Obama '08?

@Butrflynet,

Correction (I transposed my words):

1460 days in his term.
488 promises being tracked.
That's 2.99 days per promise
After 3 days in office here's the Obameter to date:

0 Replies

@Bi-Polar Bear,

I'm with you -- it's like the TV screen filled with snow in Poltergeist.
They're here! All of Massagato, Italgato or whatever multiple personalities. I recognized the syntax but it's been so long I had forgotten. I'm clicking on the Ignore button and if all will only follow suit, he can rant with himself or the other Wingnuts on the forum.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The most ominous promise is that the Shrub would not get involved with nation building. Now that it's pretty certain the war in Iraq was already in the planning stages when he stated that, it'll make one even angrier.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
so now, wonderful, a culture of death all over the world, paid by us. Wonderful.

Seems like you didn't have a problem with that the last couple of years.

...

Oh, wait. "Culture of death" only refers to abortions. Not to, say, torturing innocent people to death.

Gotcha.

So killing babies is preferable to fighting terrorists that kill babies?

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

So killing babies is preferable to fighting terrorists that kill babies?

Can't we do both?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

It's difficult to chew gum and walk at the same time for some people.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
so now, wonderful, a culture of death all over the world, paid by us. Wonderful.

Seems like you didn't have a problem with that the last couple of years.

...

Oh, wait. "Culture of death" only refers to abortions. Not to, say, torturing innocent people to death.

Gotcha.

So killing babies is preferable to fighting terrorists that kill babies?

I didn't mention terrorists.

1 Reply

@old europe,

How about killing living suspected terrorist babies?

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Oh, I thought that was already a given. Just look at the casualty statistics of Iraq and Israel. There are many more innocent infants and children killed by our soldiers and in Israel than anybody can justify based on "self defense."

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Oh, right, the "means to the end." The trouble is the end may be far more dire because of the means.

Kabul is all but surrounded by the Taliban because of the incompetence we've experienced in the past eight years. The generals have run out of excuses and all the military intelligence is an oxymoron.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Bush's "war on terror" has actually increased world terrorism. None of the conservatives on these threads seem to acknowledge these facts. All these apologists say, "well, we haven't been attacked since 9-11" forgetting that all the measures taken by almost all countries to take public transport from one country to the next requires passports and VISAs to increase the security of all countries.

0 Replies

Obama makes the same old mistakes that George W. Bush did. Does this country never learn? It appears that Obama has directed more drone attacks on compounds or villages in Pakistan, leading to more killing. Does he not know that this will almost certainly cause the deaths of innocents, including children? This is being done without a trial to prove guilt. And perhaps more significantly, this only creates more terrorists. For every terrorist you may kill by pure chance when a drone carries out a strike, it is likely to create multiples of that one in the future. Anger, resentments, and revenge are only increased. War never solves anything, and I would think that Obama would have learned that from the failures of Bush. ci has pointed that out, and now here we go again. I thought there would be change?

"Pakistani officials and villagers told ABCNews.com that 17 people were killed in two successive strikes against compounds in North and South Waziristan."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6718124&page=1

1 Reply

@okie,

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

In Iraq, we leveled a city of 300,000 (Falujah) for no valid reason, and relatively little was said. Israel punishes Gaza, from which up to 8,000 rockets, and god only knows how many shells, were fired. I don't understand this, unless it is just hatred of Jews.

0 Replies

@Butrflynet,

butrfly, please post intelligently. I have no clue about your silly video, but suffice it to say I did not waste the time to open it or watch it.

Again, why is Obama creating more terrorists by bombing people in Pakistan, answer that, can you?

As a side note, where is Obama going to send the Gitmo prisoners, or is he going to turn them loose? Pelosi says no way to placing them on Alcatraz! I thought that made sense, after all, its Pelosi and her friends that are looking for someplaced to put them, so let them have them in California, what better place could there be? I thought it was an excellent suggestion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/25/pelosi-shrugs-alcatraz-possible-terror-detention-facility/

2 Replies

@okie,

Do you think Bush was creating more terrorists by bombing Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Pakistan?

If you think that was the case: why did you never speak out against it?

If you don't think that was the case: why are you complaining about it now?

1 Reply

@okie,

That's okay, okie. You've already seen the content. It was a collection of news clips from Fox News in the first 24 hours of the Obama Administration.

As for the requests for explanations for your questions, I will not waste the time since it won't make a bit of difference to you.

I will, however, remind you of a post you wrote on December 31st where you said:

Quote:

Nixon ended the war, he did not expand it. Incursions into Cambodia were part of the tactics used, but not as an expansion, no more than an occasional bombing of hideouts across the border into Pakistan from Afghanistan is an expansion of the war in Afghanistan... Nixon bears little or no responsibility for Vietnam, except to try to successfully wind it up and withdraw.

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

Look butrfly, all I am doing is applying the same yardstick to Obama as Obama and his supporters have done to Bush. In case you are so ignorant to not know it, Nixon did not accuse LBJ of killing innocents and creating more terrorists.

What I wrote about Cambodia is accurate, but to compare Nixon and his supporters to that of Obama and his supporters is not at all the same. Nixon never accused LBJ of the same things that you and your ilk have done to Bush.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Do you think Bush was creating more terrorists by bombing Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Pakistan?

If you think that was the case: why did you never speak out against it?

If you don't think that was the case: why are you complaining about it now?

It is not me that has those questions to answer, it is you, oe. If you believed it about Bush, then apply the same thing to your man, Obama.

Are you so dumb as to not recognize sarcasm when you see it, oe? I was making a point, which you probably are unable to explain. Obama has been claiming he wants to hunt down Bin Laden and expand troops in Afghanistan, and I challenge his consistency on his policies, he is a total contradiction as a politician, not just this issue, but this one will portray it. We will actually find out if he believes peace will happen by simply talking to enemies? So my question is, why does he send in drones and kill people he doesn't even know, possibly innocents? I want some answers from you people and Obama, but I doubt you have any.

1 Reply

@okie,

Nah.

Point is: you're opposing Obama because he is a Democrat. You're opposing Obama's policies because he's a Democrat. If Obama was a Republican, or if it was a Republican doing the exact same things, you'd be all in favour of them.

That's certainly one way of being consistent.

What you're missing is that people who were opposing Bush for invading Iraq don't necessarily have the same hyper-partisan mindset. There are actually people who thought that the military intervention in Afghanistan and going after bin Laden was justified, but that the neoconservative agenda of invading and occupying Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with that.

Therefore, it's absolutely consistent to support the intervention in Afghanistan (whether it was under Bush or now under Obama) and, at the same time, oppose the intervention in Iraq (even though, at least in my opinion, the "you break it, you own it" rule applies, and the US have become responsible for the reconstruction of Iraq).

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know