/dev/null Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Change we can believe in! This guy is no different than any other politician. You're fooling yourself if you feel any differently. The king is dead. Long live the king Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Which is basically what McCain has been saying. But feel free to perpetuate the "100-year" mischaracterization, while Obama is moving closer to McCain's & Bush's position on the Iraq situation. Which is pretty similar to all of Obama's points now that he's forced to provide more details - don't expect much change because a lot of actions are already predetermined by events on the ground and the global macroeconomic conditions. I've never said anything about the 100 year nonsense. Obama has always said of course I will take into consideration what is happening on the ground and what the generals say. There is still a clear difference in what they each want to do, and never was it as polar opposite as others tended to make it. He wants to get out as early as we can, as long as it is smart and feasable. That is what he has always said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 OK Kelly, let me get this right...The Messiah makes getting out of Iraq by the end of next year one of the main planks of his campaign and now you're saying "of course he's not going to do that". He also made a commitment to accept public funding for his campaign which he just recently re-negg'ed on... what's next? Change we can believe in! This guy is no different than any other politician. You're fooling yourself if you feel any differently. Yes, he is just another politician, so is McCain.....but the Messiah buzzword is getting old. Those only work on idiots anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 I've never said anything about the 100 year nonsense. Obama has always said of course I will take into consideration what is happening on the ground and what the generals say. There is still a clear difference in what they each want to do, and never was it as polar opposite as others tended to make it. He wants to get out as early as we can, as long as it is smart and feasable. That is what he has always said. Which is what everyone on the other side have been saying, yet it's not how the positions have been characterized to the gray masses because the stories are run from the line of questioning. Tell me the practical difference of - We would like to get our troops out as soon as practically possible, but we are not going to leave an unsettled country and will remain there as long as it takes to maintain stability and - "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Yes, he is just another politician, so is McCain.....but the Messiah buzzword is getting old. Those only work on idiots anyways. I prefer calling him Obamassiah. Has a nice ring to it, like the Holy Bruschi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 Yes, he is just another politician, so is McCain.....but the Messiah buzzword is getting old. Those only work on idiots anyways. C'mon, Adam...how long before we see him on the cover of Newsweek with a halo around his head? I just like to poke fun at the guy who can do no wrong...It's no worse than McBush, although probably as stupid. If the media would take the kid gloves off when dealing with this guy I'd have no problem, but they keep treating him like he's the second coming. I'm just not down with the whole populist message and want to see it called out for the pure, unadulterated BS that it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Which is what everyone on the other side have been saying, yet it's not how the positions have been characterized to the gray masses because the stories are run from the line of questioning. Tell me the practical difference of - We would like to get our troops out as soon as practically possible, but we are not going to leave an unsettled country and will remain there as long as it takes to maintain stability and - "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field." You're a smart guy, or so I thought. You know there is a difference in what they want to do, and what they will do, and you know not to just cherry pick direct quotes and hold them to the letter. Its a tough decision, there is no clear answer, things are going be different 7-8 months from now when whomever is Prez can first even begin to make decisions. It could be better on the ground or worse. The Prez will get a better idea of what is really happening than we will. Obama will still talk tough about leaving and making the Iraqis responsible and McCain will still talk tough about finishing the job and winning. But there is surely a difference in how long we will be there in significant numbers and how we position ourselves amongst the region and the worrld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 C'mon, Adam...how long before we see him on the cover of Newsweek with a halo around his head? I just like to poke fun at the guy who can do no wrong...It's no worse than McBush, although probably as stupid. If the media would take the kid gloves off when dealing with this guy I'd have no problem, but they keep treating him like he's the second coming. I'm just not down with the whole populist message and want to see it called out for the pure, unadulterated BS that it is. I just look at it as bring the same thing as the "Bush Bad" garbage that people try to shut down others who rip Bush. Neither stands up to anything. I stopped paying attention to Fox and CNN- they are in the entertainment business. McCain is not Bush- not even close. I still don't know if I could vote for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 You know there is a difference in what they want to do, and what they will do, and you know not to just cherry pick direct quotes and hold them to the letter. Yet, isn't it what you're doing to McCain? The bottom line is that Obama moved a hell of a lot closer to McCain's position than the other way around. Obama will have a lot of these epiphanies as we get closer to the election. As you start peeking behind the curtains of his policies and advisers, you will find plenty of old Washington hands. It will be tough for him to defend that to a growing constituency that thinks that he's a true agent of change. But in effect, we get him talking down NAFTA in Ohio and on the same day Goolsbee winks to the Canadians that Obama doesn't really mean what he said. He'll have a big problem explaining things like that to the people who vote for him. Unlike hard line conservatives who are weary of McCain's vacillations, uber-liberals don't have the history with Obama's politics of convenience and are in for a rude awakening. Its a tough decision, there is no clear answer, things are going be different 7-8 months from now when whomever is Prez can first even begin to make decisions. It could be better on the ground or worse. The Prez will get a better idea of what is really happening than we will. Obama will still talk tough about leaving and making the Iraqis responsible and McCain will still talk tough about finishing the job and winning. But there is surely a difference in how long we will be there in significant numbers and how we position ourselves amongst the region and the worrld. Which is not what he's been saying until last week. ps - and the whole "US position in the eyes of the world" is another wonderfully spun story that is in conflict with its actual position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Yet, isn't it what you're doing to McCain? The bottom line is that Obama moved a hell of a lot closer to McCain's position than the other way around. Obama will have a lot of these epiphanies as we get closer to the election. As you start peeking behind the curtains of his policies and advisers, you will find plenty of old Washington hands. It will be tough for him to defend that to a growing constituency that thinks that he's a true agent of change. But in effect, we get him talking down NAFTA in Ohio and on the same day Goolsbee winks to the Canadians that Obama doesn't really mean what he said. He'll have a big problem explaining things like that to the people who vote for him. Unlike hard line conservatives who are weary of McCain's vacillations, uber-liberals don't have the history with Obama's politics of convenience and are in for a rude awakening. Which is not what he's been saying until last week. ps - and the whole "US position in the eyes of the world" is another wonderfully spun story that is in conflict with its actual position. If people would actually listen to what he says rather than other people's distorted analysis of what he said, it's been rather clear and hasn't changed very much at all. From the beginning he has always said we will immediately and slowly begin lowering the number of troops, but he has never ever even intimated that we would just start bringing them all home immediately. He has always said we will eventually set a date that the Iraqis know we will be out by, so they are forced to stick up for themselves. He has never said when that will be, because he has said he doesn't know when that will be. He set a target of 18 months from when he would take office but that was never ever a hard date. He also said the removal of troops from Iraq did not at all mean leaving the region. He has always always said some significant number of those troops would to Afghanistan, and a signifiant number of troops would stay in the region to be able to go help the Iraqis at a moments notice, meaning they will be redeployed to bases like in Kuwait. He has always said of course he would listen to what the generals on the ground think, what the Iraqi government thinks, and what allies in and out of the region think. That has always been his stance and it still is. He has been saying that line about leaving as responsibly as we came in recklessly for months. What do you think that means? That he is just going to pull all our troops out and not listen to anyone? He obviously feels and has said repeatedly how totally reckless we went in, which means he expects to be totally responsible when we leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 If people would actually listen to what he says rather than other people's distorted analysis of what he said, it's been rather clear and hasn't changed very much at all. From the beginning he has always said we will immediately and slowly begin lowering the number of troops, but he has never ever even intimated that we would just start bringing them all home immediately. He has always said we will eventually set a date that the Iraqis know we will be out by, so they are forced to stick up for themselves. He has never said when that will be, because he has said he doesn't know when that will be. He set a target of 18 months from when he would take office but that was never ever a hard date. He also said the removal of troops from Iraq did not at all mean leaving the region. He has always always said some significant number of those troops would to Afghanistan, and a signifiant number of troops would stay in the region to be able to go help the Iraqis at a moments notice, meaning they will be redeployed to bases like in Kuwait. He has always said of course he would listen to what the generals on the ground think, what the Iraqi government thinks, and what allies in and out of the region think. That has always been his stance and it still is. He has been saying that line about leaving as responsibly as we came in recklessly for months. What do you think that means? That he is just going to pull all our troops out and not listen to anyone? He obviously feels and has said repeatedly how totally reckless we went in, which means he expects to be totally responsible when we leave. Perhaps you should also stay away from the Koolaid On whose official campaign's website is this: Bringing Our Troops Home Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Now if you're clinging to the words that 16 months does not equate to "immediate" that's hilarious, because when you're coordinating the logistics of moving such massive personnel, 16 months is immediate. It also provides enough tactical information to an enemy that the deadline, once set is immediate, and leaving sufficient personnel in Iraq to protect the embassy makes one wonder if it's just enough to ensure safe helicopter landing on the roof. And did he get preclearance from Kuwait to remain the Mideast staging area, and exactly how would that rewind of Clinton policy would engender greater stability, since all the troops are out of Saudi Arabia and all he'd be doing is just shifting the mass troop deployment to Kuwait. If not to Kuwait, then to where? Are these the things you mean that people are distorting when they criticize Obama's plans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 If people would actually listen to what he says rather than other people's distorted analysis of what he said, it's been rather clear and hasn't changed very much at all. From the beginning he has always said we will immediately and slowly begin lowering the number of troops, but he has never ever even intimated that we would just start bringing them all home immediately. According to Keith Olbermann, his decision will work, no matter what it is. Gold actually pours out of his mouth, and once a month, it is platinum. According to O'Reilly, he said he plans to bring them home immediately, and then started making tooting noises like a tugboat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 According to O'Reilly...then started making tooting noises like a tugboat. Whatever else you say about O'Rielly, he goes with his strengths... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 According to Keith Olbermann, his decision will work, no matter what it is. Gold actually pours out of his mouth, and once a month, it is platinum. Don't forget the Obamassiah's farts, which help remove harmful CO2 from the atmosphere and have a pleasant wintergreen scent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 Adam-And you wonder why I refer to him as the Messiah Look no farther than Kelly's post above as evidence that he can do no wrong and is clearly right an all issues. So is it 16 months or something else? Either way, I'm sure it's good for the Obam-a-ination. Sorry, I just can't resist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Whatever else you say about O'Rielly, he goes with his strengths... And what would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 And what would that be? Making tooting noises like a tugboat. I really thought that was clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Don't forget the Obamassiah's farts, which help remove harmful CO2 from the atmosphere and have a pleasant wintergreen scent Whereas every time McCain farts, a tree dies and an oil executive gets a new corporate jet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 Is that because they're old farts? Da, dum, Crash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 In case we were still discussing the topic of the thread, I saw on some crappy news show today that roadside bombing deaths in Iraq are down 90% since this time last year. FWIW... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts