Obama '08?

@okie,

you couldn't be more wrong, i have great respect for the veterans of the the two world wars, they were the only wars of the twentieth century that deserved to be fought (afghanistan aside, another war i support)

but let's be fair, the americans while having done some good for the world have pushed themselves into situations that benefit them and then had those situations come back to bite them in the ass (afghanistan, iran and iraq and perhaps n korea some day)

it's just this american, look how big my dick is, we don't take **** from nobody attitude that some of you douchbags display that really gets me

if i was one of those dopes who cared about national pride, i'd be proud to be a canadian

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

It is silly to say that the constitution is very specific. Where in it does it cover the Internet, derivatives, global warming, etc.?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Advocate, Obama, before he was elected, did talk to Joe the Plumber about his advocacy of redistributing wealth. I saw and heard the video of that conversation when Obama did that. Obama has talked about that multiple times since. His most frequent statement about that calls for making the distribution of wealth more equitable by taking it from those who have more and giving it to those who have less.

In other words, Obama advocates taking wealth from those who lawfully earned it, and giving it to those who do not lawfully earn it.

Well, Joe the nonplumber would be a great source on what Obama believes. Please give us a link to the video in which O talks about redistribution. Maybe you were dreaming.

1 Reply

@djjd62,

How about Korea, because of our help, South Korea has been able to enjoy liberty and freedom not found in the North, plus they have escaped the tyranny that has resulted in widespread suffering, killing, and starvation under the dictators in the North.

And although not a military war, the Cold War that Reagan won has resulted in the freedom of countries previously living under Soviet dictatorship and tyranny.

0 Replies

@okie,

Yeah, it is too bad that O was not as specific as was McCain. The latter said he had a plan that would allow us to win in Iraq and Afghan. But I wonder why McCain did not give his plan to the administration or the military.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Yeah, it is too bad that O was not as specific as was McCain. The latter said he had a plan that would allow us to win in Iraq and Afghan. But I wonder why McCain did not give his plan to the administration or the military.

Duh? Obama is president in case you have forgotten. Perhaps Obama has too, he still seems to be campaigning out there, while the economy tanks and the soldiers wait for decisions.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Yeah, it is too bad that O was not as specific as was McCain. The latter said he had a plan that would allow us to win in Iraq and Afghan. But I wonder why McCain did not give his plan to the administration or the military.

Duh? Obama is president in case you have forgotten. Perhaps Obama has too, he still seems to be campaigning out there, while the economy tanks and the soldiers wait for decisions.

Sure, why bother thinking things through in Afghanistan?

Just throw more young lives at the problem, hell, it's had such a track record of success so far...

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Just throw more young lives at the problem, hell, it's had such a track record of success so far...

I think the received wisdom Cyclo is that this time it has to succeed. There's thought to be a lot more at stake now than there ever was in the past.

Why do you think the US and NATO are making the effort which many people say is not big enough.

What do you want the armed services to do if it is not to do as bid by their political masters who we have to presume know what they are doing? Ballet dancing classes?

They are only heroes because they are warriors.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

There's thought to be a lot more at stake now than there ever was in the past.

Is there ever a time in which less is at stake, than in the past? Not if you listen to the war hawks...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sure, why bother thinking things through in Afghanistan?

Just throw more young lives at the problem, hell, it's had such a track record of success so far...

Cycloptichorn

I wonder if thats why more troops were not sent to help Custer up there on the Little Bighorn a little sooner? After all, they probably needed more time to think things through? I don't know if that is a perfect analogy, probably not, but it could have some similarities. Just maybe they should have sent more cavalrymen sooner or have ordered old Yellowhair to come back home immediately and leave them Indians alone?

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sure, why bother thinking things through in Afghanistan?

Just throw more young lives at the problem, hell, it's had such a track record of success so far...

Cycloptichorn

I wonder if thats why more troops were not sent to help Custer up there on the Little Bighorn a little sooner?

Uh. Probably not so much.

Quote:

After all, they probably needed more time to think things through? I don't know if that is a perfect analogy, probably not, but it could have some similarities.

I don't think there are any USEFUL similarities involved here.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I edited or added to my post, cyclops. I actually do think we need to have adequate troops to do the job in Afghanistan, fitting to how we are operating there, either that or get out.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Is there ever a time in which less is at stake, than in the past? Not if you listen to the war hawks...

They might only be hawks because they know the facts.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I edited or added to my post, cyclops. I actually do think we need to have adequate troops to do the job in Afghanistan, fitting to how we are operating there, either that or get out.

I agree. I think the military is ALWAYS going to push for more troops - why wouldn't they?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You're evading my questions Cyclo.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

You're evading my questions Cyclo.

I am?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Yes.

0 Replies

@okie,

McCain made the statement before O was president, duh!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess you are a bit too dense to pick that up.

0 Replies

Okie said

Quote:

I wonder if thats why more troops were not sent to help Custer up there on the Little Bighorn a little sooner?

ROFL, The entertainment value of Okie is immeasurable.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

okie continues to show his ignorance in not only in politics and economics but also history and current events. He's a one-dimension brain that only sees one perspective - his own.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know