that truly is a sad reflection on you....

this from the guy who persistently stalked me and posted my real name and place of employment on the web....

I never threatened him OR his family OR his job OR his home.

 

[California Girl]

McChrystal asked for the troops... Petraeus, as his boss, supported and endorsed his request. Now..Petraeus is fully supportive of the plan that resulted from the Obama team thoroughly examining all the various strategy/force strength options.

And you know this how exactly?

Oh please.

Other than the fact that McChrystal publically asked for more troops, you think Petraeus isn't on board with that?

That's not how the Chain of Command works.

This is what happens when people try to politicize the motives of professional officers. The conservatives were all hunky dory on Petraeus when Bush was in Office (and some liberals were calling him Betrayus) now that Obama is in charge, the tables are turned.

Thank God we have a professional officer corps (and NCO corps) that is above this political backbiting.

Petraeus is CENTCOM commander, that means any plan in CENTCOM has his signature on it. Especially plans at the strategic and operational level.

I'm aware of who Patraeus is, and who McChrystal is, and I know that what they say in public is not necesarily what they think.

I have more respect for professoinal officers than I do for any politician. Patreus is a great officer, as is McChrystal.

My point - unless you are within a very limited chain around either, then you are unlikely to know what either of them really thinks about Obama's strategy.

 

[Yurt]

some people are just plain stupid, no wonder they walk around and play grammar nazi

look at the words....one is "sexual relationS" the other is sexual relation.....bill clinton said sexual relations, not sexual relation....."i did not have sexual relationS with that woman"

your ignorance is mind boggling....pwned by your own source once again



besides this is just stupid....obviously clinton knew he committed perjury when he said he did not have sexual relations with her....that is why he gave up his license to practice law....if he WERE innocent, he would not have given up his license....he fought the impeachment, yet you would have us believe he didn't fight the criminal charges because he was innocent.....

lmao

 

[maineman]

And you know this how exactly?

Oh please.

Other than the fact that McChrystal publically asked for more troops, you think Petraeus isn't on board with that?

That's not how the Chain of Command works.

This is what happens when people try to politicize the motives of professional officers. The conservatives were all hunky dory on Petraeus when Bush was in Office (and some liberals were calling him Betrayus) now that Obama is in charge, the tables are turned.

Thank God we have a professional officer corps (and NCO corps) that is above this political backbiting.

Petraeus is CENTCOM commander, that means any plan in CENTCOM has his signature on it. Especially plans at the strategic and operational level.

I'm aware of who Patraeus is, and who McChrystal is, and I know that what they say in public is not necesarily what they think.

I have more respect for professoinal officers than I do for any politician. Patreus is a great officer, as is McChrystal.

My point - unless you are within a very limited chain around either, then you are unlikely to know what either of them really thinks about Obama's strategy.

and if you had ever served in the military, you would know that there are countless situations arising every single day where senior military officers disagree with their more senior superiors... and they voice that disagreement in private and then, after their opinions have been voiced, and the senior makes a decision, the subordinates all walk away and implement the decision as if it were their own.

 

[maineman]

some people are just plain stupid, no wonder they walk around and play grammar nazi

look at the words....one is "sexual relationS" the other is sexual relation.....bill clinton said sexual relations, not sexual relation....."i did not have sexual relationS with that woman"

your ignorance is mind boggling....pwned by your own source once again



besides this is just stupid....obviously clinton knew he committed perjury when he said he did not have sexual relations with her....that is why he gave up his license to practice law....if he WERE innocent, he would not have given up his license....he fought the impeachment, yet you would have us believe he didn't fight the criminal charges because he was innocent.....

lmao

I guess if you actually knew ANYTHING about the law, you would know that merely telling a falsehood while under oath is not always evidence of the CRIME of perjury.

Adding an "S" does not make sexual relations turn from intercourse to blowjobs, btw.

 

[Oldandtired]

Oh please.

Other than the fact that McChrystal publically asked for more troops, you think Petraeus isn't on board with that?

That's not how the Chain of Command works.

This is what happens when people try to politicize the motives of professional officers. The conservatives were all hunky dory on Petraeus when Bush was in Office (and some liberals were calling him Betrayus) now that Obama is in charge, the tables are turned.

Thank God we have a professional officer corps (and NCO corps) that is above this political backbiting.

Petraeus is CENTCOM commander, that means any plan in CENTCOM has his signature on it. Especially plans at the strategic and operational level.

I'm aware of who Patraeus is, and who McChrystal is, and I know that what they say in public is not necesarily what they think.

I have more respect for professoinal officers than I do for any politician. Patreus is a great officer, as is McChrystal.

My point - unless you are within a very limited chain around either, then you are unlikely to know what either of them really thinks about Obama's strategy.

and if you had ever served in the military, you would know that there are countless situations arising every single day where senior military officers disagree with their more senior superiors... and they voice that disagreement in private and then, after their opinions have been voiced, and the senior makes a decision, the subordinates all walk away and implement the decision as if it were their own.

True...but you and I both know exactly who the CIC is and how he is perceived as it pertains to military strategy. We are not talking aboiut DDE or even JFK

We are not talking about a Col and a Lt. Col with military training and experience debating tactical operations a mile off the front.

We are talking about an experienced Genral with direct exposure to the front and the CIC with absolutely no military training.

There...I said it.....I will put stock in an NCO over our CIC any day of the year when it comes to military strategy...and yes...I am exagerrating but to make a valid point.

 

[geauxtohell]

I agree...But I have found Maineman, although way off base with my sentiments, someone who adds to the debate with more than just criticism.

who cares what you think of that creepy stalker....are you two lovers? why they hell are you defending him over stupid shit like this? if he threatened your family, your job and your home i highly doubt you would feel that way....he has been banned multiple time at 3 different boards for doing that....yet you think he is smart....and adds to the debate....

that truly is a sad reflection on you....

this from the guy who persistently stalked me and posted my real name and place of employment on the web....

I never threatened him OR his family OR his job OR his home.

Hmmm.

Who to believe a retired Naval O-4 or a ranting lunatic?

That's a toughie.

 

[geauxtohell]

And you know this how exactly?

Oh please.

Other than the fact that McChrystal publically asked for more troops, you think Petraeus isn't on board with that?

That's not how the Chain of Command works.

This is what happens when people try to politicize the motives of professional officers. The conservatives were all hunky dory on Petraeus when Bush was in Office (and some liberals were calling him Betrayus) now that Obama is in charge, the tables are turned.

Thank God we have a professional officer corps (and NCO corps) that is above this political backbiting.

Petraeus is CENTCOM commander, that means any plan in CENTCOM has his signature on it. Especially plans at the strategic and operational level.

I'm aware of who Patraeus is, and who McChrystal is, and I know that what they say in public is not necesarily what they think.

I have more respect for professoinal officers than I do for any politician. Patreus is a great officer, as is McChrystal.

My point - unless you are within a very limited chain around either, then you are unlikely to know what either of them really thinks about Obama's strategy.

You don't have much respect for GEN Petraeus' integrity if you think he would be pressured into a plan that he didn't agree with.

Considering Petraeus advocated for the "surge", you don't think he'd try a similar template in Afghanistan?

For the record, I don't think it's the right approach there, but I know that Petraeus is much smarter about this than I am. That gives me some confidence.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm aware of who Patraeus is, and who McChrystal is, and I know that what they say in public is not necesarily what they think.

I have more respect for professoinal officers than I do for any politician. Patreus is a great officer, as is McChrystal.

My point - unless you are within a very limited chain around either, then you are unlikely to know what either of them really thinks about Obama's strategy.

and if you had ever served in the military, you would know that there are countless situations arising every single day where senior military officers disagree with their more senior superiors... and they voice that disagreement in private and then, after their opinions have been voiced, and the senior makes a decision, the subordinates all walk away and implement the decision as if it were their own.

True...but you and I both know exactly who the CIC is and how he is perceived as it pertains to military strategy. We are not talking aboiut DDE or even JFK

We are not talking about a Col and a Lt. Col with military training and experience debating tactical operations a mile off the front.

We are talking about an experienced Genral with direct exposure to the front and the CIC with absolutely no military training.

There...I said it.....I will put stock in an NCO over our CIC any day of the year when it comes to military strategy...and yes...I am exagerrating but to make a valid point.

NCOs have a wealth of tactical experience up to the battalion level. I have little doubt that a Command Sergeant Major could run a BN efficiently. After that, it gets dicey. NCOs are about the soldiers and the details. Officers are big picture. That is why a difference exists.

Since the CINC listens to his officers (at least if he's smart), it's a moot point.

Of course, officers are not immune from giving bad advice. Case in point: Westmoreland.

We should be listening to the Battalion Commanders. They are the officers that are really fighting these wars. However, our system is just not set up to do that.

 

[geauxtohell]

who cares what you think of that creepy stalker....are you two lovers? why they hell are you defending him over stupid shit like this? if he threatened your family, your job and your home i highly doubt you would feel that way....he has been banned multiple time at 3 different boards for doing that....yet you think he is smart....and adds to the debate....

that truly is a sad reflection on you....

this from the guy who persistently stalked me and posted my real name and place of employment on the web....

I never threatened him OR his family OR his job OR his home.

Hmmm.

Who to believe a retired Naval O-4 or a ranting lunatic?

That's a toughie.

Wait!

I want to amend my previous post!

"Hmmmm.

Who to believe?

A retired Naval O-4 or a ranting douchbag who neg reps me for asking such questions and sends angry rants that would be the envy of a lunatic?

That's a toughie."

BTW, Yurtie-boy: **** you too. I could care less about whatever drama you had on another board. Quit trying to make it my business.

 

[Yurt]

this from the guy who persistently stalked me and posted my real name and place of employment on the web....

I never threatened him OR his family OR his job OR his home.

Hmmm.

Who to believe a retired Naval O-4 or a ranting lunatic?

That's a toughie.

Wait!

I want to amend my previous post!

"Hmmmm.

Who to believe?

A retired Naval O-4 or a ranting douchbag who neg reps me for asking such questions and sends angry rants that would be the envy of a lunatic?

That's a toughie."

BTW, Yurtie-boy: **** you too. I could care less about whatever drama you had on another board. Quit trying to make it my business.

you dumbfuck....you jumped into this....i never made it your business, you took the side of liar who has been banned at this board as well.....

to bad you're such a moron

this crap is really boring and tired....

 

[geauxtohell]

this crap is really boring and tired....

I agree.

Now why don't you be a man and drop it?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

The thing is, they probably could scrape together enough conventional units like infantry brigades, but they are not as effective in a terrain such as Afghanistan, so special operations forces are preferred which take more training and are more scarce in number.

 

[MaggieMae]

Patreus [sic] ?
LMAO....you surely know what you are talking about.

McChrystal asked for the troops... Petraeus, as his boss, supported and endorsed his request. Now..Petraeus is fully supportive of the plan that resulted from the Obama team thoroughly examining all the various strategy/force strength options.

Petraeus NEVER asked for the troops. McChrystal was the "project manager" who did the research work necessary for the request and the he was also the Author of the request.
Obama is Petraeus' boss...so was it Obama's request? You see my point.

Now, as for the rest of what you say...I see it differently...

If a project manager for a construction project determines based on his experience, research and overall knowledge that 400 workers are necessary to get the project completed.....what would make anyone think that the developer would know better when he decides only 300 people were necesary instead. And if so....then who in their right mnd would continue to use that project manager for that same project?

And in THAT scenario....lives are not at stake.

Well, using your illogical scenario, why would input from the boss be needed at all? BECAUSE IT'S WHAT THEY DO: Evaluate a situation and make decisions based on collective input. A no-brainer.