Obama on Iraq

2

Comments

  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    brandon10 wrote:
    Well I see you are still obsessed with Obama. This vote really means nothing. I'm not sure how you can't see that!! It is a lose/lose situation. If he votes against funding, the republicans spin it so that he is against the troops. If he votes for funding, the wack jobs on the left spin it so that he is a warmonger.

    So ya, I'll just listen to his plans and hope that he carries them through when he take office. You go ahead and keep worrying about an insignificant vote.

    wack jobs? how articulate of you!

    it may mean nothing to you but it means a lot to some of us. if voting for something that will continue the killing of so many innocent people is insignificant to you then you know nothing about principle.

    And yes, Obama will be talked about a lot. He's running for president. If I were you, I'd quit the whining and get used to it. People will and should discuss the
    records and plans of candidates whose policies will affect their lives.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    wack jobs? how articulate of you!

    it may mean nothing to you but it means a lot to some of us. if voting for something that will continue the killing of so many innocent people is insignificant to you then you know nothing about principle.

    And yes, Obama will be talked about a lot. He's running for president. If I were you, I'd quit the whining and get used to it. People will and should discuss the
    records and plans of candidates whose policies will affect their lives.


    The thing is, you don't talk about his policies. He wants to end the war in Iraq, you know this. You keep debating an insignificant vote that will NOT save any lives. He is campaigning against the spin machine known as FOX and the dirty republicans. Sometimes you have to appease the middle or nothing will get accomplished. And if a vote for funding troops helps him to take office and end this retarded war, then so be it.

    Oh and I'm not whining, my candidate is going to win!!! Nothing to whine about.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    brandon10 wrote:
    The thing is, you don't talk about his policies. He wants to end the war in Iraq, you know this. You keep debating an insignificant vote that will NOT save any lives. He is campaigning against the spin machine known as FOX and the dirty republicans. Sometimes you have to appease the middle or nothing will get accomplished. And if a vote for funding troops helps him to take office and end this retarded war, then so be it.

    Oh and I'm not whining, my candidate is going to win!!! Nothing to whine about.


    so a vote to fund the war will end the war????

    odd logic

    she doesn't talk about his policies?? he is a spin machine, just like he said he doesn't deal w/ lobbyists yet the head of his new hampshire campaign is a pharmacuetical lobbyist
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    El_Kabong wrote:
    so a vote to fund the war will end the war????

    No, but it also won't throw the men and women serving over there under the bus.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    El_Kabong wrote:
    so a vote to fund the war will end the war????

    Newsflash for you... until Bush is out of office, no vote will end the war. Cutting funding on a war that the administration has no intent on ending will do nothing but get more soldiers killed (see Vietnam).
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    blackredyellow wrote:
    Newsflash for you... until Bush is out of office, no vote will end the war. Cutting funding on a war that the administration has no intent on ending will do nothing but get more soldiers killed (see Vietnam).

    Also, the President has been very clear that if Congress doesn't approriate the fundings he wants than he will make cuts elsewhere to pay for the war.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Also, the President has been very clear that if Congress doesn't approriate the fundings he wants than he will make cuts elsewhere to pay for the war.
    blackredyellow wrote:
    Newsflash for you... until Bush is out of office, no vote will end the war. Cutting funding on a war that the administration has no intent on ending will do nothing but get more soldiers killed (see Vietnam).

    from what I gather, for abook and kabong, its more a symbolic thing to do. not so much that it would actually do something if he voted no.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    ledvedderman wrote:
    No, but it also won't throw the men and women serving over there under the bus.


    :rolleyes:
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    from what I gather, for abook and kabong, its more a symbolic thing to do. not so much that it would actually do something if he voted no.


    It's simple enough to understand.

    I don't buy Nikes due to principle. Do I think me not buying them will stop their labor practices? No.

    If you are really against the war, you don't vote to continue it.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    It's simple enough to understand.

    I don't buy Nikes due to principle. Do I think me not buying them will stop their labor practices? No.

    If you are really against the war, you don't vote to continue it.

    For you, being for the war/against the war is so black and white, but for the vast majority of the country, it's not. And you keep trying to frame Obama as a total anti-war, pacifist candidate, just so you can rail against him when he says or does things that don't fit that categorization. When in reality, he's not putting himself in that categorization, you are.

    Yes, most of us want this war to end and wish that it never happened, but we also understand that we can't just put 150,000 troops on airplanes and get them out right away.

    As much as we screwed up the country and region, in my (and a lot of other people's) opinion, our withdrawal has to be done somewhat carefully.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    blackredyellow wrote:
    For you, being for the war/against the war is so black and white, but for the vast majority of the country, it's not. And you keep trying to frame Obama as a total anti-war, pacifist candidate, just so you can rail against him when he says or does things that don't fit that categorization. When in reality, he's not putting himself in that categorization, you are.

    Yes, most of us want this war to end and wish that it never happened, but we also understand that we can't just put 150,000 troops on airplanes and get them out right away.

    As much as we screwed up the country and region, in my (and a lot of other people's) opinion, our withdrawal has to be done somewhat carefully.


    I have never once said he was trying to make himself look like an anti-war pacifist.

    He has said he is against this war yet voted to continue it. My post that you quoted was referring to THIS WAR.

    No one has said anything about putting 150,000 troops on a plane and leave today.

    People have said stop funding the war and start a phased withdrawal in which we have money already to fund.

    So please refrain from putting words in my mouth so you can have a point.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    Cutting funding will not end the war abook. The President has said he would get the funding from cuts to other programs. This is called having the Congress by the balls.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Cutting funding will not end the war abook. The President has said he would get the funding from cuts to other programs. This is called having the Congress by the balls.

    I've already said enough times how congress could have the power in this situation. Go read the threads if you need a refresher course.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I have never once said he was trying to make himself look like an anti-war pacifist.

    He has said he is against this war yet voted to continue it. My post that you quoted was referring to THIS WAR.

    No one has said anything about putting 150,000 troops on a plane and leave today.

    People have said stop funding the war and start a phased withdrawal in which we have money already to fund.

    So please refrain from putting words in my mouth so you can have a point.

    I apologize for putting words in your mouth, but that is how your post come across to me.

    And stopping the funding won't start a phased withdrawal... Voting against funding now will do nothing that voting for it will, except open yourself up to attacks of not supporting the troops. The vote against funding maybe symbolic, but in practice, it is an absolute meaningless vote either way. As long as Bush is president, the war will continue as is, whether the funding is there or not.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I've already said enough times how congress could have the power in this situation. Go read the threads if you need a refresher course.

    There are razor thin majorities in both houses, and there are enough moderate Democrats up for re-election this year that I doubt it would even pass.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    blackredyellow wrote:
    I apologize for putting words in your mouth, but that is how your post come across to me.

    And stopping the funding won't start a phased withdrawal... Voting against funding now will do nothing that voting for it will, except open yourself up to attacks of not supporting the troops. The vote against funding maybe symbolic, but in practice, it is an absolute meaningless vote either way. As long as Bush is president, the war will continue as is, whether the funding is there or not.


    If you think standing up for what you believe in is meaningless then I guess we just differ where that's concerned.

    And voting for funding opens yourself up to attacks for supporting a war you call unjust and dumb thus being hypocritical and proving that you have no qualms with saying one thing while doing another. To me, you don't have any room to talk about the extreme amount of waste and unnecessary loss of life this war has caused if you're right there keeping it trucking along.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    ledvedderman wrote:
    There are razor thin majorities in both houses, and there are enough moderate Democrats up for re-election this year that I doubt it would even pass.

    So why try, right? What a spineless, cowardly way to go. It's not like congress is supposed to represent the public who are mostly against this war. It's really only about maintaining power and you do that by keeping your special interest war profiteers happy....gotcha.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    my2hands wrote:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYBaiXQoI5Q

    a great watch...thanks...
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/50103/
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/50103/

    yeah, it would be nice if reporters would report on fund raising and the pay-to-play culture...

Categories