Why I'm voting for Obama in November

[Dr. Love]

I've given this a lot of thought. Below are my list of reasons that I think Obama has done well as President over the last 4 years and is the man we all deserve to have as President for the next 4 years.

As a state senator, Presidential candidate, and President, Barack Obama has made numerous statements (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGB3MzNmdPc&feature=g-u&context=G2f51487FUAAAAAAABAA) in support of marijuana policy reform, and vowed "not to waste Justice Department resources" by going after medical marijuana dispensaries. Yet under the Obama administration, the raids continue, and there is no end in sight.

Since taking office Obama has:



Opposed gay marriage in 2009 (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5084948-503544.html) and reaffirmed his position in 2010 (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/112795-axelrod-obama-remains-opposed-gay-marriage). When he finally flipped on his position in 2011 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/19/obama-defense-of-marriage-gay-rights_n_903680.html) he stated that he was still "grappling" with his personal views on gay marriage. When the election year came around, he finally decided to support it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQGMTPab9GQ) (good for him, even though I think it is entirely politically motivated)
Signed the NDAA (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/02/ndaa-historic-assault-american-liberty?newsfeed=true) - an indefinite detention bill - into law.
Gave $535,000,000 of our money to a company which he knew (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-13/obama-aides-knew-solyndra-planned-2010-layoffs-e-mails-show.html) (or at least should) have was going to go bankrupt.
Placed sanctions (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204720204577132923798499772.html) on Iran that will likely lead to war.
Increased the TSA’s budget (http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/218543.html) and allowed the scope of their authority to increase (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/20/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220).
Gave Blackwater a quarter of a billion dollars (http://www.thenation.com/blog/36756/blackwaters-new-sugar-daddy-obama-administration).
Approved of a more draconian Patriot Act (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/patriot-act-extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_867851.html).
Assassinated three American Citizens 1 (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.html) 2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-airstrike-that-killed-american-teen-in-yemen-raises-legal-ethical-questions/2011/10/20/gIQAdvUY7L_story.html) 3 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/samir-khan-killed-by-drone-spun-out-of-the-american-middle-class.html?_r=1).
Continued the Drug War (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/152666/is_obama's_drug_policy_worse_than_bush's_the_war_o n_medical_marijuana_escalates). Including pushing for a five year mandated sentence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_C._Lynch) for Charles C. Lynch the owner of a licensed medical marijuana dispensary.
Wins right to deny habeas review (http://www.salon.com/2010/05/21/bagram_6/) from detainees.
Protected Bush officials (http://www.allgov.com/US_and_the_World/ViewNews/Obama_Fought_to_Protect_Bush_Officials_from_Tortur e_Charges_in_Spain_101203) from charges relating to torture.
Waged war on Libya (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/30/america-s-secret-libya-war-u-s-spent-1-billion-on-covert-ops-helping-nato.html) without congressional approval.
Waives health care coverage for employees (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip) of 29 companies including McDonald's.
Deports record number (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0812/Obama-as-border-cop-He-s-deported-record-numbers-of-illegal-immigrants) of immigrants.
Continued and escalated a covert, drone war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secrecy-defines-obamas-drone-war/2011/10/28/gIQAPKNR5O_story.html) in Yemen.
Takes the hardest stance in American history (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12leak.html?pagewanted=1&hp) against government whistle blowers.
Escalated the proxy war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-intensifies-its-proxy-fight-against-al-shabab-in-somalia/2011/11/21/gIQAVLyNtN_story.html) in Somalia.
Pushes harder for warrantless wire taps (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush) than Bush did.
Escalated the CIA drone war (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/cia-pakistan-afghanistan-drones/) in Pakistan including attacking first responders and funerals (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7895).
Waived laws preventing the recruitment of children (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/10/26/why_is_obama_easing_restrictions_on_child_soldiers ) into African militaries.
Promises more transparent government and denies more FOIA request than Bush (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/obamas-broken-promise-fed_n_500526.html).
Gives BP and other big oil companies exemption from EPA laws (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html?hpid=topnews).
Will maintain a presence in Iraq (http://www.npr.org/2011/12/18/143863722/with-huge-embassy-u-s-still-a-presence-in-iraq) even after "ending" war.
Sharply escalated the war (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946990,00.html) in Afghanistan.
Secretly made deal to kill health care public option (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html) while secretly meeting with health care executives and provided an exemption for abortion (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/21/deal-struck-on-abortion-clears-path-for-health-care-passage/).
Secretly deployed US special forces to 75 countries (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/us-special-operations-forces-75-countries).
Sold $30 billion of weapons (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/world/middleeast/with-30-billion-arms-deal-united-states-bolsters-ties-to-saudi-arabia.html) to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.
Signed an agreement for 7 military bases in Colombia (http://www.progressive.org/danglmarch10.html).
Appoints multiple lobbyists (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/03/the-list-of-lobbyists-in-the-obama-administration/) while signing an executive order limiting this practice (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ethics-commitments-executive-branch-personnel). This included lobbyist from Goldman Sachs (http://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/Pages/patterson-m.aspx), Raytheon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Lynn_III) and Monsanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor).
Continued Bush's rendition program (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html).
More can be found here (http://www.reddit.com/r/enoughobamaspam).



To be honest I don't see why the right doesn't just love him. And I don't see why the left does. Oh wait... that's right. It's cause he's better than Romney. Or are they both the same?

[BigBadBrian]

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[kwame k]

WTF are you laughing at Forrest?

You voted for a worse President not once but twice :lmao:

Go Rocky 2012!

[Satan]

Don't forget, he voted for the Chimp's daddy and Reagan too.

[kwame k]

:biggrin:

[Dr. Love]

The sad part is that most people are either going to vote for Obama because they can't stand Romney, or vote for Romney because they can't stand Obama. Neither one are going to be held to account for their record. If they were, neither would be elected (and neither deserves to be)

[Dr. Love]

They should just run together on a Robamney ticket.

[kwame k]

The sad part is that most people are either going to vote for Obama because they can't stand Romney, or vote for Romney because they can't stand Obama. Neither one are going to be held to account for their record. If they were, neither would be elected (and neither deserves to be)

I can't, in good conscience, vote for Obama this time around.......Romney is the worst of the two and you're right, neither deserves to be elected.

[knuckleboner]

The sad part is that most people are either going to vote for Obama because they can't stand Romney, or vote for Romney because they can't stand Obama. Neither one are going to be held to account for their record. If they were, neither would be elected (and neither deserves to be)

i'm voting for obama.

he got significant health care reform done. was it the best conceivable? no. was it exactly what he initially proposed? no. but it was better than nothing.

he got a signifcant stimulus bill passed. perfect? no. flawed? yep. better than nothing? yep.

he wound the war in iraq down. soon as i would've liked? no. better than indefinitely? yep.

there's the auto industry. the enviornment. libya. the stock market. the housing market. 28 straight months of private sector job growth. etc.

and all while fighting against a republican senate for most of the first 2 years that wanted to stop everything he tried, and a republican house for the last 1+ years that is stopping everything.

is obama the perfect president? no. definitely not. but he's far different than what would occur under mccain, or bush, or romney. anyone who can't see that is buying TOO much into political cynicism.

[Dr. Love]

There's a winning slogan for his re-election:

"Re-elect Obama: He's better than nothing!"

For me, any positive is massively undercut by the cumulative things that I posted in the OP.

[knuckleboner]

There's a winning slogan for his re-election:

"Re-elect Obama: He's better than nothing!"

For me, any positive is massively undercut by the cumulative things that I posted in the OP.

really? the fact that he's not so keen on marijuana is more important than 200,000 teachers or hundreds of thousands of auto workers still having a job?

look, i'm genuinely glad that you found a candidate you're excited about. but if anyone who thinks that any president, from george washington on down to ron paul, doesn't have to compromise and do things that disappoint people from time to time, isn't living in the real world.

[Dr. Love]

No... I'm much more concerned about the expansion of the warfare state and the more aggressive erosion of civil liberties.

[knuckleboner]

No... I'm much more concerned about the expansion of the warfare state and the more aggressive erosion of civil liberties.

so, presumably you like the fact that obama's proposing serious defense spending reductions?

[Dr. Love]

Do you consider the NDAA, assassination of American citizens and the suspension of habeus corpus to be disappointing compromises?

[Dr. Love]

so, presumably you like the fact that obama's proposing serious defense spending reductions?

Of course. But there are better choices out there that propose that as well.

[So this is love]

Looking in from the outside:biggrin: when is the first Mexicano-Americano President of the US of A??:lmao:

[knuckleboner]

at worst, yes.

first of all, the world is gray. fighting a war against a non-state enemy is a new situation that requires clarification of laws, at the least.

is the government targeting American citizens wrong? does it matter where? if the government is at war with the taliban, and 3 people are planning another attack, and 2 are yemeni and 1 is an American, is it wrong to target all 3? maybe. but in my mind, it's a different gradation than if the guy was an internet bar in cincinnati.

this doesn't mean i like indefinite dentenion. i don't. but the fact that we're still trying to figure out how to fix it doesn't mean i discount everything else that's done.

as for indefinite detention and habeus, yeah, i'm not a fan. but i

[knuckleboner]

Of course. But there are better choices out there that propose that as well.

well, in my mind, there isn't any better choice on the ballot in november. but maybe there was beforehand. but maybe not. president's need to work with congress to implement things. and if congress doesn't want to help, then the greatest candidate ever is going to be an ineffective president.

[Satan]

Looking in from the outside:biggrin: when is the first Mexicano-Americano President of the US of A??:lmao:

If Willard Mittens Romney steals the election, that would be him (His father was born in Mexico)

[ELVIS]

There are not enough terrorist bogeymen running around to warrant detaining and assassinating Americans with no due process and there never will be !!

DO NOT TRADE FREEDOM FOR SECURITY!!!


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[Blaze]

There are not enough terrorist bogeymen running around to warrant detaining and assassinating Americans with no due process and there never will be !!

DO NOT TRADE FREEDOM FOR SECURITY!!!


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!
Did you say that in '04?
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2242/2168317522_ace22b5b22.jpg

[Little Texan]

Whether it's Obama or Romney that wins the election, we're fucked either way. This makes how many elections in a row that we've had to choose between two shit candidates and had to decide who is the lesser of the two evils? What is the deal? Why can't we ever get a decent candidate to run for President anymore?

[Dr. Love]

at worst, yes.

first of all, the world is gray. fighting a war against a non-state enemy is a new situation that requires clarification of laws, at the least.

is the government targeting American citizens wrong? does it matter where? if the government is at war with the taliban, and 3 people are planning another attack, and 2 are yemeni and 1 is an American, is it wrong to target all 3? maybe. but in my mind, it's a different gradation than if the guy was an internet bar in cincinnati.

this doesn't mean i like indefinite dentenion. i don't. but the fact that we're still trying to figure out how to fix it doesn't mean i discount everything else that's done.

as for indefinite detention and habeus, yeah, i'm not a fan. but i

that sounds suspiciously like the justifications used by the Bush Administration... which is ironic, given how similar the Obama Administration is. :)

[Dr. Love]

well, in my mind, there isn't any better choice on the ballot in november. but maybe there was beforehand. but maybe not. president's need to work with congress to implement things. and if congress doesn't want to help, then the greatest candidate ever is going to be an ineffective president.

You have just described the last 4 years for the most part... so by your reasoning, why vote for a candidate that congress doesn't want to work with?

[Satan]

Whether it's Obama or Romney that wins the election, we're fucked either way. This makes how many elections in a row that we've had to choose between two shit candidates and had to decide who is the lesser of the two evils? What is the deal? Why can't we ever get a decent candidate to run for President anymore?

www.voterocky.org


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8xR182qxZw

[Satan]

well, in my mind, there isn't any better choice on the ballot in november.

But there is......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFX7slvbi9g

[LoungeMachine]

The sad part is that most people are either going to vote for Obama because they can't stand Romney, or vote for Romney because they can't stand Obama. Neither one are going to be held to account for their record. If they were, neither would be elected (and neither deserves to be)

No, the sad part is most people don't understand that the next pResident will likely add 2-3 people to the SCOTUS, and that is very important....

Or that the REAL power lies in the Legistlative Branch......

I'm not only voting for Obama, but his coattails as well.....

:gulp:

And until we get rid of the filibuster rule, only a 60 vote majority will ever mean shit in the Senate

By the way, Doc.....is that your own work? I saw no link so I'm assuming it is.

[LoungeMachine]

Furthermore, let's get real for a moment.

The Citizens United verdict pretty much guaranteed the status quo for this [and many more] election cycle, so what IS anyone's REAL plan?

Romney and a RePuke majority in both houses?

Some thrid party acid flashback [sorry, FORD, Kwame] that has less chance than Ron Paul at getting elected?

:gulp:

Set your sights on 2016 and start TODAY.....

But it's going to be the Mormon with a 1/3 Billion in tax shelters all over the world, OR the centrist, spineless, Incumbent.

You have no other options this November.

[Seshmeister]

No... I'm much more concerned about the expansion of the warfare state and the more aggressive erosion of civil liberties.

I would have thought that the erosion of civil liberties would accelerate rapidly if you have a government and Supreme Court appointed by the party of religious extremists or are you only worried about civil liberties that directly affect you?

[Nickdfresh]

Placed sanctions on Iran that will likely lead to war.

Incorrect, the tougher sanctions are widely believed to be reducing the chance of war in Euro circles...

[ELVIS]

Did you say that in '04?
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2242/2168317522_ace22b5b22.jpg

Your prescriptions are ready...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[Nickdfresh]

Do you consider the NDAA, assassination of American citizens and the suspension of habeus corpus to be disappointing compromises?

American citizens were killed in WWII by United States military force if they were fighting on the side of the Nazis...

[Nickdfresh]

that sounds suspiciously like the justifications used by the Bush Administration... which is ironic, given how similar the Obama Administration is. :)

Complete horseshit. Which wrong country has Obama invaded yet?

[Dr. Love]

No, the sad part is most people don't understand that the next pResident will likely add 2-3 people to the SCOTUS, and that is very important....

Or that the REAL power lies in the Legistlative Branch......

I'm not only voting for Obama, but his coattails as well.....

:gulp:

And until we get rid of the filibuster rule, only a 60 vote majority will ever mean shit in the Senate

By the way, Doc.....is that your own work? I saw no link so I'm assuming it is.

The last link takes you to the source for all of it. You clicked through and read them all, right? If you're going to vote for Obama and his coat tails, then surely you should care what the consequences of such votes are.

[Dr. Love]

I would have thought that the erosion of civil liberties would accelerate rapidly if you have a government and Supreme Court appointed by the party of religious extremists or are you only worried about civil liberties that directly affect you?

I don't think either of them are the right choice. I don't buy into the idea that my only choices are Romney and Obama. Which is practically the same choice.

[Dr. Love]

Incorrect, the tougher sanctions are widely believed to be reducing the chance of war in Euro circles...

Time will tell. I have little doubt that somehow the Iranians will "provoke" us into war, when we have been provoking them into it for quite a while now.

[Dr. Love]

American citizens were killed in WWII by United States military force if they were fighting on the side of the Nazis...

Oh, you mean in a declared war? I forget, are we fighting one of those? Or wasn't that the last time we actually bothered to declare war?

[Dr. Love]

Complete horseshit. Which wrong country has Obama invaded yet?

I like the "yet" ... it's almost as if you subconsciously think it's inevitable.

Do you think Bush was a horrible president just because of Iraq? Or do you think that the PATRIOT act, the rendition programs, and lack of accountability for all the torture were okey dokey?

[Seshmeister]

In a democracy it always comes down to voting for the least bad candidate, for a start anyone that wants to be in president shows themselves to be a dodgy character.

Have you seen anything that shows Romney would be the least bad candidate?

[Seshmeister]

Time will tell. I have little doubt that somehow the Iranians will "provoke" us into war, when we have been provoking them into it for quite a while now.

Iran doesn't want war.

Some of their politicians do like the threat of war though because it's useful to them. Sound familiar...?

[Dr. Love]

It would be interesting to see what all you Obamapologists said back when Bush was doing similar things. I'm sure the posts are here, I just have to dig back to around 2004/2005 and click through.

Putting a (D) next to a guy's name sure does excuse a lot, I guess. Who cares how he actually governs. Things like his record are just minor distractions to be brushed over.

[Dr. Love]

In a democracy it always comes down to voting for the least bad candidate, for a start anyone that wants to be in president shows themselves to be a dodgy character.

Have you seen anything that shows Romney would be the least bad candidate?

No -- I think they are both equally bad in very similar (and sometimes different) ways. I don't think either should be voted for.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you still get evil. Almost everyone does it because they think almost everyone else will do it and don't want to "waste" their vote and risk the other guy, who is only marginally worse (depending on your philosophical bent).

It's like saying, "Gosh, I prefer to be prison-raped by the guy on the left. His dick is 1/4" shorter(0.635 cm for you Sesh) than the guy on the right."

[Dr. Love]

Iran doesn't want war.

Some of their politicians do like the threat of war though because it's useful to them. Sound familiar...?

I actually think it's easier for Obama (or any Democrat) to get away with increased drone strikes (including against first responders and funerals), assassinating Americans, eroding civil liberties, legalizing indefinite detention and the all the rest than it would be for any Republican.

Republicans seem to like it more and will naturally go along with it, but democrats will only accept it if it comes out of the mouth of another democrat. They may grumble and whine but they won't do anything to hold the person accountable. Just look at how this thread is going. Not much to refute any of the things listed above, but if Bush had done it, or if Romney gets elected and does it, you'll never hear the end of it.

I can't help but laugh every time someone says to ELVIS or BBB "well you voted for Bush twice" and sees no problem in voting for Obama. The level of disconnect is unreal.

I kind of hope Romney gets elected. Not because I like him. I expect he'll keep doing the same things as Obama and Bush. But at least I'll get to post "well you voted for Obama twice" to everyone that bitches about it THEN when they should have been bitching about it NOW.

[Von Halen]

Putting a (D) next to a guy's name sure does excuse a lot, I guess. Who cares how he actually governs. Things like his record are just minor distractions to be brushed over.

That seems to be the case with both parties. Unfortunately, it's not going to change anytime soon. There is just too much corruption and self serving, on both sides.

[DLR'sCock]

I never thought Obama was a big lefty and always thought of him as more of centrist like ol' Bill Clinton, so I am not surprised by how the executive branch of our gov't has been working over this past term. If I had my way I would have Kucinich as President, but that ain't happening.

The world functions in a ridiculous amount of favor for the uber wealth class in the world, not just the US. Same ol' story, same ol' song 'n' dance. For the last thirty plus years we have witnessed the war against the new deal which helped create the very large middle/working class in the US and now you see how it is and it's not going to get better. There is more money and power at the top than ever, and those who have it do not want to lose one ounce of it at all. The country is run by the multi-national corporations and the top tier of the economic ladder and it's becoming more and more that way with each passing day.


You have to love all of these truly crazy and delusional Tea Party types that were elected into congress. Quite funny.

[Seshmeister]

It's like saying, "Gosh, I prefer to be prison-raped by the guy on the left. His dick is 1/4" shorter(0.635 cm for you Sesh) than the guy on the right."

I think I would.

So you would say "I would like to be raped by the girls in my avatar but if they aren't available someone else choose the cock for me."

That kind of attitude got you the George W 12 incher (30cm)

[DLR'sCock]

No... I'm much more concerned about the expansion of the warfare state and the more aggressive erosion of civil liberties.

The expansion of the warfare state all goes hand in hand with what I posted. I have been able to see each step and the changes come going back twenty plus years and seeing how it's all a part of the plan, but I never say never and people can do something[sometimes].

[Dr. Love]

lol.

No, my preference is to go around trying to convince everyone else we don't have to be raped by either guy and don't need to keep looking at their dicks, wondering which will fuck us worse. We could all choose something else together.

It's just that most of these guys here seem to love the cock.

[Seshmeister]

I'm still going to turn to you while we're both being fucked in the ass and say 'This is really terrible isn't it? I've got Stumpy this week, how are things going with Big Dong Douglas?'

[Dr. Love]

I'm still going to turn to you while we're both being fucked in the ass and say 'This is really terrible isn't it? I've got Stumpy this week, how are things going with Big Dong Douglas?'

I think you'll find most people here like to pretend it isn't happening and don't appreciate the reminder.

[Seshmeister]

I agree but I guess we all need coping mechanisms.

What about the people that say 'I don't want his cock because it may be smaller but I heard sometimes he gives that poor kid in solitary a reacharound so I'd rather just have the big one'?

[Seshmeister]

I don't know how far this analogy is going to stretch before it breaks. :)

[Dr. Love]

I agree but I guess we all need coping mechanisms.

What about the people that say 'I don't want his cock because it may be smaller but I heard sometimes he gives that poor kid in solitary a reacharound so I'd rather just have the big one'?

Not much difference between that and letting themselves get fucked for the reasons they have now.

Knuckleboner is letting Obama fuck him because he wasn't the worst guy around, and lounge is letting the guy (and his friends!) gangbang him because he thinks Obama and friends will pick 2 or 3 other people that will fuck him more gently for the next 40 years.

To me it seems like a bunch of dudes getting needlessly fucked by a bunch of other dudes.

[Seshmeister]

I think Lounge makes a great point about the Supreme court though.

Avoiding being fucked by the Christian Taliban for the next 40 years is worth voting for Obama alone.

They have too many sexual hangups to use their own dicks so instead use massive dildos wrapped in razor wire and dipped in hot sauce.

[Nickdfresh]

Not much difference between that and letting themselves get fucked for the reasons they have now.

Knuckleboner is letting Obama fuck him because he wasn't the worst guy around, and lounge is letting the guy (and his friends!) gangbang him because he thinks Obama and friends will pick 2 or 3 other people that will fuck him more gently for the next 40 years.

To me it seems like a bunch of dudes getting needlessly fucked by a bunch of other dudes.

What if you fuck a chick and she gets preggers? Will libertarian Ron Paul "let" her decide what to do with her own body?

Oh wait, certain people only care about contradictions when it doesn't personally effect them...

[Dr. Love]

I think Lounge makes a great point about the Supreme court though.

Avoiding being fucked by the Christian Taliban for the next 40 years is worth voting for Obama alone.

They have too many sexual hangups to use their own dicks so instead use massive dildos wrapped in razor wire and dipped in hot sauce.

The scotus argument is trotted out every election.

[ELVIS]

Have you seen anything that shows Romney would be the least bad candidate?

He says he will get rid of the Obama health tax...





Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[Nickdfresh]

I actually think it's easier for Obama (or any Democrat) to get away with increased drone strikes (including against first responders and funerals), assassinating Americans, eroding civil liberties, legalizing indefinite detention and the all the rest than it would be for any Republican.

Republicans seem to like it more and will naturally go along with it, but democrats will only accept it if it comes out of the mouth of another democrat. They may grumble and whine but they won't do anything to hold the person accountable. Just look at how this thread is going. Not much to refute any of the things listed above, but if Bush had done it, or if Romney gets elected and does it, you'll never hear the end of it.

I can't help but laugh every time someone says to ELVIS or BBB "well you voted for Bush twice" and sees no problem in voting for Obama. The level of disconnect is unreal.

I kind of hope Romney gets elected. Not because I like him. I expect he'll keep doing the same things as Obama and Bush. But at least I'll get to post "well you voted for Obama twice" to everyone that bitches about it THEN when they should have been bitching about it NOW.


I'm as liberal as they come, and I love drone strikes and in fact think they're awesome! And if you're an "American" picking up arms against your own country and fighting for a foreign organization as a mercenary or ideological extremist cunt, you can have your citizenship revoked. I do wish there were more due process protocols, but you'll have a hard time getting me to give a fuck if a guy was born in this country, but plotting terror attacks gets Hellfired...

[Dr. Love]

What if you fuck a chick and she gets preggers? Will libertarian Ron Paul "let" her decide what to do with her own body?

Oh wait, certain people only care about contradictions when it doesn't personally effect them...

I think you missed the metaphor - but regardless, Dr. Paul won't be on the ballot in November and will be retiring. So that's one dick you don't have to worry about fucking you anymore, Nick. ;)

[ELVIS]

So Sesh chooses candidates based on his bias towards perceived sexual hangups ??


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[Dr. Love]

I'm as liberal as they come, and I love drone strikes and in fact think they're awesome! And if you're an "American" picking up arms against your own country and fighting for a foreign organization as a mercenary or ideological extremist cunt, you can have your citizenship revoked. I do wish there were more due process protocols, but you'll have a hard time getting me to give a fuck if a guy was born in this country, but plotting terror attacks gets Hellfired...

The bad part about accepting that way of thinking is that you have to take the government at its word. And when you get a bad apple in (like Bush), they can off people without so much as a review by the courts or a jury. No one should be executed just because a government official decides they should die without any review.

[Seshmeister]

And that should apply equally whether they happen by some accident to have US citizenship or not.

Also remember the rule, if you are killed by a drone and you are a man over 18 then by being within the vicinity of a target you are deemed a target unless proved later not to be.

It gets difficult at that point to say who is the terrorist, at least the suicide bomber has the conviction to kill himself when he's killing innocent bystanders.

[Satan]

The scotus argument is trotted out every election.

Well, 2 of the 3 worst Supreme Court decisions in history were made by 5 BCE appointees on the Supreme Court. Shittyzens United, and Chimp v Gore.

Only the Dred Scott decision back in the 1850s was worse than these two, and ironically enough, it actually said the opposite of Shittyzens United (that people were property). That fucked up decision led directly to the Civil War. The fucked up decision of 12/12/2000 led directly to 9/11/2001 and the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. And Hell only knows what will be the total fallout of Shittyzens United.

We don't need anymore of the likes of Fat Tony Scalia, Opie Roberts, Clarence The Clown, Sammy The Fish, or Anthony "God Damn I Hate My Last Name" Kennedy. And we certainly don't need the likes of them replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who isn't likely to survive another 8 years.

Obama's picks? Who knows? Sotomayor doesn't seem that bad. Kagan was to the right of Stevens, whom she replaced, but the worst thing about her so far, is the fact that she's had to recuse herself so many times, because she previously argued the same cases before the Court as Solicitor General. If she can't vote against the BCE 5, then what good is she?

One name that frequently comes up on Obama's "short list" for court appointments is Cass Sunstein. That's one piece of shit who WOULD be every bit as bad as any BCE appointment. He's as much of a goddamn lunatic as Scalia, seriously.

Also, 6 Catholics (At least three of whom are Opus Dei) and 3 Jews?? How the Hell is that representative of all of the US??

[ELVIS]

It's amazing the amount of rationalization the left is making for everything Obama has tried to do...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[Nickdfresh]

The bad part about accepting that way of thinking is that you have to take the government at its word. And when you get a bad apple in (like Bush), they can off people without so much as a review by the courts or a jury. No one should be executed just because a government official decides they should die without any review.

I don't tend to trust the government and hate having to defend them and play 'devil's advocate,' but then what happens if an "American citizen" comes back from Yemen and plants a car bomb killing 100 pedestrians in Anytown, USA? It's easy to second guess the gov't, but what cannot be denied is that we've had no follow up terror attacks and very little death since 9/11 (if you don't count Iraq)...

[Nickdfresh]

It's amazing the amount of rationalization the left is making for everything Obama has tried to do...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

Says the the libertarian bandwagon-hopper that is anything but actually libertarian...

[Nickdfresh]

And that should apply equally whether they happen by some accident to have US citizenship or not.

Also remember the rule, if you are killed by a drone and you are a man over 18 then by being within the vicinity of a target you are deemed a target unless proved later not to be.

It gets difficult at that point to say who is the terrorist, at least the suicide bomber has the conviction to kill himself when he's killing innocent bystanders.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), the United States doesn't control nor have any influence in parts of Yemen and South Waziristan. Hell, the sovereign governments don't even control those areas. In absence of anything else, the only option is a counterinsurgency campaign from the air (and probably from the ground in the very near future). And the suicide bomber is just more often than not a dumb, young lackey convinced to off himself by the planners who often live well and have no intention of dying for their cause and with the hundreds they may kill...

[Nickdfresh]

Not much difference between that and letting themselves get fucked for the reasons they have now.

Knuckleboner is letting Obama fuck him because he wasn't the worst guy around, and lounge is letting the guy (and his friends!) gangbang him because he thinks Obama and friends will pick 2 or 3 other people that will fuck him more gently for the next 40 years.

To me it seems like a bunch of dudes getting needlessly fucked by a bunch of other dudes.

Yeah, I'm sure Obama is titillated about the thought of fucking the shit out of us all, but the fact is that you're blaming him for everything wrong with the system and acting as if he has some sort of omnipotent power to instantly "change" everything. What a naive, black-and-white worldview that is completely devoid of nuance. The system is set up this way, and he certainly didn't create it. To be fair to Obama, I'm sure there is a lot in the "system" he would love to change but cannot do so realistically...

[MUSICMANN]

Guys, you can forget about attacking one another on party lines. Doesn't matter who is president, the world bankers/federal reserve are controlling everything that happens. They are the inventors of the calm/chaos system, that has ruled the world for ages. Right now, Obama is the chaos, and if re-elected and if the powers that be want's calm, the economy and such will get better. If they deem and want Romney to look like he is bringing in the calm then that's what will happen instead.

If you look back, right when Bush was elected, this country was in a state of calm, until 9/11 happened and changed that to chaos. Then there were atleast 5 yrs. of calm, yes, we were in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the economy and unemployment was doing good and was low, before the last yr. when chaos started to get started. Now, we're going on another 4 yrs. or so of chaos and it seems time for calm to rise again. So, bickering back and forth and tearing up the fabric, we the people, that binds this country and make's us all American's, is what those fuckers want not only for America but the whole world.

With chaos, those with the most money/power, will control and conquer. The world bankers/federal reserve should be told to get fucked and get the fuck out of this country and it's affairs. This is the only way we as American's will ever be, not only what we once were, but greater and more unified than ever before.

[FORD]

www.voterocky.org

And if you have any money in Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, or any other such criminal enterprise, take it the fuck out and put it in a credit union.

(Or if you live in North Dakota, you have the option of a state bank. Which no other state has, but all of them should)

[knuckleboner]

that sounds suspiciously like the justifications used by the Bush Administration... which is ironic, given how similar the Obama Administration is. :)

you've found some similarities. but as i pointed out, there are vast differences, too. that you discount those differences doesn't mean they don't exist.

[knuckleboner]

You have just described the last 4 years for the most part... so by your reasoning, why vote for a candidate that congress doesn't want to work with?

i meant that to actually be effective in getting things done, candidates sometimes have to compromise.

[knuckleboner]

Not much difference between that and letting themselves get fucked for the reasons they have now.

Knuckleboner is letting Obama fuck him because he wasn't the worst guy around, and lounge is letting the guy (and his friends!) gangbang him because he thinks Obama and friends will pick 2 or 3 other people that will fuck him more gently for the next 40 years.

To me it seems like a bunch of dudes getting needlessly fucked by a bunch of other dudes.

dude, not quite true. i just understand that idealism isn't always available in the real world. i'm not trumpeting obama as the greatest president ever. but he's better than mccain and he's better than romney. but i believe his positives outweigh his negatives.

[Dr. Love]

I was engaging in hyperbole (which I'm sure you knew). :) I think Obama is better than Romney and McCain. I think they're all terrible regardless.

[Dr. Love]

i meant that to actually be effective in getting things done, candidates sometimes have to compromise.

Well, I can't say Obama hasn't been extremely compromising.

[Dr. Love]

Yeah, I'm sure Obama is titillated about the thought of fucking the shit out of us all, but the fact is that you're blaming him for everything wrong with the system and acting as if he has some sort of omnipotent power to instantly "change" everything. What a naive, black-and-white worldview that is completely devoid of nuance. The system is set up this way, and he certainly didn't create it. To be fair to Obama, I'm sure there is a lot in the "system" he would love to change but cannot do so realistically...

I guess I just thought we all deserved another Teddy Roosevelt, or FDR, or Andrew Jackson. Someone that would stand up to the big money and big banks and tear them apart for the good of the country. Not sell us all out to them.

[Dr. Love]

I don't tend to trust the government and hate having to defend them and play 'devil's advocate,' but then what happens if an "American citizen" comes back from Yemen and plants a car bomb killing 100 pedestrians in Anytown, USA? It's easy to second guess the gov't, but what cannot be denied is that we've had no follow up terror attacks and very little death since 9/11 (if you don't count Iraq)...

If the ends justified the means, Saddam would have been an ok dude

[Romeo Delight]

I think I can speak for most Canadians...we really, really want Obama back in. When I was young and full of piss and vinegar, I used to think the Republicans were my party...now that I am a (semi) reasoned adult, I couldn't imagine being one now.

I am in the US all of the time and it really is remarkable how you are either a Hatfield or McCoy, errrrr Dem or Rep...

I honestly approach each Federal election in Canada with a relatively clear slate in terms of who I will vote for.

[FORD]

Sometimes I really wish we had the parliamentary thing on this side of the border, so it might be easier to get some other parties off the ground. Sure, you guys still get stuck with douchebags like Stevie Harper now and then, but at least you can check his power by having some of the other parties team up in a coalition or whatever.

BTW.... how's the NDP doing without Jack Layton? :(

[WACF]

Sometimes I really wish we had the parliamentary thing on this side of the border, so it might be easier to get some other parties off the ground. Sure, you guys still get stuck with douchebags like Stevie Harper now and then, but at least you can check his power by having some of the other parties team up in a coalition or whatever.

BTW.... how's the NDP doing without Jack Layton? :(

They have gone hard for the Quebec vote...more or less taken the spot of the Bloq...but with a national party.

Their policies are still tax heavy.

Jack's shoes are hard to fill...sorely missed by many...including PM Harper who many times gave him credit for pushing certain issues.

[LoungeMachine]

The scotus argument is trotted out every election.

And a VALID one at that......

:gulp:

Just imagine who McCain would have put up there.....

Or how Citizens United would never have happened if the Florida recount hadn't been stopped.

:gulp:

Don't discount the importance of the SCOTUS in the same thread you expect us to re-evaluate our votes.

[Blaze]

fluffy boy come back


Sent from my ibitch!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMy2ZbPkyvw&t=9m29s

[Seshmeister]

I don't tend to trust the government and hate having to defend them and play 'devil's advocate,' but then what happens if an "American citizen" comes back from Yemen and plants a car bomb killing 100 pedestrians in Anytown, USA? It's easy to second guess the gov't, but what cannot be denied is that we've had no follow up terror attacks and very little death since 9/11 (if you don't count Iraq)...

Well you need a national curfew system then.

If from 8pm - 8am every night no one was allowed outside their home then 1000s of people wouldn't be killed each year.

I fucking guarantee that would save more than a 9-11 every single year and also the NSA would be in favor of it.

What are you waiting for?

[LoungeMachine]

Well you need a national curfew system then.

If from 8pm - 8am every night no one was allowed outside their home then 1000s of people wouldn't be killed each year.

I fucking guarantee that would save more than a 9-11 every single year and also the NSA would be in favor of it.

What are you waiting for?

Actually a single-payer Healthcare System would save even more lives than your rhetorical curfew.....and cost less.

:gulp:

Let's start there.

[Seshmeister]

And since you can trust corporations completely but government is evil the sensible thing would surely be to abolish the US military completely and give the contract to Blackwater or whatever they have had to change their name to this week.

[BigBadBrian]

i'm voting for obama.

Really? :sarcasm:


he got significant health care reform done. was it the best conceivable? no. was it exactly what he initially proposed? no. but it was better than nothing.

Not really. It's going to drive this country deeper in debt, raise premiums, and garner no improvement in the quality of care.


he got a signifcant stimulus bill passed. perfect? no. flawed? yep. better than nothing? yep.

The stimulus bill had no effect on the economy other than adding $1 Trillion to the deficit. Unemployment is actually much higher than the reported 8.2% reported due to a lot of people that have quit looking for jobs.


he wound the war in iraq down. soon as i would've liked? no. better than indefinitely? yep.

You're insane. Obama is like the QB who came i off the bench in the 4th QTR with a 3 TD lead. The surge under Bush was responsible for the outcome in Iraq.


there's the auto industry. the enviornment. libya. the stock market. the housing market. 28 straight months of private sector job growth. etc.


and all while fighting against a republican senate for most of the first 2 years that wanted to stop everything he tried, and a republican house for the last 1+ years that is stopping everything.

Uh huh. I suppose a Republican President never had to fight against a hostile Democratic Congress? You have to go back as far as.....................Bush 43.


is obama the perfect president? no. definitely not. but he's far different than what would occur under mccain, or bush, or romney. anyone who can't see that is buying TOO much into political cynicism.

Quit reading your liberal sources and listening to the Liberal Media, which is most of TV and the major newspapers.

[Nickdfresh]

Well you need a national curfew system then.

If from 8pm - 8am every night no one was allowed outside their home then 1000s of people wouldn't be killed each year.

I fucking guarantee that would save more than a 9-11 every single year and also the NSA would be in favor of it.

What are you waiting for?

I was talking about the scrutiny any gov't would get if a major terror attack took place. It is also hard to argue that al Qaida hasn't been decimated by drone strikes...

[Nickdfresh]

...

You're insane. Obama is like the QB who came i off the bench in the 4th QTR with a 3 TD lead. The surge under Bush was responsible for the outcome in Iraq.
...


"The Surge" was only implemented out of desperation by an admin that was failing miserably and was the plan of people that were largely against the Invasion of Iraq to begin with...

[Va Beach VH Fan]

"The Surge" was only implemented out of desperation by an admin that was failing miserably and was the plan of people that were largely against the Invasion of Iraq to begin with...

Wasn't "The Surge" successful mostly because we paid off the insurgents not to fight?

[Dr. Love]

Actually a single-payer Healthcare System would save even more lives than your rhetorical curfew.....and cost less.

:gulp:

Let's start there.

You mean the single payer system Obama cut a deal to kill as an option early on?

[Dr. Love]

And a VALID one at that......

:gulp:

Just imagine who McCain would have put up there.....

Or how Citizens United would never have happened if the Florida recount hadn't been stopped.

:gulp:

Don't discount the importance of the SCOTUS in the same thread you expect us to re-evaluate our votes.

Not as valid as you are suggesting. Many justices turn out different from what the people that nominated them expected.

The scotus has an impact in reviewing laws already passed and signed by the other branches of government. If you want real change, start with congress and the presidency. Don't use them as tools to try to keep the fingernail hold on the court. Beyond that, there are better candidates out there that will also nominate good people to the supreme court. The democratic and republican parties don't have a lock on the ability to put forward good candidates.

[Dr. Love]

Really? :sarcasm:



Not really. It's going to drive this country deeper in debt, raise premiums, and garner no improvement in the quality of care.



The stimulus bill had no effect on the economy other than adding $1 Trillion to the deficit. Unemployment is actually much higher than the reported 8.2% reported due to a lot of people that have quit looking for jobs.



You're insane. Obama is like the QB who came i off the bench in the 4th QTR with a 3 TD lead. The surge under Bush was responsible for the outcome in Iraq.





Uh huh. I suppose a Republican President never had to fight against a hostile Democratic Congress? You have to go back as far as.....................Bush 43.



Quit reading your liberal sources and listening to the Liberal Media, which is most of TV and the major newspapers.

I keep hearing that Obama was a very effective president AND that he was ineffective because the republicans obstructed him. For all his faults, bush was clearly more effective. He almost always got his way. I'm not sure if he was better at arm twisting or if democrats are just too weak to stand up for what they believe in and FIGHT.

[DLR Bridge]

I keep hearing that Obama was a very effective president AND that he was ineffective because the republicans obstructed him. For all his faults, bush was clearly more effective. He almost always got his way. I'm not sure if he was better at arm twisting or if democrats are just too weak to stand up for what they believe in and FIGHT.

The latter I'm affraid. This is precisely where I side with Bill Maher.

[Nickdfresh]

Wasn't "The Surge" successful mostly because we paid off the insurgents not to fight?

That was one factor, but the Sunni's were accepting our money because the vile scumfucks of al Qaida of Iraq made them hate AQI more than they hated us. There was also an actual 'hearts and minds' style counterinsurgency strategy implemented that stopped the overall moronic behavior of some commanders that overused force like artillery to respond to guerrilla attacks...

[ELVIS]

None of that fucking matters Nick...

This overgrown and over reaching federal government is way more of a threat to Americans than any terrorist bogeymen...

I'd rather keep my eyes on the actions on the big banks, corporations, big pharma, and the military industrial complex...

The takeover is from within...

The terrorist story is a overhyped CIA fabrication designed for us to play into their hands...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[BigBadBrian]

Wasn't "The Surge" successful mostly because we paid off the insurgents not to fight?

I think the outcome in Iraq had several components to it that brought about where we are today, two of which are mentioned by you and Nick. I don't even say Obama didn't have a hand in it. But to say it's over (supposedly) because of Obama in entirety is absurd.

[BigBadBrian]

None of that fucking matters Nick...

This overgrown and over reaching federal government is way more of a threat to Americans than any terrorist bogeymen...

I'd rather keep my eyes on the actions on the big banks, corporations, big pharma, and the military industrial complex...

The takeover is from within...



That's why all should:

http://www.algca.org/images/joinnra.jpg

[ELVIS]

Are you sure that's big enough ??

[FORD]

I keep hearing that Obama was a very effective president AND that he was ineffective because the republicans obstructed him. For all his faults, bush was clearly more effective. He almost always got his way. I'm not sure if he was better at arm twisting or if democrats are just too weak to stand up for what they believe in and FIGHT.

Well, the main problem is that many of the people in Congress who call themselves "Democrats" really aren't at all.

The so-called "Democratic Leadership Council", who were neither Democrats, nor capable of leading, was a KKKoch Brothers funded Repuke infiltration into the Democratic party. And it was so blatantly so, that it would be like the Village People attempting to infiltrate the Westboro Baptist Church. Difference of course is that Fred Phelps is an intolerant hateful bigot, and the Democrats call themselves a "big tent party" so they tried to make a place for these tools.

Problem is, they never wanted a mere "seat at the table". They wanted the whole table. And the chairs too. What they deserved was to have the chairs busted over their head, WWE style.

[Dr. Love]

Well, the main problem is that many of the people in Congress who call themselves "Democrats" really aren't at all.

The so-called "Democratic Leadership Council", who were neither Democrats, nor capable of leading, was a KKKoch Brothers funded Repuke infiltration into the Democratic party. And it was so blatantly so, that it would be like the Village People attempting to infiltrate the Westboro Baptist Church. Difference of course is that Fred Phelps is an intolerant hateful bigot, and the Democrats call themselves a "big tent party" so they tried to make a place for these tools.

Problem is, they never wanted a mere "seat at the table". They wanted the whole table. And the chairs too. What they deserved was to have the chairs busted over their head, WWE style.

So why haven't the democrats cleaned them out like the tea party tried to do with the republicans before being hijacked?

[LoungeMachine]

None of that fucking matters Nick...

This overgrown and over reaching federal government is way more of a threat to Americans than any terrorist bogeymen...

I'd rather keep my eyes on the actions on the big banks, corporations, big pharma, and the military industrial complex...

The takeover is from within...

The terrorist story is a overhyped CIA fabrication designed for us to play into their hands...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

An ELVIS post I can get behind....

:gulp:

Snowballs in hell time.....

[LoungeMachine]

Are you sure that's big enough ??

You hear that alot, I bet.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Obama Pledges To Repeal Health Care Law If Reelected
http://o.onionstatic.com/images/17/17471/16x9/635.jpg
July 10, 2012 | ISSUE 48•28

WASHINGTON—Calling it a "poorly conceived and irresponsible piece of legislation, pure and simple," President Obama made a public pledge to voters Tuesday that, if reelected, he would fight to repeal the recently upheld Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

In an address to the nation broadcast live from the White House, the president promised voters in sharp, forceful terms that the very first act of his second term would be to "strike down this unjust and unconstitutional law," which he said would place "an unacceptable burden on hardworking Americans."

"Citizens going to the polls in November should know that if they reelect me, they will not have to face the consequences of this bloated, oppressive act," said Obama, who called the legislation a "906-page monstrosity." "This law isn't merely an attack on our current health care system. It's an attack on our core values and what it means to be an American. And mark my words, an Obama administration will support those values, not destroy them."

"Frankly, this toxic plan is just another needless tax to pay—nothing more, nothing less," Obama continued. "It's harmful and it's wrong and I won't stand for it."

Blasting members of Congress for "voting to vastly overstep government authority," Obama said that under his leadership the federal government would not "reach into the pockets of honest taxpayers" to pay for the extension of health care benefits enacted by the legislation.

Obama added that if the plan goes into effect, it is "100 percent guaranteed" to bankrupt the United States within 10 years.

Proponents of the health care act have yet to respond to the president's numerous criticisms of the law, which he claimed would increase insurance premiums and force every American to receive subpar medical treatment.

"I'm going to say it in plain English: I will not let Obamacare stunt job growth, drive up the cost of health care, and cripple our economy—I simply won't let it happen," the president said. "Come November, should I be reelected, it will be my great pleasure to walk into the Oval Office, take my pen in hand, and sign a big 'adios' repealing this grave threat to our country's future."

Added Obama, "That is a promise you can take to the voting booth."

Link (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-pledges-to-repeal-health-care-law-if-reelect,28730/)

[ELVIS]

It's not April first ??

[jhale667]

:biggrin:

[knuckleboner]

Well, I can't say Obama hasn't been extremely compromising.

ha. as a supporter, i can't say he hasn't been, either! extremely...

[knuckleboner]

Really? :sarcasm:



and you expect me to be excited for mitt romney? really? independents aren't excited for mitt romney. most republicans aren't excited for mitt romney. hell, john boehner's not excited for mitt romney. (well, after he admitted he wasn't, he realized it didn't look so good in the press, so he flip flopped. but still, no real excitement.) so there should be no need for sarcasm. mitt romeny isn't running on what he'd do. he's running on not being obama. he's this generation's john kerry.


Not really. It's going to drive this country deeper in debt, raise premiums, and garner no improvement in the quality of care.

ok, that's nothing more than partisan blubbering. without facts. how about this: the republicans acknowledged obamacare lowers the deficit. how? in their rules for the current house, they exempted obamacare's repeal from paygo requiring increases in the deficit to be offset. also, premium increases since obamacare passed have been lower than the previous decade's increases. that seems like improvement. and no improvement to quality of care? say that to the kid who was previously denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. or to the millions of seniors now getting free preventative care. or the millions of parents electing to keep their kids on insurance until age 26. you don't have to like the act to acknowledge it's had an impact. it's a perfectly acceptable argument to say that, on the whole, you don't like obamacare's intrusion or requirements. but to say no impact is simply false.



The stimulus bill had no effect on the economy other than adding $1 Trillion to the deficit. Unemployment is actually much higher than the reported 8.2% reported due to a lot of people that have quit looking for jobs.

that defies logic. you really think that keeping hundreds of thousands of teachers, firefighters and police officers from being laid off didn't help the economy, at least in the short run? in what world in which the economy's already losing 700,000+ jobs a month are LESS layoffs considered "no effect?" and the fact of today's unemployment rate at whatever level does not mean that the stimulus was a failure. most economists acknowledge that the recession caused at least a $2 trillion contraction in the economy. unless the stimulus was close to that, it wasn't going to completely reverse the recession. but it was going to keep it from being worse. oh, i almost forgot, you know what the single largest part of the stimulus act was, right? tax cuts. cetainly, you're not arguing that tax cuts have no effect on the economy, are you?...




You're insane. Obama is like the QB who came i off the bench in the 4th QTR with a 3 TD lead. The surge under Bush was responsible for the outcome in Iraq.

i never said the total situation in iraq was obama's doing. i said he wound down combat operations. which he did. there are still attacks in iraq. it is not inconceivable that a different president would have left more active combat troops in iraq for a longer duration. re-read my statement. i just said that obama pulled the majority of iraq troops out, albeit a little more slowly than i would have preferred.





Uh huh. I suppose a Republican President never had to fight against a hostile Democratic Congress? You have to go back as far as.....................Bush 43.



of course they have. i never claimed obama was a martyr for that. i just said that it was challenging for him. that said, i DO think the current crop of republicans has been far more confrontational. mcconnell said TO THE PRESS that the republicans' #1 goal was to ensure obama was a one-termer. really? not, create jobs, improve the economy, fight terrorism, fix transportation, hell, not even lower taxes. but simply beat obama. not exactly an easy congress to work with.




Quit reading your liberal sources and listening to the Liberal Media, which is most of TV and the major newspapers.

which is hilarious, because hardcore liberals aren't that fond of obama. but that's not a republican talking point, so obama must be the most liberal communist, facist, in the history of the planet, right?...

[jhale667]

:wow2:

[Dr. Love]

I don't give Obama a whole lot of credit for winding down Iraq operations. He didn't stick to his original promised timetable, and he wouldn't have stuck to Bush's timetable if the Iraqis hadn't told them they couldn't stay any longer. Obama wanted to stick around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq#Full_withdrawa l_.282011.29

[LoungeMachine]

I love watching KB own Brie.....

:gulp:

It's like the Harlem Globetrotters and The Washington Generals......

[Nickdfresh]

I don't give Obama a whole lot of credit for winding down Iraq operations.

Of course not. You'd have to acknowledge that Obama isn't just the "same" choice as Bush or Rummny...


He didn't stick to his original promised timetable,

Something impossible to do usually while in combat operations.


...and he wouldn't have stuck to Bush's timetable if the Iraqis hadn't told them they couldn't stay any longer. Obama wanted to stick around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq#Full_withdrawa l_.282011.29

If Bush had a third term we'd still be there. In any case, most would have accepted a small number of U.S. "advisers" and counter-terrorist reaction troops and still considered it a withdrawal. It wasn't just the case of Iraqis not wanting us around, it was also the fact that the proximity to Iran made our troops targets within easy striking distance. Also, Obama essentially restricted U.S. troops to bases with minimal on-the-ground occupation footprint long before they actually withdrew. Something I doubt Bush would ever have done...

[Dr. Love]

Of course not. You'd have to acknowledge that Obama isn't just the "same" choice as Bush or Rummny...

lol. I've provided ample articles and links outlining how Obama has been terrible. The only one anyone tried to refute was you saying "nuh uh!" to the sanctions on Iran leading to war, unless you count Knuckleboner's squirming around how all of that really "isn't that bad". Much of what I posted is a continuation of what Bush started. I suspect for a lot of people here this is causing cognitive dissonance resulting in outright rejection (the blind eye).


Something impossible to do usually while in combat operations.

So either he willfully lied or he was woefully ignorant of what he was saying. Gotcha.


If Bush had a third term we'd still be there. In any case, most would have accepted a small number of U.S. "advisers" and counter-terrorist reaction troops and still considered it a withdrawal. It wasn't just the case of Iraqis not wanting us around, it was also the fact that the proximity to Iran made our troops targets within easy striking distance. Also, Obama essentially restricted U.S. troops to bases with minimal on-the-ground occupation footprint long before they actually withdrew. Something I doubt Bush would ever have done...

Pure speculation. And pointless speculation. Obama promised one thing, did another. I guess you don't believe in accountability?

Hey, if you guys want to be suckered by this guy, you have my sympathy. You thought you were getting something different. I bought it too. I guess you're not all ready to accept it.

[Nickdfresh]

lol. I've provided ample articles and links outlining how Obama has been terrible. The only one anyone tried to refute was you saying "nuh uh!" to the sanctions on Iran leading to war, unless you count Knuckleboner's squirming around how all of that really "isn't that bad". Much of what I posted is a continuation of what Bush started. I suspect for a lot of people here this is causing cognitive dissonance resulting in outright rejection (the blind eye).

To simply dismiss Obama as "terrible" is pretty simplistic, and I do not have time to go through every article and refute every inaccuracy and misleading notion. Many of your articles are slanted and unbalanced and do not tell the entire story. For instance, there was a pretty good discussion on CNN regarding Obama's Admin's record on these things and the basic conclusion is that he has a pretty "mixed" record. For instance, the article you had on his "whistleblower" roundup is a bit misleading. Obama's Justice Dept. HAS prosecuted more whistleblower cases, he has also instituted new protections. And many of these so-called "whistleblowers" essentially revealed classified info which is a little something called espionage...

As far as "what Bush started," much of it began long before under Clinton (at least), then it was hijacked and warped after 9/11. But herein lies the problem, we're both coming from very different places on matters of National Security and terrorism. Irregardless of what you personally believe, you are following he lead of a swishy-washy Inside Jobber in Ron Paul, who essentially believes the gov't he works for and pays him offed its own citizens, which I find moronic and beyond fucking repulsive on many levels. So of course any endeavors of Nat'l Security are warped in his silly "let's just withdraw from the world and be isolationists" worldview...


So either he willfully lied or he was woefully ignorant of what he was saying. Gotcha.

Oh please, what a set up! If Obama doesn't have a crystal ball up his ass and know everything in advance, then he must some evil dictator thirsting for Iraqi and Afghan blood. Really?

Again, did I mention the guy you choose to follow and hitch your ideological wagons too believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and is just too much of a big stinky old pussy to admit it openly?


Pure speculation. And pointless speculation. Obama promised one thing, did another. I guess you don't believe in accountability?

It's opinion. And it's no more speculation than you believing that Ron Paul would have been anything more than a one-term disaster of do-nothing gov't in stasis...


Hey, if you guys want to be suckered by this guy, you have my sympathy. You thought you were getting something different. I bought it too. I guess you're not all ready to accept it.

Why have sympathy for a sucker? Like how you rationalize Ron Paul's contradictions but pick apart everything Obama does with a massive critical lens on crack...

[jhale667]

Why have sympathy for a sucker? Like how you rationalize Ron Paul's contradictions but pick apart everything Obama does with a massive critical lens on crack...


Like how he told me I should overlook RP's despicable, indefensible position on the civil rights act and discrimination as a "poperty right"? Not gonna happen.


http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h217/jhale667/RonPaulLunaticravings.jpg

[BigBadBrian]

I love watching KB own Brie.....

:gulp:

It's like the Harlem Globetrotters and The Washington Generals......

One thing I've always given kb credit for: at least he tries to put together a logical argument, though most of them could be taken right off the "Obama For America" website.

I wish you, Nick, and GayHale would try to put together a coherent argument for once. Oh that's right, you guys can't. You guys are a step up from DumbAsARock, though. :biggrin:

[Nickdfresh]

Like how he told me I should overlook RP's despicable, indefensible position on the civil rights act and discrimination as a "poperty right"? Not gonna happen.


http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h217/jhale667/RonPaulLunaticravings.jpg

I don't care who you are, that's just funny shit... :biggrin:

[Nickdfresh]

One thing I've always given kb credit for: at least he tries to put together a logical argument, though most of them could be taken right off the "Obama For America" website.

I wish you, Nick, and GayHale would try to put together a coherent argument for once. Oh that's right, you guys can't. You guys are a step up from DumbAsARock, though. :biggrin:

BigBrian, I wouldn't spend more than 30 seconds responding to your doucher trolling here. KB simply isn't board of your bullshit yet like the rest of us are. That's why he enjoys owning you like a track team lapping a retard with two broken legs, he's not sick of it yet...

[Dr. Love]

To simply dismiss Obama as "terrible" is pretty simplistic, and I do not have time to go through every article and refute every inaccuracy and misleading notion. Many of your articles are slanted and unbalanced and do not tell the entire story. For instance, there was a pretty good discussion on CNN regarding Obama's Admin's record on these things and the basic conclusion is that he has a pretty "mixed" record. For instance, the article you had on his "whistleblower" roundup is a bit misleading. Obama's Justice Dept. HAS prosecuted more whistleblower cases, he has also instituted new protections. And many of these so-called "whistleblowers" essentially revealed classified info which is a little something called espionage...

As far as "what Bush started," much of it began long before under Clinton (at least), then it was hijacked and warped after 9/11. But herein lies the problem, we're both coming from very different places on matters of National Security and terrorism. Irregardless of what you personally believe, you are following he lead of a swishy-washy Inside Jobber in Ron Paul, who essentially believes the gov't he works for and pays him offed its own citizens, which I find moronic and beyond fucking repulsive on many levels. So of course any endeavors of Nat'l Security are warped in his silly "let's just withdraw from the world and be isolationists" worldview...



Oh please, what a set up! If Obama doesn't have a crystal ball up his ass and know everything in advance, then he must some evil dictator thirsting for Iraqi and Afghan blood. Really?

Again, did I mention the guy you choose to follow and hitch your ideological wagons too believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and is just too much of a big stinky old pussy to admit it openly?



It's opinion. And it's no more speculation than you believing that Ron Paul would have been anything more than a one-term disaster of do-nothing gov't in stasis...



Why have sympathy for a sucker? Like how you rationalize Ron Paul's contradictions but pick apart everything Obama does with a massive critical lens on crack...

:)

I can see why you won't (or can't) refute anything that I posted.

Nick, I moved on from Ron Paul. I can see you haven't. You can try to link this all back to him if you want.

I'm interested in talking about Obama's record and the things I posted in my first post.

Understandably, you guys aren't. :)

[Dr. Love]

Like how he told me I should overlook RP's despicable, indefensible position on the civil rights act and discrimination as a "poperty right"? Not gonna happen.


http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h217/jhale667/RonPaulLunaticravings.jpg

Not at all. I asked you to not let other people push your buttons. I can see you've made remarkable progress in that regard! ;)

[Nickdfresh]

:)

I can see why you won't (or can't) refute anything that I posted.

Oh please. I've refuted your notion that "they're all the same" countless times. But, we'll use Iraq as an example. I gently inform you that Obama kept a campaign promise and then you start attaching technicalities and qualifiers and engaging in basic mental masturbatory sophistry and speculations about how "it wasn't fast enough" or "Bush would have done the same" or "it's only 'cause the Iraqis didn't want us there anymore" or because "a general was banging Maliki's wife and he hates us now" or whatever, which are all hollow, bullshit arguments. It's like arguing with Rainman. You want to hate Obama, so everything he does is wrong...


Nick, I moved on from Ron Paul. I can see you haven't. You can try to link this all back to him if you want.

No you haven't! You're still engaged in the libertarian perfectionism and utopianism...both of which are classic earmarks of Ron Paul-sycophancy. And as I pointed out, it's hard to have a discussion on National Security and civil liberties if you simply come from a place that 9/11 was an Inside Job™...


I'm interested in talking about Obama's record and the things I posted in my first post.

Understandably, you guys aren't. :)

Oh we are, we're just waiting for you to stop lecturing everyone with your smug little attitude brought on by your libertarian vanities like you're fucking Christ™ running through the Temple Mount™ and actually talk about his record in a fair and nuanced way...

[Dr. Love]

Oh please. I've refuted your notion that "they're all the same" countless times. But, we'll use Iraq as an example. I gently inform you that Obama kept a campaign promise and then you start attaching technicalities and qualifiers and engaging in basic mental masturbatory sophistry and speculations about how "it wasn't fast enough" or "Bush would have done the same" or "it's only 'cause the Iraqis didn't want us there anymore" or because "a general was banging Maliki's wife and he hates us now" or whatever, which are all hollow, bullshit arguments. It's like arguing with Rainman. You want to hate Obama, so everything he does is wrong...



No you haven't! You're still engaged in the libertarian perfectionism and utopianism...both of which are classic earmarks of Ron Paul-sycophancy. And as I pointed out, it's hard to have a discussion on National Security and civil liberties if you simply come from a place that 9/11 was an Inside Job™...



Oh we are, we're just waiting for you to stop lecturing everyone with your smug little attitude brought on by your libertarian vanities like you're fucking Christ™ running through the Temple Mount™ and actually talk about his record in a fair and nuanced way...

lol. The news reports that Obama asked to stay longer in Iraq. The news reports the Iraqis said no. The news reports that Obama announces they will withdraw because the Iraqis said no. Obama campaigned on bringing the troops home early and wound up asking to keep them there longer.

Are any of those statements untrue?

And again -- you are distracting the conversation to Paul. I'm talking about Obama. I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job.

[jhale667]

Not at all. I asked you to not let other people push your buttons. I can see you've made remarkable progress in that regard! ;)

Careful. you might fall off your soapbox and hurt youself.... ;) That's not button-pushing. That's an idiot trying to rationalize his own bigotry, and it (along with him accepting donations from white supremacist organizations)'s an automatic DQ in as far as being considered qualified to be POTUS. Bottom line.

[jhale667]

And again, if "they're all the same" why would the KKKoch brothers need to spend $400 million or whatever to defeat Obama???

[Nickdfresh]

lol. The news reports that Obama asked to stay longer in Iraq. The news reports the Iraqis said no. The news reports that Obama announces they will withdraw because the Iraqis said no. Obama campaigned on bringing the troops home early and wound up asking to keep them there longer.

Are any of those statements untrue?

Essentially all of them, because one can argue that Obama EXCEEDED his campaign promise by any reasonable standard. Because when we were talking about a "withdrawal", we weren't talking about withdrawing ALL U.S. troops and I believe there was a plan to leave about 30,000 "advisers" and counterterrorist reaction teams there IIRC...


And again -- you are distracting the conversation to Paul. I'm talking about Obama. I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job.

You don't but he does, which I believe distract from some of his civil liberties vs. threat arguments that are echoic in yours...

[Dr. Love]

Essentially all of them, because one can argue that Obama EXCEEDED his campaign promise by any reasonable standard. Because when we were talking about a "withdrawal", we weren't talking about withdrawing ALL U.S. troops and I believe there was a plan to leave about 30,000 "advisers" and counterterrorist reaction teams there IIRC...



You don't but he does, which I believe distract from some of his civil liberties vs. threat arguments that are echoic in yours...

I'll research that. It doesn't line up with my recollection. And that's right, I don't. You are talking to me, not Ron Paul. :)

[Dr. Love]

Careful. you might fall off your soapbox and hurt youself.... ;) That's not button-pushing. That's an idiot trying to rationalize his own bigotry, and it (along with him accepting donations from white supremacist organizations)'s an automatic DQ in as far as being considered qualified to be POTUS. Bottom line.

You sound like your buttons have been pushed so hard that they are stuck.

[jhale667]

You sound like your buttons have been pushed so hard that they are stuck.

Whatever, Paul-bot! ;)

[Dr. Love]

And again, if "they're all the same" why would the KKKoch brothers need to spend $400 million or whatever to defeat Obama???

For more control over the steering wheel

[Guitar Shark]

For anyone who is thinking about watching the new HBO series "The Newsroom" (created and written by Aaron Sorkin), there was a fairly significant discussion of the Koch brothers in the last episode. I don't think the series lives up to the hype, but that part of the episode was pretty interesting.

[FORD]

I'm liking "The Newsroom" so far, though it seems fairly obvious that the lead character is a blatant ripoff of Keith Olbermann. And yeah, they did hit the KKKochs and the teabaggers pretty hard in the last episode.

[jhale667]

They SWEAR the character is not based on Olbermann... :D I like what I've seen of the show thus far...

[Dr. Love]

I'll research that. It doesn't line up with my recollection. And that's right, I don't. You are talking to me, not Ron Paul. :)

Obama did keep his campaign promise to have troops out in 16 months. I confused the 50,000 troops he left in Iraq as part of the group he said he'd withdraw. My mistake.

I take it back. I do give him credit for keeping his word on that. I'd've rather had them all out, and I don't like him asking to leave those 50k troops there longer, but I'm glad the Iraqis told him no.

[Va Beach VH Fan]

They SWEAR the character is not based on Olbermann... :D I like what I've seen of the show thus far...

I like it as well, although we need to see more Olivia Munn... ;)

It fits Aaron Sorkin like a glove, especially for those of us missing The West Wing !!

[jhale667]

I like it as well, although we need to see more Olivia Munn... ;)



Ask and you shall receive... ;)

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6qefb7P6V1rxt0lio1_500.gif

[Va Beach VH Fan]

[Va Beach VH Fan]

This was fantastic...

[WACF]

Awesome clips...will have to PVR that show!

[BigBadBrian]

BigBrian, I wouldn't spend more than 30 seconds responding to your doucher trolling here...

Yet you did respond...and it took longer than 30 seconds. Now go play outside with the other children. :clap:

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/DP/projects/thesea/images/pinocchioDisney1.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Yet you did respond...and it took longer than 30 seconds. Now go play outside with the other children. :clap:

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/DP/projects/thesea/images/pinocchioDisney1.jpg

No, literally it took about 20 seconds to write that sentence. Now isn't it time to give your ugly wife her weekly beef-injection?

[baru911]

I'm as liberal as they come, and I love drone strikes and in fact think they're awesome!

Do you think waterboarding is awesome also? I ask because "liberals" which you decsribe yourself as seem to think that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation which does NOT cause death and generally is not a permanent state to be horrible and UnAmerican. A drone attack generally ends up with the targeted person and those around him or her dead. There isn't a reboot your game from a drone attack. Death is forever. Big difference. Just saying.

[Nickdfresh]

Do you think waterboarding is awesome also?

No, I think it sucks and is a borderline warcrime...


I ask because "liberals" which you decsribe yourself as seem to think that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation which does NOT cause death and generally is not a permanent state to be horrible and UnAmerican.

I underwent sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation as part of my military training. It sucked, but was part of the program. Waterboarding however is torture, and I was instructed on it off-the-record actually. But I wasn't told that Japanese Imperial Army officers were convicted of using it as torture on Allied POW's...


A drone attack generally ends up with the targeted person and those around him or her dead. There isn't a reboot your game from a drone attack. Death is forever. Big difference. Just saying.

No shit!? You mean like an airstrike? Death if forever? So we should torture people because it is slightly nicer than killing them in airstrikes?

[baru911]

No, I think it sucks and is a borderline warcrime...



I underwent sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation as part of my military training. It sucked, but was part of the program. Waterboarding however is torture, and I was instructed on it off-the-record actually. But I wasn't told that Japanese Imperial Army officers were convicted of using it as torture on Allied POW's...



No shit!? You mean like an airstrike? Death if forever? So we should torture people because it is slightly nicer than killing them in airstrikes?

Using "torture" as you put it isn't permanent. Death is and you take away everything. Your nonchalant attitude toward it is interesting. However, the finality of death is the biggest flaw in the US shouldn't "torture" people but killing them is OK argument.

On a side note - If you grab someone and extract information from them you have a multiplier of the individuals you end up getting off the board. Just lasing a target and taking them off the board doesn't accomplish the same results.

[Nickdfresh]

Using "torture" as you put it isn't permanent. Death is and you take away everything. Your nonchalant attitude toward it is interesting. However, the finality of death is the biggest flaw in the US shouldn't "torture" people but killing them is OK argument.

So, should police torture suspects? It isn't permanent after all...


On a side note - If you grab someone and extract information from them you have a multiplier of the individuals you end up getting off the board. Just lasing a target and taking them off the board doesn't accomplish the same results.

You might create ten for the ones you 'got off the board.' Torture never stopped any resistance movement in history and in fact cracking down actually fueled resistance against an immoral enemy that tortured its enemies, or "suspected" enemies. After all, many of those tortured at Abu Ghraib (and other Iraqi prisons where it received no attention) were never accused of any crimes related to terrorism? How many do you think were released and went straight to Sunni guerrilla organizations? I'm betting a lot...

[Satan]

Torture will never produce any reliable information. John McCain has said so, and he would know.

Don't believe him (and he's not reliable on much else these days, so who could blame you) then believe me. I torment souls for a living.

And wouldn't believe a word any of them told me, even if they told me Hell was hot.

[baru911]

So, should police torture suspects? It isn't permanent after all...

You might create ten for the ones you 'got off the board.' Torture never stopped any resistance movement in history and in fact cracking down actually fueled resistance against an immoral enemy that tortured its enemies, or "suspected" enemies. After all, many of those tortured at Abu Ghraib (and other Iraqi prisons where it received no attention) were never accused of any crimes related to terrorism? How many do you think were released and went straight to Sunni guerrilla organizations? I'm betting a lot...

Immoral enemy? Umm, on the morality scale I’m thinking killing someone tips the scale more towards their family and ethnic people/tribe moving into a resistance mode. You create a larger backlash when you kill an individual. Every Pashtun I have ever been in contact with would disagree with you and your point.

I’m a bit lost by you comparing the “torture” at Abu Ghraib and killing someone. You’re right. That really put my point to rest. A picture of a male in women’s underwear with a dog barking at them is so much worse than killing someone. Dude, stop it…that point made laugh. You should be a comedian.

Again, the finality of death is the flaw in the "It is OK to use a drone and not to torture someone" argument.

[jhale667]

Fuck it, this thread needs more Olivia Munn.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6yfwqSylo1qg7sdjo1_400.jpg

[Satan]

Hmmm... I still have my Atari 2600 down here in Hell. Maybe Olivia should come down here and play with my joystick? http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/teufel/d010.gif

[SunisinuS]

Well I am sure the Debates will be everything they are cracked up to be, I will be humming this song in my head as I watch any part of them:



Y's a crooked letter*i forgot!



*
P.S. Olivia Munn is my first invite to my party.

[Nitro Express]

Fuck it, this thread needs more Olivia Munn.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6yfwqSylo1qg7sdjo1_400.jpg

Reading this thread was torture until you posted this sorbet of goodness.

[Seshmeister]

I underwent sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation as part of my military training.

I do it regularly as part of my Roth Army training...

[ashstralia]

my god that chick's hot!!!!

sorry, cuntinue.:)

[Nickdfresh]

Immoral enemy? Umm, on the morality scale I'm thinking killing someone tips the scale more towards their family and ethnic people/tribe moving into a resistance mode.

No shit! Really? You mean people get pissed off when you kill their family members?


You create a larger backlash when you kill an individual. Every Pashtun I have ever been in contact with would disagree with you and your point.

I'm not sure you follow, but you piss people off whether you illegally torture them or kill their relatives...


I'm a bit lost by you comparing the “torture” at Abu Ghraib and killing someone. You’re right. That really put my point to rest. A picture of a male in women’s underwear with a dog barking at them is so much worse than killing someone. Dude, stop it…that point made laugh. You should be a comedian.

Again, the finality of death is the flaw in the "It is OK to use a drone and not to torture someone" argument.


Well, if you're going to argue the typical horseshit line of "it was all a big fraternity hazing gag," then I don't what to say other than you don't have a fucking clue of what you're talking about and certainly have read nothing on the subject...

[Nitro Express]

I don't know. Some family members hate each other and you might get a big thank you for knocking one of them off.

[Blaze]

Lincoln Continentals .
Really? You do not understand how random and collateral killing is not torture to the living? My bad.
A picture of course would not bother any one that did not go through the vivid experience and would not recall to memory the congealed blood from other related memories. Of course, it is better. It would be rude to deny the folks the martyrdom of caring for a partial human body or a fragmented mind.
Death is pretty final isn't it?

[Marko Cain]

Obama and Romney are the same. It doesn't matter either way because TPTB are in control. Obamney is just a pawn in a much bigger worldwide game of Chess.

Get those Checkerboards ready cause we're in for a good ol' time..

Yee haw!

[baru911]

I don't know. Some family members hate each other and you might get a big thank you for knocking one of them off.

Dude, that was funny. I liked that.

[baru911]

Well, if you're going to argue the typical horseshit line of "it was all a big fraternity hazing gag," then I don't what to say other than you don't have a fucking clue of what you're talking about and certainly have read nothing on the subject...

You're correct I haven't "read" books on this subject. I'm basing my views on my past experiences with Pashtun people, speaking with them, and interaction with them. They are the people whose family members are being targeted and killed in Pakistan and Afghanistan. If you can provide a book title or series of articles, whatever that might give me more insight into the subject of their family members being killed then please provide it.

They don't want us or anyone else there. They wish to be left alone. It has been that way with every invader.

[ELVIS]

Immoral enemy...


LMAO !!


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[Satan]

Obama and Romney are the same. It doesn't matter either way because TPTB are in control. Obamney is just a pawn in a much bigger worldwide game of Chess.

Get those Checkerboards ready cause we're in for a good ol' time..

Yee haw!

www.voterocky.org

[Nickdfresh]

You're correct I haven't "read" books on this subject. I'm basing my views on my past experiences with Pashtun people, speaking with them, and interaction with them. They are the people whose family members are being targeted and killed in Pakistan and Afghanistan. If you can provide a book title or series of articles, whatever that might give me more insight into the subject of their family members being killed then please provide it.

They don't want us or anyone else there. They wish to be left alone. It has been that way with every invader.

Read Thomas Rick's Fiasco. He goes into detail, just prior to "The Surge," of how the U.S. Military's position in Iraq degenerated and the Iraqi insurgency was intensified largely through incompetently carried out, misguided de-Baathification efforts that resulted in sectarian divide. And how understaffed prisons, not just Abu Ghraib, became infamous to the Sunni communities long before the photos ever came out and exacerbated the insurgency by turning people who were picked up for minor offenses into insurgents and sympathizers. The book was released prior to the Surge, and is considered by many to be the most influential work and the military adopted his precepts and promoted Gen. Petraeus--whom he mentions prominently...

[ELVIS]

Petraeus is a globalist criminal working for Obama and the new BCE...

But discussing specifics of an illegal war is nonsense...

The US motives and targets are questionable at best and all I know is a lot of young people die on both sides and it's bullshit...

The "immoral enemy" is the illegal US invasion of these countries and the huge numbers of casualties and bad blood it creates...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[Satan]

www.voterocky.org

[Va Beach VH Fan]

Petraeus is a globalist criminal working for Obama and the new BCE...

Just curious, was Petraeus a globalist criminal when he was Head Motherfucker In Charge in Iraq under Dubya?

[BITEYOASS]

Oooohhh! So now ELVIS wants to say that he's against his Rethuglican friends? That's not what you were saying several years ago.

[Nitro Express]

I think we have Republicrats now. Not much difference between the Repubs or Dems now. They both give the banks what they want so you know who owns them. They only differ in rhetoric but the result is amazingly the same. Less freedom for the average guy and more power to those in charge. Banks can rob and steal with impunity. What people don't seem to get is where is all this money coming from that our politicians are spending like crazy? The Federal Reserve. The end game is to grab all the real assets like water, food production, key industries, and energy through regulation and bail outs and destroy individual wealth through inflation, taxes, and fees. Use race and class baiting and a two party system as a distraction. Arguing over partisan bullshit is what they want us to do. All the wonderful promises won't happen either. You will have your kids dragged off to fight in the never ending wars as your money buys less and less. Even if you are living on the government it's not sustainable. The time will come the food stamps and assistance won't be there and what else are you going to fall on? This is what people don't see.

We have a failed economic system and the people responsible for the failure are just trying to take everything over by force because they know their old game is up. Economies never work once they are this full of corruption. Once you can't trust your bank with your money or the government to fix the problem the system is broke. Basically the Titanic is sinking and the elite are locking us in steerage as the boat sinks while they jump into the life boats with the loot.

[ELVIS]

Just curious, was Petraeus a globalist criminal when he was Head Motherfucker In Charge in Iraq under Dubya?

Yes, absolutely...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[ELVIS]

Oooohhh! So now ELVIS wants to say that he's against his Rethuglican friends? That's not what you were saying several years ago.

So what and I've already explained how my thinking has evolved on this, but I've always been independent...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[Nickdfresh]

So what and I've already explained how my thinking has evolved on this, but I've always been independent...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

You're a befuddled assclown that couldn't get enough of the Iraq War a few years back, you're only "skeptical of gov't" when Democrats are in charge....

[Nickdfresh]

Petraeus is a globalist criminal working for Obama and the new BCE...

But discussing specifics of an illegal war is nonsense...

The US motives and targets are questionable at best and all I know is a lot of young people die on both sides and it's bullshit...

The "immoral enemy" is the illegal US invasion of these countries and the huge numbers of casualties and bad blood it creates...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

Petraeus is a registered Republican, you dick. He's also a very good general that proved his metal on the battlefield, in the invasion you were a mindless cheerleader for...

[ELVIS]

I know who he is, Dickforbrains...

It's fun watching you fall for the left / right game...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[Nickdfresh]

It's funny watch you post with Alex Jone's tiny balls all over your face...

[LoungeMachine]

So what and I've already explained how my thinking has evolved on this, but I've always been independent...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

Bwahahahahahahaahah

:gulp:

God, that hurt.

[BigBadBrian]

in the invasion you were a mindless cheerleader for...

There is no such thing as an illegal war. WTF makes war illegal, anyway? Those that use the phrase "illegal war" what exactly do you mean?

Also, the invasion, though tragic, was a long time coming. Do people really think Saddam Hussein was going to be a good little boy in the Middle East? The scrap between the US and Iraq was an event that was going to happen one way or the other. Does anyone doubt this?

[ELVIS]

Illegal war means there was no congressional declaration of war...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[Va Beach VH Fan]

There is no such thing as an illegal war. WTF makes war illegal, anyway? Those that use the phrase "illegal war" what exactly do you mean?

Also, the invasion, though tragic, was a long time coming. Do people really think Saddam Hussein was going to be a good little boy in the Middle East? The scrap between the US and Iraq was an event that was going to happen one way or the other. Does anyone doubt this?

Simply because Hussein was a tryant doesn't justify going to war. I think the families of 4,409 servicemen and women who were died in vain would agree with that.

By that logic, the U.S. should have been invading about 5 or 6 other countries as well, right?

[Va Beach VH Fan]

Illegal war means there was no congressional declaration of war...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

So meaning, every time U.S. forces are committed since WWII, that's illegal, if I understand you correctly....

[ELVIS]

And do you think the US should continue to remove leaders who don't act like a good little boy ??


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[Va Beach VH Fan]

And do you think the US should continue to remove leaders who don't act like a good little boy ??


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

I didn't say that at all, just clarifying what your definition of "illegal war" was....

[ELVIS]

So meaning, every time U.S. forces are committed since WWII, that's illegal, if I understand you correctly....

Not necessarily every time troops are committed but if it looks and smells like war, it's war and without congressional declaration it's illegal...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[ELVIS]

I didn't say that at all, just clarifying what your definition of "illegal war" was....

I was answering BBland...:biggrin:


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[Nickdfresh]

There is no such thing as an illegal war. WTF makes war illegal, anyway? Those that use the phrase "illegal war" what exactly do you mean?

I don't who the hell your posting too, since I didn't use the term "illegal war." Illegal police action maybe, since we never declared war and any military action on the the level of Gulf War 2 SHOULD HAVE to require a Congressional Declaration of War. I'm not sure I've ever said it was "illegal"...


Also, the invasion, though tragic, was a long time coming. Do people really think Saddam Hussein was going to be a good little boy in the Middle East? The scrap between the US and Iraq was an event that was going to happen one way or the other. Does anyone doubt this?

WTF was Saddam going to do with a crushed military barely able to deter Iran? You know, that country our Iraqi Shiite militia gang gov't is friendly too?

[Nickdfresh]

Illegal war means there was no congressional declaration of war...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

There's no law that says that, unfortunately...

[ELVIS]

I don't who the hell your posting too

Literacy is a motherfucker...



Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[BenJammin]

Literacy is a motherfucker...




Originally Posted by ELVIS
And do you think the US should continue to remove leaders who don't act like a good little boy

Yeah it is... especially when you can't get the plural and singular relationships correct in your grammar "...who don't act like good little boys "

That's the ticket... when all else fails, resort to being a spelling and grammar nazi.

[ELVIS]

Well, your avatar is stupid...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

[Dr. Love]

The Roth Army... where the members will ridicule you for liking Bush, and ridicule you harder for deciding you don't like him after all.

[ELVIS]

That's right...


Sent from my my devil tracker made by slaves...

[LoungeMachine]

Well, your avatar is stupid...


Sent from my iPhone, bitches!

Well argued.

:gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Illegal war means there was no congressional declaration of war...


The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.

:gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Simply because Hussein was a tryant doesn't justify going to war. I think the families of 4,409 servicemen and women who were died in vain would agree with that.

Congress obviously didn't agree with you.


By that logic, the U.S. should have been invading about 5 or 6 other countries as well, right?

One at a time, one at a time. Be patient. :sarcasm:

[BigBadBrian]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[ELVIS]

Nice collection of propaganda...

[ELVIS]

Funny how you include nancy pelosi but leave out Scott Ritter...

[baru911]

Petraeus is a registered Republican, you dick. He's also a very good general that proved his metal on the battlefield, in the invasion you were a mindless cheerleader for...

Petraeus had issues with the Chain of Command. People at the Pentagon and all over the US Army were very happy to see him leave. As far as proving his metal on the battlefield...where did you find that? He saw no combat until 2003 of his military career. McChrystal on the other hand was loved by many (Up and down the Chain of Command) within the US Army. The man fell on his sword in his exit.

[ELVIS]

Nick likes to make shit up...

Just read his support for Obama...

[BigBadBrian]

Funny how you include nancy pelosi but leave out Scott Ritter...

Ritter....Really?

It's funny how pedophiles are always discredited...except when they're defending the Left. The Left embraces pedophiles, obviously.

[jhale667]

The Left embraces pedophiles, obviously.


Careful, you almost pulled your entire colon out of your ass with that lie.

[FORD]

Elvis is "the Left" now?

When the fuck did that happen?

And for the record, Scott Ritter was never a pedobear, but it certainly made for some great slander to get him off the air when he was telling the truth about the fact that there were NO WMDS IN IRAQ, didn't it?

And why is Brian suddenly recycling the same old Freak Republic chain letters that "4morequeers" spammed this board with back in 2004??

[jhale667]

Elvis is "the Left" now?

When the fuck did that happen?



Right after he and Brie had a lover's quarrel...

[ELVIS]

Ritter....Really?

It's funny how pedophiles are always discredited...



No, it's funny how they always use bullshit sex charges when they ( you know, the left / right) want to discredit someone...

[ELVIS]

Right after he and Brie had a lover's quarrel...

Go lust over some whore pics...

[jhale667]

Go lust over some whore pics...


So.... how long til your wife figures out you really don't like girls? :biggrin:

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah it is... especially when you can't get the plural and singular relationships correct in your grammar "...who don't act like good little boys "

That's the ticket... when all else fails, resort to being a spelling and grammar nazi.

Especially when the grammar-nazi in question is a dipshit who's making spelling and grammatical errors all of the time...

[Nickdfresh]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

:handjob:

[Nickdfresh]

Petraeus had issues with the Chain of Command. People at the Pentagon and all over the US Army were very happy to see him leave. As far as proving his metal on the battlefield...where did you find that? He saw no combat until 2003 of his military career. McChrystal on the other hand was loved by many (Up and down the Chain of Command) within the US Army. The man fell on his sword in his exit.

Petraeus had his critics and issues, but treatise on counterinsurgency/low intensity conflict is a pretty good primer on what the U.S. Army lost in the 1970's 90's agenda of Cold War mechanized war of maneuver. Some people were glad to see Petreaus 'leave?' McChrystal was 'loved by many?' What does that even mean? Both men have their detractors and supporters...

[Nickdfresh]

Nick likes to make shit up...

Just read his support for Obama...

Why don't you listen to my overnight radio show then, dummy?

[ELVIS]

What's it called, Feelings for Obama ??


Sent from your moms junky droid...

[baru911]

Petraeus had his critics and issues, but treatise on counterinsurgency/low intensity conflict is a pretty good primer on what the U.S. Army lost in the 1970's 90's agenda of Cold War mechanized war of maneuver. Some people were glad to see Petreaus 'leave?' McChrystal was 'loved by many?' What does that even mean? Both men have their detractors and supporters...

What it means is this:
Within the US Army Petreaus was hated. He was viewed as a self-aggrandizing asshole. The people up and down his Chain of Command had no respect for him. He continually jumped over his Superiors. His career was over in the military and people were happy to say "Have a good day....Fuck off" when he went to the CIA.

McChrystal on the other hand was respected throughout his career by the men and women that he served with, under, and over. While the current administration had little time for him; the rank and file thought the world of him. He also did the "right thing" at the end of his career.

I know that the stories in the US press painted both men in different lights than what I have writen. Rolling Stone did a hatchet job on McChrystal and Petreaus was the guy who got all the glory in Iraq when you saw the nightly news. However, what I just wrote is the truth and if you speak with people who served with both men you'll find that I'm painting a very accurate picture.

[Nickdfresh]

What it means is this:
Within the US Army Petreaus was hated. He was viewed as a self-aggrandizing asshole. The people up and down his Chain of Command had no respect for him. He continually jumped over his Superiors. His career was over in the military and people were happy to say "Have a good day....Fuck off" when he went to the CIA.

Based on what? The only real crticism of Petreaus I've heard was his ego and the fact he was quick to try to assimilate anyone who didn't agree with him and try to win them over....


McChrystal on the other hand was respected throughout his career by the men and women that he served with, under, and over. While the current administration had little time for him; the rank and file thought the world of him. He also did the "right thing" at the end of his career.

I know that the stories in the US press painted both men in different lights than what I have writen. Rolling Stone did a hatchet job on McChrystal and Petreaus was the guy who got all the glory in Iraq when you saw the nightly news. However, what I just wrote is the truth and if you speak with people who served with both men you'll find that I'm painting a very accurate picture.

How many people have you spoken with that served with both generals?

[baru911]

Based on what? The only real crticism of Petreaus I've heard was his ego and the fact he was quick to try to assimilate anyone who didn't agree with him and try to win them over....



How many people have you spoken with that served with both generals?

Well, noting the fact that I'm still pretty wired in with a large number of people who serve in the Sec. of the Navy Office, and a pretty good amount of people in Tampa I'm pretty sure that what I have written is the truth. They are ALL highly placed members in the US military and civilians.

Lets go over this again and you can check your sources if they knew either of the men or served in/around them. Petreaus was a self server who jumped over his chain of command all the time to make himself look good. That made him not well liked by all the high ranking members of the US Services. Every wonder why your "Golden Boy" wasn't placed on the Joint Chiefs? Ask around and what you find out will speak VOLUMES about him.

Background on McChrystal and why he was well liked.

1) Dad's a General when he graduates from West Point in 1976. That means he can go ANYWHERE in the US Army he wants to serve as a 1st Lt.
2) In 1976 Armor is king. Want your career on the fast track? You go Armor. Want your career to stall out at Colonel you go Special Forces.
3) What's McChrystal do? He goes Airborne and then into Special Forces. Why? It was a calling.
4) He gets his ticket punched in Intelligence and Armor.
6) Mid 80's - Armor is really King in the US Army. Height of the Cold War. McChrystal rotates out of Armor and what?
7) He goes back and leads a Ranger battalion.
8) Move forward a few more years and he's serving in Joint Operations Command in both Gulf Wars.
9) Goes to school and then returns to the Rangers.
10) You can look up the rest.

The man was and is a class act. He served most of his career knowing that the US Army believed that his area of service was an after thought at best. Special Forces in the mid 1970's - the early 2000's was a very select group that was highly under funded, misunderstood, and yes, hated because others thought that the funds spent there should be going other places. It wasn't the sexy "I gotta be in that area of any Branch of the US Military" that you see today. He is and was a true believer. He drank the Kool Aid and made the Kool Aid better through his service, ideas, and some of what he implemented. He didn't serve to make himself more important. The people around him knew that. He was and is a TRUE LEADER OF MEN.

He also didn't have a medal awarded that he didn't deserve like the guy you seem to be defending. Ask your "sources" they can advise you on that.

[knuckleboner]

I think we have Republicrats now. Not much difference between the Repubs or Dems now. .

there is a HUGE fucking difference. tax policy. infrastructure investment. social safety net reforms. education spending. these might not be the only issues of importance, but they are not trivial.

and republicans and democrats are WAY far apart on them.

[Nitro Express]

there is a HUGE fucking difference. tax policy. infrastructure investment. social safety net reforms. education spending. these might not be the only issues of importance, but they are not trivial.

and republicans and democrats are WAY far apart on them.

They differ in what they market to the average person but they both serve the same elite and they both take money from the same pockets.

They both love censorship. The right wing does it in the name of morality and the left wing does it in the name of fairness and eliminating hate. They both seem to have a hard on for war and the Patriot Act as well.

Sure the right wing will sell self independence and the left wing will sell a social utopia but in reality, they both love to grab power for themselves and get the lucrative kick backs after they do the bidding of the fat cats who bought them off. Both are owned by the same robber barons and oligarchs. It's political theater. It's acting to a script.

[Nickdfresh]

Well, noting the fact that I'm still pretty wired in with a large number of people who serve in the Sec. of the Navy Office, and a pretty good amount of people in Tampa I'm pretty sure that what I have written is the truth. They are ALL highly placed members in the US military and civilians.

Lets go over this again and you can check your sources if they knew either of the men or served in/around them. Petreaus was a self server who jumped over his chain of command all the time to make himself look good. That made him not well liked by all the high ranking members of the US Services. Every wonder why your "Golden Boy" wasn't placed on the Joint Chiefs? Ask around and what you find out will speak VOLUMES about him.

Um, so Navy guys didn't like him?


Background on McChrystal and why he was well liked.

1) Dad's a General when he graduates from West Point in 1976. That means he can go ANYWHERE in the US Army he wants to serve as a 1st Lt.
2) In 1976 Armor is king. Want your career on the fast track? You go Armor. Want your career to stall out at Colonel you go Special Forces.
3) What's McChrystal do? He goes Airborne and then into Special Forces. Why? It was a calling.
4) He gets his ticket punched in Intelligence and Armor.
6) Mid 80's - Armor is really King in the US Army. Height of the Cold War. McChrystal rotates out of Armor and what?
7) He goes back and leads a Ranger battalion.
8) Move forward a few more years and he's serving in Joint Operations Command in both Gulf Wars.
9) Goes to school and then returns to the Rangers.
10) You can look up the rest.

The man was and is a class act. He served most of his career knowing that the US Army believed that his area of service was an after thought at best. Special Forces in the mid 1970's - the early 2000's was a very select group that was highly under funded, misunderstood, and yes, hated because others thought that the funds spent there should be going other places. It wasn't the sexy "I gotta be in that area of any Branch of the US Military" that you see today. He is and was a true believer. He drank the Kool Aid and made the Kool Aid better through his service, ideas, and some of what he implemented. He didn't serve to make himself more important. The people around him knew that. He was and is a TRUE LEADER OF MEN.

He also didn't have a medal awarded that he didn't deserve like the guy you seem to be defending. Ask your "sources" they can advise you on that.

I'm not disparaging McCrystal nor his fine service. But I don't know how his career track really made much of a difference over whether people "like" him or not. He punched the career time-clock like any officer did. He was SF before he went armor? So what. Having airborne or Ranger school is virtually a prerequisite and terrorism was pretty hot by 1976. "True leader of men" is a pretty baseless statement that is entirely opinion...

[ELVIS]

Give it up nick...

You got OWNED !!


Sent from your moms junky droid...

[Nickdfresh]

Give it up nick...

You got OWNED !!


Sent from your moms junky droid...

Elvis, the adults are talking. You can go back to dry-humping your speakers and fingering your butthole to the sounds of Alex Jones...

[jhale667]

Elvis, the adults are talking. You can go back to dry-humping your speakers and fingering your butthole to the sounds of Alex Jones...

:biggrin:

[ELVIS]

Your ride is outside to take you to Taco Bell...

And give your mom some gas money this time...


Sent from your moms junky droid...

[jhale667]

Go f*ck yourself ELBOW. We all know you're the only one here for whom fast food is their only career option you ignorant 'tard. Oh, and I just saw your mom at the supermarket....


http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h217/jhale667/Thatawkwardmoment.jpg

[ELVIS]

Your use of asterisk is so classy when you tel people to fuck off...

You're an example among fellow libs, I'm sure...

LMAO!


Sent from your moms junky droid...

[ELVIS]

Tell, even...


Sent from your moms junky droid...

[jhale667]

You're an example among fellow libs, I'm sure...




Much like knuckle-dragging inbred bigots look up to you, one imagines. Now go die in a fire. :baaa:

[ELVIS]

There's those pesky liberal feelings coming out of the closet, yet again...


Sent from your moms junky droid...

[jhale667]

The general feeling around here for you is contempt, dummy. You're soaking in it.

[MUSICMANN]

The general feeling around here for you is contempt, dummy. You're soaking in it.



The general feeling around here for you is, gay and cum. You're soaking in it.

[jhale667]

I ♥ COCK.


We know. STFU.

[ELVIS]

The general feeling around here for you is contempt, dummy. You're soaking in it.

Do you think I give a shit ??

It's funny to watch you try to wedge in personal attacks, but I don't have the kind of feelings you libs pretend to have for people...

Try again, sissy...


Sent from your moms junky droid...

[Seshmeister]

Are we going to have another 18 weeks of this witty repartee?

Can we raise the level of debate a little guys? :)

[ELVIS]

Oh, and MUSICMANN wanted fire sauce...

Get it right!


Sent from your moms junky droid...

[jhale667]

Do you think I give a shit ?

You obviously do.



It's funny to watch you try to wedge in personal attacks, but I don't have the kind of feelings you libs pretend to have for people...



Give it up, pussy. You're ALL ABOUT personal attacks, you lying hypocritical scumbag. All the feelings you have relate to the self-loathing you project daily all over this board.

[ELVIS]

Hahaha...

You're full of yourself...


Sent from your moms junky droid...

[jhale667]

Are we going to have another 18 weeks of this witty repartee?

Can we raise the level of debate a little guys? :)


I'm not the one posting shit from Repuke hackjob sites...FAUX is one thing, but Pamela Gellar FFS?!?!?





ELBOW should just admit that HE's the one that works at Taco Bell already.

[ELVIS]

Nope, I run my own RV repair business...

[jhale667]

Nope, I run my own RV repair business...


Fixing the RVs that come through the drive-through lane?

[ELVIS]

RVs don't fit in the drive thru lane...

[FORD]

RVs don't fit in the drive thru lane...

Well, that's a seriously bad business design then.... Because any food establishment located near a highway that had a drive through that could accommodate RV's and 18 wheeler trucks would probably make a shitload of money from drivers who for whatever reason don't believe they have time to actually stop to eat.

[baru911]

OK, to break my post down Barney style for you……….


Um, so Navy guys didn't like him?

Sec. of the Navy’s Office has Civilian and Military members from different branches of the service in it. You have liaison Officers from all the branches of the service there. They report back to the other services. The reference to Tampa is McDill Airforce base. USSOCOM is headquartered there. I was attempting to give you an idea of the Civilians, Services, and their members I have heard comments about McChrystal and what he stands for and how he was respected across different avenues in the US military. I did not take into account who my audience was so I made an assumption that was incorrect. My bad.


I'm not disparaging McCrystal nor his fine service. But I don't know how his career track really made much of a difference over whether people "like" him or not. He punched the career time-clock like any officer did. He was SF before he went armor? So what. Having airborne or Ranger school is virtually a prerequisite and terrorism was pretty hot by 1976. "True leader of men" is a pretty baseless statement that is entirely opinion...

In 1976 Special Forces is tasked to conduct direct actions, reconnaissance and train indigenous people in unconventional warfare. They were NOT nor had they ever been deployed against terrorism until 1977. A First Lt. would not know about Blue Light at that time nor would he know about CAG. Way above his pay grade and he hasn't proven anything to gain the attention of the men forming those units. In the mid 1970's CAG is formed (which most people know as Delta now) and they are task with direct action against terrorist. They do not go operational until after mid to late 1978 (I'm not going to talk about Blue Light here. It gets way to confusing and to be honest I know little about them except for the stories I've heard from members of 5th Group who where around at that time). The first mission CAG takes was a failure -most people know about the failed attempt to rescue the US Embassy hostages in Iran.

When McCrystal is attached to Special Forces throughout most of his career they are a blight in the US Army. He is interested in them because that’s what his metal is made from not to gain rank. He’s giving up opportunities to advance by staying where he stationed. Special Forces are vastly under funded and many attempts are made assimilate them into other units. Remember Tanks are KING. Everyone is thinking about a war with the USSR in Europe. Small units that practice guerilla warfare are viewed as not having a mission in line with where the US Army was headed. It really isn’t until the early 2000’s that Special Forces gain the attention of the “Big Thinkers” in the US Military Machine. By that time McChrystal's reputation is set in stone as where he is going.

[gbranton]

RVs don't fit in the drive thru lane...

You would only know that if you worked there.

[FORD]

You would only know that if you worked there.

Why do you think he went into the RV repair business?

After seeing all the RVs that got wrecked trying to come through the TacoHell drive through, he knew there was a market for it.

(It's also how he picked his previous career as a nurse, knowing there was a market for that, because of what TacoHell food does to the human body)

[Dr. Love]

well if Obama gets re-elected at least I can listen to 4 more years of justifications from jhale and Knuckleboner for why Obama continues to cave to Republicans.

[gbranton]

http://2ch.so/g/src/1341062790649.gif

That is more than a little distracting.

http://2ch.so/g/src/1341062790649.gif

[jhale667]

well if Obama gets re-elected at least I can listen to 4 more years of justifications from jhale and Knuckleboner for why Obama continues to cave to Republicans.

If he gets re-elected, that's license not to have to (and proof he never should have).

[knuckleboner]

well if Obama gets re-elected at least I can listen to 4 more years of justifications from jhale and Knuckleboner for why Obama continues to cave to Republicans.

i just give you the realist perspective.

the world's not always black and white, you know...

[Dr. Love]

i just give you the realist perspective.

the world's not always black and white, you know...

getting started early! ;)

[Dr. Love]

If he gets re-elected, that's license not to have to (and proof he never should have).

so we need to elect him twice to get him to stand up to the opposition once

[jhale667]

so we need to elect him twice to get him to stand up to the opposition once


There's also that possibility that the Repuke majority in the House might get whittled down, and there'll be less obstructionism... 97th fucking filibuster today, btw.

[Dr. Love]

or that they will gain more seats and obstruct more

[jhale667]

or that they will gain more seats and obstruct more

With a lot of them having approval ratings - much like Congress as a whole - in the teens, that's a longer shot scenario-wise... but you're right, let's just say "Fuck America" and hand the keys over to the tax-evading Thurston Howell-wannabe outsourcerer... :rolleyes:

[Dr. Love]

nah... I'd vote rocky before I voted Mitt or Obama.

If that doesn't get me a thanks from FORD I don't know what will

[FORD]

The obstructionist asshats in Congress are defintitely a huge part of the problem, including some who call themselves "Democrats" and get away with it by voting for the occasional no-brainer like the "Lily Ledbetter Act", but fail to show up when a bold stand on behalf of the people is needed (i.e. a public option in the health care plan -let alone the true solution of single payer).

But I can't let Barry off the hook. He campaigned as someone who wanted to change the corrupt system, and then almost immediately chose a cabinet full of the likes of Rahm Emanuel, Timmy the Elf Geithner, Tom "MonSatan/Iowa Caucus rigger" VilSuck, and attempted to put the previous weak ass pansy Senate Leader, Tom Dasshole in charge of health care. (and would have if the lousy bastard had paid his taxes.) Not to mention he actually kept some of Chimp's people, including his corrupt Pentagon boss (who was an improvement over Rummy maybe, but that's a damn low bar for comparison) and "federal" reserve felon Ben Bernanke..

You cannot be part of the solution when you're part of the problem. So appointing a cabinet full of those who caused the problems was not the solution.

Full on reincarnation of Franklin Delano Roosevelt would have been. :(

[Dr. Love]

But FORD... come on now... you know that Obama did the best he could by giving into the republicans constantly... ;)