OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:48 am
H2O_MAN wrote:
snood wrote:
It's all remarks like "BET Q&A" deserve.


Do you think Obama has had any hardball questions asked of him?

The answer is NO.

Obama has only been asked softball questions one would expect from BET.
How would you know you ignorant fool? 30 seconds on Google would have revealed that BET was strongly in the Hillary Camp, not Obama's, and in FACT; it's gazillionaire owner struck Obama with one of the first/hardest shots about his past drug use. Clearly, again, you're opining purely from ignorance and since you have/had NO IDEA what's transpired between Obama and BET; Race is the only thing left that could have prompted you to make such an idiotic statement.

For clarity:

Obama doesn't get pushed into enough hard questions <- Reasonable objection...

"The dumbmasses will never realize this as long as the big
3 press continues to ask BET type questions of Obama". <- Pure racist idiocy as demonstrated above...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:50 am
okie wrote:
Speaking of Obama's oratory skills, which I have never swallowed by the way, Rush had this yesterday, using clips of a press conference, almost 20% of Obamas's words were "uh, uh, um, uhh, etc."

OBAMA: -- uh, uh, uh, you know, uh, uh, uh, uhh, is...? Uh, is of -- of their work, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, we, uh, uh, I called, uh, uh, and I'm -- I'm -- Uh, with, uh, uh, as, uh, that, uh, and uh, uh, um, uh -- And we have to do this, uh, uh. As -- as well as, eh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh. Well, uh. I, uh, uh, uh, um. We, uh, and, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh. Uh, now, uh, right now and then identify if -- if, uh, you want to, uh, uh, uhhhh. Ummmm. That's -- that's a bunch. Umm, so let me tick these off. Um, it is true that, uh, uh, uh, uhhh, uh, uh. What, uh, uhhh, uh, and, uh, uh, in I-iraq, uh, uh, are seen as, uh -- and so, uh, uh, uhhh, uh, uh, and if I was -- i-if I were in his shoes, uh, uh, uhh, and so, uh, a, uh, um, uh, from some -- someplace else, uh, theeee, uh -- and, uh, t'see, uhhh, that, uhhh --

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072208/content/01125109.guest.html

Now to be accurate, Rush clipped and pasted the montage together, but let us be honest, Obama is very bad at equivocating, and he has way more "uhs" than most anyone. He doesn't have good answers, so he gives these patented answers filled with maybes, ifs, uh, uh, what ifs, and basically not much of a straight answer on anything.

I recognized this in his book, he had a very very tough time taking a solid position, but instead he discussed all the possible positions, good points, bad points, which I already knew, but I wanted to know what his was, but after reading the book I still didn't know. I also watched many of the debates, and learned not much, but alot of "uh's" and alot of generalities. The guy is pretty good at speaking in generalities, but lousy at speaking specifically about anything.

And he is even on record for chastising reporters in Iraq for expecting specific answers.


Yes, he uses the 'uh' sound as an interrogative or filler sound between logical statements.

But he's still light years better at speaking then McCain, or likely yourself, Okie. And I disagree that he doesn't answer in specifics.

Still, I understand that you have to try and knock the guy on something, so I guess this is better then slimy insinuations.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:53 am
Okay, specifics then, cyclops, based on what Obama says, what does he intend to do in Iraq? And Afghanistan? I would like to know which one of his answers is correct?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:56 am
okie wrote:
Okay, specifics then, cyclops, based on what Obama says, what does he intend to do in Iraq? And Afghanistan? I would like to know which one of his answers is correct?


He intends to begin a withdrawal in Iraq and have most if not all of the troops out by 16 months, or as the Iraqis seem to want, 2010.

He wants to send 3 additional brigades to Afghanistan.

Both of these positions are not only specific, they have been long-held and repeated by him many times.

Cycloptichron
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:56 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
snood wrote:
It's all remarks like "BET Q&A" deserve.


Do you think Obama has had any hardball questions asked of him?

The answer is NO.

Obama has only been asked softball questions one would expect from BET.
How would you know you ignorant fool? 30 seconds on Google would have revealed that BET was strongly in the Hillary Camp, not Obama's, and in FACT; it's gazillionaire owner struck Obama with one of the first/hardest shots about his past drug use. Clearly, again, you're opining purely from ignorance and since you have/had NO IDEA what's transpired between Obama and BET; Race is the only thing left that could have prompted you to make such an idiotic statement.

For clarity:

Obama doesn't get pushed into enough hard questions <- Reasonable objection...

"The dumbmasses will never realize this as long as the big
3 press continues to ask BET type questions of Obama". <- Pure racist idiocy as demonstrated above...

Bill, why don't you take a breather from calling everybody a racist or a bigot here on this forum. Take a deep breath and simply consider a few other options. Is it possible for you?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:57 am
He's right in this case, there has been a clear pattern of racist remarks by the same jerk.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:00 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
.... most if not all of the troops out by 16 months, or as the Iraqis seem to want, 2010....
Cycloptichron

So it isn't 16 months at all then. Or it was until he actually gathered a little information. Actually, I don't think any commander would recommend a timetable based on a specific number of months, nor when the rubber hits the road, the Iraqis either. Which is what the Bush policy has been all along. I contend (Diest, please notice word usage) that 16 months never meant anything, but was just a number he grabbed out of the air.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:02 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
.... most if not all of the troops out by 16 months, or as the Iraqis seem to want, 2010....
Cycloptichron

So it isn't 16 months at all then. Or it was until he actually gathered a little information. Actually, I don't think any commander would recommend a timetable based on a specific number of months, nor when the rubber hits the road, the Iraqis either. Which is what the Bush policy has been all along.


You don't seem to understand who the Commander is; it is the president, not the armed forces. The armed forces serve the decisions of the commander in chief, not the other way around.

It is 16 months; that has been Obama's plan consistently. Now, you are gonna quibble about a month here or there? What inane nitpicking! The truth is that he's always wanted a timetable and always wanted to get out, that's the exact opposite of McCain (who wants to stay for 100 years) and Bush (who doesn't have a f*cking clue what he wants), who are now desperately trying to seize the initiative back from Obama on this issue. But they will be unable to do so.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:05 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
He's right in this case, there has been a clear pattern of racist remarks by the same jerk.

Cycloptichorn

I haven't read every remark by H2OMAN, but this I know, I have been called a bigot more than once by Bill, and as a result I think his opinions are not worth considering anymore. I don't know what his particular problem is, but every time he posts, it has a good chance of being something along those lines.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:06 am
Quote:
I'm not pregidous
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:10 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't seem to understand who the Commander is; it is the president, not the armed forces. The armed forces serve the decisions of the commander in chief, not the other way around.

Cycloptichorn

That is true, cyclops, but just a couple of big problems with that. First, Obama has finally said he would listen to the commanders to help him make the right decision, and secondly, a CIC should want to win the war in Iraq, right, and to do that he should listen to the experts, and hopefully take at least some of their advice. Also, I am not aware that he even talked with them or considered their opinions before his 16 month proclamation. I don't mind a CIC to make decisions, great, but if he doesn't even listen to his commanders, then he is not doing his job. And he is totally irresponsible. We are not only paying the president, we are also paying the armed forces for all the expertise there. I do not want a president that shoots off his mouth about something he knows nothing about, and that is what has happened here.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:17 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't seem to understand who the Commander is; it is the president, not the armed forces. The armed forces serve the decisions of the commander in chief, not the other way around.

Cycloptichorn

That is true, cyclops, but just a couple of big problems with that. First, Obama has finally said he would listen to the commanders to help him make the right decision, and secondly, a CIC should want to win the war in Iraq, right, and to do that he should listen to the experts, and hopefully take at least some of their advice. Also, I am not aware that he even talked with them or considered their opinions before his 16 month proclamation. I don't mind a CIC to make decisions, great, but if he doesn't even listen to his commanders, then he is not doing his job. And he is totally irresponsible. We are not only paying the president, we are also paying the armed forces for all the expertise there. I do not want a president that shoots off his mouth about something he knows nothing about, and that is what has happened here.


here's your problem

Quote:
, and secondly, a CIC should want to win the war in Iraq,


You are so caught up in bullshit Republican memes, you can't even consider another path of action. I really don't care what your opinion is of what the CiC should 'want.' It's immaterial.

If you are against presidental candidates talking about things they don't understand, are you interested in some interesting quotes of John McCain doing this, Okie? For that might change your mind about your vote, if you are truly interested in such things as a criteria.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:18 am
Oops! my speel chzek wern't workin well


I'm not prejudice.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:20 am
okie, You make too many assumptions about "winning" in Iraq. Your myopia is just as bad as Bush-McCain, who hasn't articulated "when" we'll be able to leave - and call it a "horizon." How much more sacrifice would you like to make for our military and treasure before we can identify what "win" means?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:20 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
He's right in this case, there has been a clear pattern of racist remarks by the same jerk.

Cycloptichorn

I haven't read every remark by H2OMAN, but this I know, I have been called a bigot more than once by Bill, and as a result I think his opinions are not worth considering anymore. I don't know what his particular problem is, but every time he posts, it has a good chance of being something along those lines.


Bill is also a pipsqueak and I suspect he needs help finding his tiny little dick.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:47 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't seem to understand who the Commander is; it is the president, not the armed forces. The armed forces serve the decisions of the commander in chief, not the other way around.

Cycloptichorn

That is true, cyclops, but just a couple of big problems with that. First, Obama has finally said he would listen to the commanders to help him make the right decision, and secondly, a CIC should want to win the war in Iraq, right, and to do that he should listen to the experts, and hopefully take at least some of their advice. Also, I am not aware that he even talked with them or considered their opinions before his 16 month proclamation. I don't mind a CIC to make decisions, great, but if he doesn't even listen to his commanders, then he is not doing his job. And he is totally irresponsible. We are not only paying the president, we are also paying the armed forces for all the expertise there. I do not want a president that shoots off his mouth about something he knows nothing about, and that is what has happened here.


here's your problem

Quote:
, and secondly, a CIC should want to win the war in Iraq,


You are so caught up in bullshit Republican memes, you can't even consider another path of action. I really don't care what your opinion is of what the CiC should 'want.' It's immaterial.

If you are against presidental candidates talking about things they don't understand, are you interested in some interesting quotes of John McCain doing this, Okie? For that might change your mind about your vote, if you are truly interested in such things as a criteria.

Cycloptichorn

So your fall back position is well, McCain doesn't know anything about some things, so if Obama doesn't, it doesn't matter? One problem with that is the Iraq situation has been front and center for how many years now, and Obama's stances on Iraq have been probably the one issue that has propelled him to where he is, but now you apparently admit it doesn't matter if he knows anything about it before coming out with his solutions, but now it turns out his solutions were never practical, as his detractors have been pointing out that obvious fact how long now, cyclops?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:48 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
He's right in this case, there has been a clear pattern of racist remarks by the same jerk.

Cycloptichorn

I haven't read every remark by H2OMAN, but this I know, I have been called a bigot more than once by Bill, and as a result I think his opinions are not worth considering anymore. I don't know what his particular problem is, but every time he posts, it has a good chance of being something along those lines.
Wtf is wrong with you Okie? Did you even read what you quoted before assuming your racist buddy was innocent? By covering for him (out of ignorance), you are thereby condoning his pathetic strategy. Try to show a little integrity. Hell, even Foxy eventually acknowledged it; and she is the living embodiment of righty partisan loyalty.

Then look at what the pathetic moron offers by way of counterargument. Rolling Eyes (As if a grade school jab accomplishes anything beyond making him look even more foolish.)(No small feat, that.)
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  2  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:49 am
"ME NOT PREJUDICE," said the knuckle-dragging mouth-breather known only as H20_MAN as he put on his white hood. Later, after the cross-burning, his buddies and he would sit around in a big circle and jerk off while talking about how much they hate fags and coons. H20_MAN was excited. He had even forgotten to beat his wife today in his haste to make it to the big cross-burning/circle jerk.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:53 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't seem to understand who the Commander is; it is the president, not the armed forces. The armed forces serve the decisions of the commander in chief, not the other way around.

Cycloptichorn

That is true, cyclops, but just a couple of big problems with that. First, Obama has finally said he would listen to the commanders to help him make the right decision, and secondly, a CIC should want to win the war in Iraq, right, and to do that he should listen to the experts, and hopefully take at least some of their advice. Also, I am not aware that he even talked with them or considered their opinions before his 16 month proclamation. I don't mind a CIC to make decisions, great, but if he doesn't even listen to his commanders, then he is not doing his job. And he is totally irresponsible. We are not only paying the president, we are also paying the armed forces for all the expertise there. I do not want a president that shoots off his mouth about something he knows nothing about, and that is what has happened here.


here's your problem

Quote:
, and secondly, a CIC should want to win the war in Iraq,


You are so caught up in bullshit Republican memes, you can't even consider another path of action. I really don't care what your opinion is of what the CiC should 'want.' It's immaterial.

If you are against presidental candidates talking about things they don't understand, are you interested in some interesting quotes of John McCain doing this, Okie? For that might change your mind about your vote, if you are truly interested in such things as a criteria.

Cycloptichorn

So your fall back position is well, McCain doesn't know anything about some things, so if Obama doesn't, it doesn't matter? One problem with that is the Iraq situation has been front and center for how many years now, and Obama's stances on Iraq have been probably the one issue that has propelled him to where he is, but now you apparently admit it doesn't matter if he knows anything about it before coming out with his solutions, but now it turns out his solutions were never practical, as his detractors have been pointing out that obvious fact how long now, cyclops?


I disagree with every premise you have in this paragraph -

Obama's position has been rock-solid on Iraq for his whole campaign. Can't say the same for McCain.

I never admitted he 'doesn't know anything about it,' I think he knows a great deal about it, certainly more then McCain does, and the proof is that the Iraqi gov't is agreeing with his withdrawal ideas.

His solution - to withdraw - is not only practical, it's the right move to do.

His detractors are scared for the most part, as they watch their carefully constructed reality crumble around them. All you bums on the Right were going on about how great Bush was and how those who were against the Iraq war were wrong, and how we would find WMD and catch OBL; and you were completely wrong. The Republican argument for the Iraq war is so hollow, and was so incorrect on so many levels, it's phucking pathetic. Now a strong Liberal has come along, our side is beating your side pretty much across the board, and you're searching around for whatever scraps you can find to defend your argument. It is not compelling in the slightest, and that's why the Dems are ascendant at the moment and the Republican brand is trash.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:58 am
kickycan wrote:
"ME NOT PREJUDICE," said the knuckle-dragging mouth-breather known only as H20_MAN as he put on his white hood. Later, after the cross-burning, his buddies and he would sit around in a big circle and jerk off while talking about how much they hate fags and coons. H20_MAN was excited. He had even forgotten to beat his wife today in his haste to make it to the big cross-burning/circle jerk.


Just as offensive as anything h2oman has said.

Nice job.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1006
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 07/26/2025 at 06:18:19