H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:01 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
the truth about the Water-Bigot.



You would not know the truth if it bit you on the ass. You have a very large chip on your feeble shoulders. Grow up.


TKO, I hope you find happiness someday because you are one of the more bitter, sad people I have ever encountered on the net.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:05 pm
H2O, A2K is full of these numbnuts. It's just an extension of an old site called Abuzz, which was set adrift my its moderation staff. The unamericanism that was rampant at that site broke down into anarchy, as it appears to be doing so here, now.

Time to get the water cannons out and wash down the black block pigs.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:06 pm
Foxfyre wrote:


Okay, H2O. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, mostly because I have been on an anti-political correctness campaign for years now ...You and I do agree on many things...

Let's stick to real issues, not made up ones that are truly offensive.


Fear not Foxy, I have not jumped the tracks.
Sometimes these folks need a little extra rope in which to hang themselves with... I had some extra rope.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Forced to agree.

Okie,

Quote:

From NBC's Mark Murray
Here's one result from the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that will be released tonight at 6:30 pm ET on Nightly News and MSNBC.com... With the news that Iraq's prime minister wants the US to set a timetable for withdrawal, 60% of registered voters believe it's a good idea for the US to set such a timetable, while 30% say it's a bad idea.


2/3rds of Americans support Obama's plan for a withdrawal timetable.

Cycloptichorn

So taking a poll to determine our foreign policy is leadership, cyclops? I don't happen to think it is. That is why this is a representative republic, not a pure democracy. Being a leader does not mean sticking your finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing every day you get up, to see what you should do that day.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:20 pm
cjhsa wrote:
H2O, A2K is full of these numbnuts.


Yeah, if they weren't so sad and pathetic I would laugh at them.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:21 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Forced to agree.

Okie,

Quote:

From NBC's Mark Murray
Here's one result from the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that will be released tonight at 6:30 pm ET on Nightly News and MSNBC.com... With the news that Iraq's prime minister wants the US to set a timetable for withdrawal, 60% of registered voters believe it's a good idea for the US to set such a timetable, while 30% say it's a bad idea.


2/3rds of Americans support Obama's plan for a withdrawal timetable.

Cycloptichorn

So taking a poll to determine our foreign policy is leadership, cyclops? I don't happen to think it is. That is why this is a representative republic, not a pure democracy. Being a leader does not mean sticking your finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing every day you get up, to see what you should do that day.


You're absolutely right. That's why Obama is a leader on this issue: he proposed an idea (withdrawing on a timetable) and people are following him, not the other way around. You have it completely backwards. His idea hasn't always been as popular as it is today, but he stuck with it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:22 pm
H2O_MAN wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
H2O, A2K is full of these numbnuts.


Yeah, if they weren't so sad and pathetic I would laugh at them.









Oh the irony....

Laughing
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:29 pm
Obama doesn't represent "change", he represents the end of our nation.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:30 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You never tire of looking like an idiot, do you? I already pointed out that that the founder of BET actually attacked Obama more harshly than the other networks, so the moron (H2Oman) was clearly using no coherent basis whatsoever in describing the questions Obama receives in that light. What say you is the innocent reason to bring up the BET, beyond race, when the truth travels 180 Degrees from the point he was trying to make? This isn't complicated Okie: He introduced race via BET, while demonstrating his utter ignorance of their actual relationship.

Frankly, I am not familiar with BET, but speaking of that, what if there was a WET? Seems like a double standard in my opinion. Simply because of referring to it, does that make somebody a racist? Weird conclusion on your part, I think. In regard to H2Oman's raw language, I think it is way over the top, and bantering with the rest of the reprobates here does no big service to anyone, but gutter dwelling does not a racist make. If you can find racist comments, then I will change my mind.

Quote:
I covered your "everyone who disagrees" diatribe in considerable detail earlier, but common sense made you ignore the facts on that as well, for fear your favorite dodge would be more thoroughly exposed.

Stop considering every one of the Water-Bigot's statements in a vacuum and even you should be able to establish a pattern.

Frankly, I haven't attempted to read all of them that carefully, some seem pretty reasonable, aside from the ones referring to body parts and all the rest, which I am not interested in.

Quote:
Take note again that none of the Right's heavy hitters ( you know, guys with brains like Asherman, Finn, George, Tico, etc) are showing up to defend the Water-Bigot's mindless idiocy. What does that tell you? It should tell you that he's as guilty as he is childish and ignorant.

They usually do not waste their time defending anyone, but they do defend ideas and concepts, which is the most important.

And read this, Bill, I am not defending the water man as you call him, but I simply challenge you to back up your claims, because I have been the brunt of your name calling as well, not deserved I know that. I may disagree with you, but you can keep your bigotry and racial charges, thank you, I have had enough of your garbage.

Quote:
And by the way: You aren't seriously touting the ongoing humanitarian disaster taking place on the Korean Peninsula as an example of a job well done, are you? Shocked

What in the world does that have to do with anything discussed here, and why should we be blamed for that too? If it wasn't for us, South Korea would also be suffering as the North is. Blame the dictator, Bill, good grief.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:36 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Forced to agree.

Okie,

Quote:

From NBC's Mark Murray
Here's one result from the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that will be released tonight at 6:30 pm ET on Nightly News and MSNBC.com... With the news that Iraq's prime minister wants the US to set a timetable for withdrawal, 60% of registered voters believe it's a good idea for the US to set such a timetable, while 30% say it's a bad idea.


2/3rds of Americans support Obama's plan for a withdrawal timetable.

Cycloptichorn

So taking a poll to determine our foreign policy is leadership, cyclops? I don't happen to think it is. That is why this is a representative republic, not a pure democracy. Being a leader does not mean sticking your finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing every day you get up, to see what you should do that day.


You're absolutely right. That's why Obama is a leader on this issue: he proposed an idea (withdrawing on a timetable) and people are following him, not the other way around. You have it completely backwards. His idea hasn't always been as popular as it is today, but he stuck with it.

Cycloptichorn

Obama will not put a date on anything, now, cyclops, or if he does, he probably won't stick with it, if he wants to be successful. It wasn't long ago he was advocating leaving and leaving just enough people to protect the embassy, etc. Sounded like throwing in the towel to me.

The whole idea of a date has been considered for years, and discussed, and re-discussed, and the winning wisdom said no, do not put a date on it, and my bets are that Obama is finally coming around to that very same Bush policy. He will not put a definite date on it. We may have hopes, projections, etc, but that has always been the case since the war started, cyclops.

More specific dates are a bit more palpable now, because we are winning, thanks to Bush and the commanders, not Obama. But still, no sane person would put a definite date on anything there.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:39 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Forced to agree.

Okie,

Quote:

From NBC's Mark Murray
Here's one result from the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that will be released tonight at 6:30 pm ET on Nightly News and MSNBC.com... With the news that Iraq's prime minister wants the US to set a timetable for withdrawal, 60% of registered voters believe it's a good idea for the US to set such a timetable, while 30% say it's a bad idea.


2/3rds of Americans support Obama's plan for a withdrawal timetable.

Cycloptichorn

So taking a poll to determine our foreign policy is leadership, cyclops? I don't happen to think it is. That is why this is a representative republic, not a pure democracy. Being a leader does not mean sticking your finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing every day you get up, to see what you should do that day.


You're absolutely right. That's why Obama is a leader on this issue: he proposed an idea (withdrawing on a timetable) and people are following him, not the other way around. You have it completely backwards. His idea hasn't always been as popular as it is today, but he stuck with it.

Cycloptichorn

Obama will not put a date on anything, now, cyclops, or if he does, he probably won't stick with it, if he wants to be successful. It wasn't long ago he was advocating leaving and leaving just enough people to protect the embassy, etc. Sounded like throwing in the towel to me.

The whole idea of a date has been considered for years, and discussed, and re-discussed, and the winning wisdom said no, do not put a date on it, and my bets are that Obama is finally coming around to that very same Bush policy. He will not put a definite date on it. We may have hopes, projections, etc, but that has always been the case since the war started, cyclops.


Incorrect. 16 months after inauguration is as solid a date as anyone could possibly give on such a thing. Discussing the year 2010 with Iraqi's leaders is as solid a date anyone could give.

Your suppositions and 'probablys' are not reflected by any actual evidence, but are merely your partisan bullshit coming about again and again.

You dropped your original point, which I showed was in error; you ought to admit that Obama is winning this issue, even if you don't agree with his conclusions.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:42 pm
Aside from our disagreement, Obama should not have discussed anything with Iraq's leaders. He has no authority, and that was a major blunder. He should know better, but that is just another example of how green, how naive he must be. And arrogant as well.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:43 pm
True dat.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:45 pm
I wonder why the Washington Post recently quoted Brig. Gen. Bilal al-Dayni, commander of Iraqi troops in Basra, as saying of the Americans, "We hope they will stay until 2020." That is similar to the expectation of Iraq's defense minister, Abdul Qadir, who says his forces cannot assume full responsibility for internal security until 2012 and for external security until 2018.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:46 pm
okie wrote:
Aside from our disagreement, Obama should not have discussed anything with Iraq's leaders. He has no authority, and that was a major blunder. He should know better, but that is just another example of how green, how naive he must be. And arrogant as well.


He was invited to do so by Maliki; and McCain has held plenty of discussions with Maliki as well as other foreign leaders. In fact, many of our sitting Senators have done so during their trips to Iraq. I'd like you to explain why it was inappropriate for Obama to talk to Maliki, but not for McCain to do so on several occasions. You too, Brand X, now that we're at it.

You're all wet on this issue, Okie. Admit it. You've got nothing, absolutely nothing of substance, to attack Obama with. Better stick with the insinuations.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:46 pm
okie wrote:
Aside from our disagreement, Obama should not have discussed anything with Iraq's leaders. He has no authority, and that was a major blunder. He should know better, but that is just another example of how green, how naive he must be. And arrogant as well.


+1

Obama and his camp are uppity, they think they have already been sworn in ... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:47 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I wonder why the Washington Post recently quoted Brig. Gen. Bilal al-Dayni, commander of Iraqi troops in Basra, as saying of the Americans, "We hope they will stay until 2020." That is similar to the expectation of Iraq's defense minister, Abdul Qadir, who says his forces cannot assume full responsibility for internal security until 2012 and for external security until 2018.


Probably b/c Fred Hiatt is the biggest shill for the NeoCons in the so-called 'liberal media.'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:48 pm
Iraqis Differ on Obama's Plans
As Candidate's Visit Nears, Residents Divided on Troop Pullout

By Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, July 19, 2008; A07

BAGHDAD, July 18 -- As Sen. Barack Obama prepares for his second visit to Iraq, Iraqis are divided over his plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in 16 months should he be elected president.

"Iraq will be in hell, and we will find ourselves at the gates of civil war," said Maied Rashed al-Nuaemi, a provincial council member in Mosul, a city in northern Iraq where Iraqi forces are battling the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq. "The American presence in Iraq is the safety valve to keep this country quiet. If they withdraw, that will lead to calamity."

But Mosul's deputy governor said he feels otherwise. "The U.S. presence in Iraq is useful now, but if the security situation gets better, I think it's not necessary to keep all these big numbers of soldiers here," Khasru Koraan said.

Perhaps more than any country in the world besides the United States, Iraq finds that its future is at stake in the presidential elections this November. And the single most important question Iraqis have for the next president is: How long will U.S. forces remain?

While most Iraqis are against what they see as the continuing U.S. occupation, many also view the U.S. military as a bulwark against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists, as well as the growing regional influence of Iran. In polls, a majority of Iraqis say they want U.S. forces to leave, but only a minority say they want the forces to leave immediately.

Some of the more than two dozen Iraqis interviewed for this article said Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is naive in wanting to withdraw U.S. combat troops by the summer of 2010. Others viewed his position as a political calculation to win votes from a populace tired of war.

"I think that Obama talks more than what he can accomplish, because reality differs from promises and dreams," said Um Mohammed, 60, an engineer in Baghdad who declined to give her full name. "I think it is just a camouflage to reach the presidential chair. It's a way to satisfy the American people and the American mothers."

Mohammed Sulaiman, 56, a retired government employee in Baghdad, said: "The proposal of Obama to pull out the troops by summer 2010 is foolish. If the United States withdraws from Iraq, I think its credibility among the international countries would collapse."

Most Iraqis interviewed appeared wary of setting a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, although Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and senior politicians have said they want such a commitment from the Bush administration.

"We need more training, as well as new and developed weapons and supplies. We also need modern and developed technology. The U.S. forces should withdraw gradually so our Iraqi forces can fill the gaps that the American forces will leave," said Brig. Gen. Najim Abdullah, spokesman for the Iraqi National Police. "As to a timetable, I don't think we should specify it now, because it is related to the logistical support and the ability of our Iraqi forces to handle their responsibility."

Several Iraqi army commanders said the country's security forces would not be ready to stand on their own for at least several years.

"Now we are only fighting the insurgency in our country, and we still need the support" of U.S.-led coalition forces, said Maj. Gen. Habeeb al-Husaini, commander of the Iraqi army's 14th Division, whose forces control the cities of Amarah, Samawah and Nasiriyah in southern Iraq. "So how about if we want to defend the country from the external threats?"

"We hope they will stay until 2020," said Brig. Gen. Bilal al-Dayni, a commander in the southern city of Basra, where about 30,000 Iraqi soldiers patrol the streets after a major offensive in March against extremist militias.

Obama's background shaped the perceptions of many Iraqis. "I would be very pleased if Obama wins the elections; I consider him like me, because he is a man of color and from Africa. It will be a global victory," said Ali Abid Freyeh, 42, an electrical engineer in Baghdad.

And there was also a sense that Obama seemed more understanding of the plight of Iraqis. "Obama is a calm man, unlike Bush," said Ahmad al-Ani, an official with the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party in Anbar Province in western Iraq. "We hope that he will gain some advantage from the Bush administration's mistakes."

Other Iraqis want Obama to become president because the policies of presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain would echo those of President Bush, they said. "I think that McCain will commit the same old mistakes of Bush's policy," said Saleem Abdullah al-Jubouri, spokesman for the largest Sunni political bloc. "But I think he will win the election."

Supporters of anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said it will not matter who is elected president. "U.S. foreign policy would not be changed by changing the president," said Nassar al-Rubaie, the head of Sadr's political bloc in parliament. Whether the next president is "Republican or Democrat, we completely reject the occupation under any circumstances."

In the Anbar city of Fallujah, Khalid al-Dulaimi, a commander of U.S.-backed neighborhood patrols that have turned against Sunni extremists, said Sunnis like him welcome Obama because their community, once dominant under Saddam Hussein, had been marginalized.

"We hope that he is going to look at things from the right angle," Dulaimi said. "We Sunnis prefer him to McCain, because McCain is the other face of Bush, and we don't want another Bush."

Dulaimi said he hopes Obama will visit with U.S. soldiers in the field because "their experience with the Iraqi situation is better than the experience of any American diplomats in the Green Zone."
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 02:00 pm
Quote:
I'd like you to explain why it was inappropriate for Obama to talk to Maliki, but not for McCain to do so on several occasions. You too, Brand X,


You're the one who singled out Maliki, he's the only one Obama should have visited...and before McSenile embarrassed him into it.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 02:00 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Aside from our disagreement, Obama should not have discussed anything with Iraq's leaders. He has no authority, and that was a major blunder. He should know better, but that is just another example of how green, how naive he must be. And arrogant as well.


He was invited to do so by Maliki; and McCain has held plenty of discussions with Maliki as well as other foreign leaders. In fact, many of our sitting Senators have done so during their trips to Iraq. I'd like you to explain why it was inappropriate for Obama to talk to Maliki, but not for McCain to do so on several occasions. You too, Brand X, now that we're at it.

You're all wet on this issue, Okie. Admit it. You've got nothing, absolutely nothing of substance, to attack Obama with. Better stick with the insinuations.

Cycloptichorn

Provide evidence that McCain is speaking to Malike as a candidate pronouncing what he will do when elected, if different than the Bush policy, not as a senator engaged in policy and fact finding information. There is a fine line, and some people think Obama stepped over the line. Remember, no senator has the authorization to suggest another policy other than the current administration policy. Anything different is undermining the administration's foreign policy, which is a no-no. You can do it unofficially on U.S. soil, but the minute you are talking to foreign leaders, that changes everything. At least that would be my common sense evaluation of it. Just common sense, cyclops.
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 1009
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 07/23/2025 at 02:08:22