Obama-"strongest military on the planet"

saveuplife

aNiMaL wrote:

Whoa, i am sick and tired of mother fuckers telling me what I think and why I think things, completely disregarding what I said. It is really starting to piss me off.

I didn't rationalize any fucking thing. I agreed with you and was telling you WHY I THINK THAT WAY. But you have your head too far up your own ass to read or understand that.

No, it has nothing to do with a D or an R as you so wish it would. It has EVERYTHING to do with the man at the helm, regardless of his party affiliation. Do you really honestly think that the only reason people do not like the current president is because of his party affiliation? If you really believe that (which you have insinuated that you do), then I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you because you are a fool. George Walker Bush has lost the trust of the American people to hold the keys to the military after the GRAVE fuck ups that are the Iraq war. He has proven that HE cannot be trusted with the young lives of our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers and mother who sign up to defend this great nation.

Gates and Obama together will work out a plan to draw down our troops in Iraq in a responsible manner and hand control back to Iraq. I am not a fucking idiot - I do not expect that to happen over night on Jan 20th. It does take time and planning. However, I trust Obama's planning at this point a whole helluva a lot more than GW's, because GW has lost my trust a long fucking time ago. Obama has yet to ruin that trust. If he does, you better believe I will be calling for his head.

I don't have to think about my values, dude. I do not change them that easily at all. They have held stead fast this long, why would they change? Are you that far up one of the political parties ass that you cannot think for yourself, hence why you are trying to project that mentality onto me?

I am already parted ways with Obama on a few issues, from the get go. But he still has my support on the majority of the grave issues facing our nation and world. And between he and McCain, Obama held more of my morals and values, not all of them, but most of them. But, I don't know him personally and will have no issue at all rallying against him if he does something that i strongly disagree with. Just like when GW fucked up, that is when I started rallying against him. there was a short time that I was very glad that GW was my president. He quickly ruined that when he invaded a country that had nothi8ng to do with those who attacked us. But that is neither here nor there. We are where we are where GW has placed us and we as a nation need to work together in a bipartisan way to resolve these issues for the future generations of this great country. I believe thus far that Obama has shown the wherewithal to get that done.

No offense, but I've seen your posts, and I've formed an opinion about you. Maybe a bit harsh, may even be untrue.... if so, I apologize.

My point here was the "words" he said, not the past actions. So, let's look at it another way.

My opinion is that if Bush just started in office, IMHO you (and many other Obama supporters here) would NOT be ok with him saying these things. Since Obama will start soon in office, it's totally cool. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

Bottom line: Democratic platform is to LIMIT national defense. Not GROW it. Republican platform is to GROW national defense. What Obama said is contradictory of his own platform, yet he has a bunch of robots running around saying "Change". He's not changing jack.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

saveuplife wrote:

My opinion is that if Bush just started in office, IMHO you (and many other Obama supporters here) would NOT be ok with him saying these things.

Bottom line: Democratic platform is to LIMIT national defense. Not GROW it. Republican platform is to GROW national defense. What Obama said is contradictory of his own platform, yet he has a bunch of robots running around saying "Change". He's not changing jack.

Your powers of observation are strong my friend....or normal, but you know what I'm saying.

aNiMaL

saveuplife wrote:

No offense, but I've seen your posts, and I've formed an opinion about you. Maybe a bit harsh, may even be untrue.... if so, I apologize.

My point here was the "words" he said, not the past actions. So, let's look at it another way.

My opinion is that if Bush just started in office, IMHO you (and many other Obama supporters here) would NOT be ok with him saying these things. Since Obama will start soon in office, it's totally cool. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

Bottom line: Democratic platform is to LIMIT national defense. Not GROW it. Republican platform is to GROW national defense. What Obama said is contradictory of his own platform, yet he has a bunch of robots running around saying "Change". He's not changing jack.

Apology accepted, thanks.

I do not go down the party line and I don't want a president who does either. I personally am in favor of a strong military...especially in today's times (Don't confuse that with me being for the Iraq war. And don't take me being against the Iraq war as being anti-war). That is my personal belief. I am sorry if you do not believe in a strong military or if you sole point is the false assumption that you think you know what I would think if Republican announced the same thing.

A president who is willing to challenge his own parties "platform" and attempt to govern from a more centered (bipartisan) stand point, in my opinion, is exactly what this country needs. I don't want a radical Democrat in office any more than I want a radical Republican.

Commy

aNiMaL wrote:

Apology accepted, thanks.

I do not go down the party line and I don't want a president who does either. I personally am in favor of a strong military...especially in today's times (Don't confuse that with me being for the Iraq war. And don't take me being against the Iraq war as being anti-war). That is my personal belief. I am sorry if you do not believe in a strong military or if you sole point is the false assumption that you think you know what I would think if Republican announced the same thing.

A president who is willing to challenge his own parties "platform" and attempt to govern from a more centered (bipartisan) stand point, in my opinion, is exactly what this country needs. I don't want a radical Democrat in office any more than I want a radical Republican.

someone who shares views from both parties...yeah the perfect one party system. There is supposed to be a point to the vote, to put in a different mentality. To vote and see the new party support basically the same policies as the old regime is really disheartening. I was expecting change, foolishly, but so far we've been given no hope that there will be any actual change.

inmytree

MrBrian wrote:

Well, if you throw in the things Obama says, some of his views (Russia,Israel,Iran, some of his politics...Then add his recent choices to his admin who are very familiar with war and invasions.

What other conclusion can one come up with?

Take this for example, if I start to become friends, or pick friends who are thugs, thiefs...liars and so on. What direction do you think i'm going in? A good one?

I don't know what direction you would be going in...should I assume that you automatically become a "thug, thief or a liar" or should I assume that you will continue to make your own choices...?

I suppose if I were a chicken little type, I'd choose the former...on the other hand, it's tough to predict the future, therefore, I'd probably go with the latter...

perhaps Obama is a big ol' dick for saying the US Military should be the strongest on the planet...perhaps he should have said..."well, um, we're going to scale back, and, um, drop out of the top ten in Military Might, um, who cares if we have a strong military..."

I suppose that would be best....

MrBrian

inmytree wrote:

I don't know what direction you would be going in...should I assume that you automatically become a "thug, thief or a liar" or should I assume that you will continue to make your own choices...?

I suppose if I were a chicken little type, I'd choose the former...on the other hand, it's tough to predict the future, therefore, I'd probably go with the latter...

perhaps Obama is a big ol' dick for saying the US Military should be the strongest on the planet...perhaps he should have said..."well, um, we're going to scale back, and, um, drop out of the top ten in Military Might, um, who cares if we have a strong military..."

I suppose that would be best....

Well what if you have those friends control certain parts of the business. Like you have a theif control the money, a warmonger control the policy. You see where i'm going with this?

I'm talking more of the general direction Obama seems to be going, he mainly is picking people around him that do not have the best of records.

Then he's talking about these things like that. His views on certain issues. See what i'm saying?

oil alternative

Strongest military.............................aside from the Chinese!

inmytree

MrBrian wrote:

Well what if you have those friends control certain parts of the business. Like you have a theif control the money, a warmonger control the policy. You see where i'm going with this?

I'm talking more of the general direction Obama seems to be going, he mainly is picking people around him that do not have the best of records.

Then he's talking about these things like that. His views on certain issues. See what i'm saying?

yeah, I see what you're saying...I happen to subscribe to the adage..

If if were a fifth, we'd all be drunk...

I think Obama is damned if he does and damned if he don't...if he had chosen people without any "record", people would be complaining....and now that he he has chosen people with a "record"....people can dissect the records and complain...

all the man said was...

Not yet President Obama wrote:

"To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet," Obama said as he unveiled a heavyweight national security team to serve when he takes office on January 20.

"We also agree the strength of our military has to be combined with the wisdom and force of diplomacy, and that we are going to be committed to rebuilding and restrengthening alliances around the world to advance American interests and American security," he said.

which makes a lot of sense to me....

lalalalaaaaaaaa

aNiMaL wrote:

A president who is willing to challenge his own parties "platform" and attempt to govern from a more centered (bipartisan) stand point, in my opinion, is exactly what this country needs. I don't want a radical Democrat in office any more than I want a radical Republican.

I think this view of the line is warped:

Democrat<

---

bipartisan

---

>Republican

IMO, it's really more like this:

95% of the population<

---

Democrat---bipartisan--->Republican

In other words, "bipartisan" doesn't mean much to me at all if we're talking compromise between Democrats and Republicans.

MrBrian

inmytree wrote:

I think Obama is damned if he does and damned if he don't...if he had chosen people without any "record", people would be complaining....and now that he he has chosen people with a "record"....people can dissect the records and complain...

who's saying to pick people without any 'record'? Just rather not people a record of war voting and poor policy choices and grasp on issues.

Really, the people he has picked, you dont need to dissect. They wear stupidity on their sleeves.

This 'damned if he does and damed if he don't' thing makes no sense, I hear it being used too often with regards to Obama. To be honest, Obama is only catering to one side. and it seems to be the side of the last 8 years.

inmytree

MrBrian wrote:

who's saying to pick people without any 'record'? Just rather not people a record of war voting and poor policy choices and grasp on issues.

Really, the people he has picked, you dont need to dissect. They wear stupidity on their sleeves.

This 'damned if he does and damed if he don't' thing makes no sense, I hear it being used too often with regards to Obama. To be honest, Obama is only catering to one side. and it seems to be the side of the last 8 years.

is this thread about who Obama picked or is it about his statement about "strongest military on the planet"....?

I get confused sometimes...

I suppose all that looking into the crystal ball tends to do that to me....

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrBrian wrote:

See what i'm saying?

Won't happen until Obama eats his/her children in front of his/her face...or thereabouts

Commy

Saturnal wrote:

I think this view of the line is warped:

Democrat<

---

bipartisan

---

>Republican

IMO, it's really more like this:

95% of the population<

---

Democrat---bipartisan--->Republican

In other words, "bipartisan" doesn't mean much to me at all if we're talking compromise between Democrats and Republicans.

exactly.

aNiMaL

Commy wrote:

someone who shares views from both parties...yeah the perfect one party system. There is supposed to be a point to the vote, to put in a different mentality. To vote and see the new party support basically the same policies as the old regime is really disheartening. I was expecting change, foolishly, but so far we've been given no hope that there will be any actual change.

True about the checks and balances of a two party system.

But with regards to change, I guess it depends on what you equate as change. If he had a bunch of noobies in his cabinet he would be chastised as have a too inexperienced cabinet (to the right wingers and anti-Obama folks, I believe he would be damned if he did and damned if he didn't). I personally never thought change meant to competely reinvent how government works. I took it as change from the currently ran GOP commander and chief. If you think he will steer the country the same direction that GW has been, I respectfully think you are wrong and will be surprised.

I think drawing up a plan to withdrawl from Iraq, planning on the stinulous package that creates jobs and helps strengthen our national roads and highways. By having a plan to fix the health care situaton in the country. By investing into science, by having a cabinet made up of members from both sides of the aisle. All of those things are a sign of change from the last 7 plus years. But, if you really though he would put a bunch of noobs in there, I think you were wrong.

aNiMaL

Saturnal wrote:

I think this view of the line is warped:

Democrat<

---

bipartisan

---

>Republican

IMO, it's really more like this:

95% of the population<

---

Democrat---bipartisan--->Republican

In other words, "bipartisan" doesn't mean much to me at all if we're talking compromise between Democrats and Republicans.

So, are you against Obama having members from both sides of the political aisle in his cabinet? Or, do you not believe they will able top accomplish or agree on an ything?

Commy

aNiMaL wrote:

True about the checks and balances of a two party system.

But with regards to change, I guess it depends on what you equate as change. If he had a bunch of noobies in his cabinet he would be chastised as have a too inexperienced cabinet (to the right wingers and anti-Obama folks, I believe he would be damned if he did and damned if he didn't). I personally never thought change meant to competely reinvent how government works. I took it as change from the currently ran GOP commander and chief. If you think he will steer the country the same direction that GW has been, I respectfully think you are wrong and will be surprised.

I think drawing up a plan to withdrawl from Iraq, planning on the stinulous package that creates jobs and helps strengthen our national roads and highways. By having a plan to fix the health care situaton in the country. By investing into science, by having a cabinet made up of members from both sides of the aisle. All of those things are a sign of change from the last 7 plus years. But, if you really though he would put a bunch of noobs in there, I think you were wrong.

Not so much expecting noobs as I was expecting non-criminals. A lot of his economic team served in companies responsible for some very shady deals, even illegal accounting practices.

MrBrian

inmytree wrote:

is this thread about who Obama picked or is it about his statement about "strongest military on the planet"....?

I get confused sometimes...

I suppose all that looking into the crystal ball tends to do that to me....

Read the thread again I guess. post #1...Obama says "we" meaning his team, so it's for sure also about his picks.