Obama Doesn't Plan to End the Occupation in Iraq

RolandTD20Kdrummer

blackredyellow wrote:

If you paid attention to what he has said all along, nothing has changed... If people weren't paying attention and thought he would bring all the troops home ASAP, then it's their fault.

If someone hears only what they want to hear, then the blame is on them.

It sorta reminds me of some of the evangelicals that voted for Bush in 2000, who believed that he would end all abortions and gay marriage.

Well you definitely got it right that nothing has changed.

What has changed however is the association from Obama and the people (i.e "yes we can") deciding v.s. the military deciding. "Yes they can...(and they will)" fits more aptly.

blackredyellow

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Well you definitely got it right that nothing has changed.

What has changed however is the association from Obama and the people (i.e "yes we can") deciding v.s. the military deciding. "Yes they can...(and they will)" fits more aptly.

Man, you are dense... You probably won't believe this, but his position, association, approach (or however you want to say it) on Iraq hasn't changed... the two links below have quotes (and links) from speeches and interviews back through 2007 saying the he would listen to the commanders on the ground, and figure in all considerations, etc etc etc...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807030014

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/07/03/obama_has_consistently_said_he.php

You keep talking like it's Obama's fault if idiots heard what they wanted to hear and convinced themselves that he would bring the troops home immediately.

No one else in this world seems to take responsibility for themselves, why should ignorant voters?

Mutiny! he cried

Pj_Gurl wrote:

To remind us how much we suck i imagine.
One would think.....

and what's with the compromise our ideals comment mutiny? Says who? You don't know me. So how do you know i've compromised my ideals. How do you know anyone has.

not everything has to be an absolutye, dear, i'm not putting you in that category so why do you feel I am? certainly some have. Why do I say that? Because i've looked through old posts and it's the same with some I know in real life - they were against certain things for years until they found out Obama supports it, then suddenly it's no big deal. Or you see someone call Obama a corporate whore and all talk 1 month then the most progressive president in history which now means being a centrist....

I also say this because of all the name calling and 'sore losers' and 'sour grapes' instead of an actual discussion. So I can only conclude they are simply more caught up in and concerned with their turn at being 'king of the hill' and while I didn't search any posts from 2000 or 2004 I know in the real world and other boards that was exactly how some conservatives reacted to any criticism.

it's keeping the ineffectual cycle going. The only way one can break a cycle is to stop taking part in it and while certainly some DO do that there are those who don't and that is whom i'm speaking of.

Debate and criticism should be encouraged. I'm not talking about nitpiking but I think things like bringing up who is appointed and their past crimes is VERY valid and i'm sure many trying to stop that would by critical if it was Bush or McCain's pick.

Mutiny! he cried

blackredyellow wrote:

It sorta reminds me of some of the evangelicals that voted for Bush in 2000, who believed that he would end all abortions and gay marriage.

Or that he was going to bring change and end the corruption and dirty dealings in Washington....hey wait a minute.....

Mutiny! he cried

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Actually it's quite clear what has taken place. It's gone from I personally will do this to... I will do what I am told to do, and that will ultimately take place.

There's a substantial difference. If he had said up front it will depend on what the military decides, then he should have said that. But he didn't. He rallied a bunch of people behind him on the premise that it was up to him "Yes we can", but he just finished saying it it isn't ultimately up to him. Who is we?

Not sure how you're misinterpreting the difference in that reality.

Well said, except....

This was already known before the election. While I searched for what was said here before the election, as it turned out it was the same here, and I saw this exact situation brought up of being told what to do and the stock reply was

"yeah, Obama's a war monger :rolleyes: "

Some just don't want to hear it, there will always be an excuse

RolandTD20Kdrummer

blackredyellow wrote:

Man, you are dense... You probably won't believe this, but his position, association, approach (or however you want to say it) on Iraq hasn't changed... the two links below have quotes (and links) from speeches and interviews back through 2007 saying the he would listen to the commanders on the ground, and figure in all considerations, etc etc etc...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807030014

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/07/03/obama_has_consistently_said_he.php

You keep talking like it's Obama's fault if idiots heard what they wanted to hear and convinced themselves that he would bring the troops home immediately.

No one else in this world seems to take responsibility for themselves, why should ignorant voters?

I like how the excuses keep rolling to the point that people are/were just plain stupid if they put hope in the guy to ultimately change anything. How utterly stupid they were...

This is getting good.

Anon

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I like how the excuses keep rolling to the point that people are/were just plain stupid if they put hope in the guy to ultimately change anything. How utterly stupid they were...

This is getting good.

Roland that is not what blackredyellow is saying and you know it. He was very clear on what he said. He posted links to quote exactly what obama said. He also said if people read more into that or made their own assumptions based on what they 'wanted to hear' not what he actually said, then how is it obamas fault.

Having 'hope', doesn't make one stupid. Having 'hope' does not make one blind to what Obama said. He doesn't even mention hope in his post.

aNiMaL

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I like how the excuses keep rolling to the point that people are/were just plain stupid if they put hope in the guy to ultimately change anything. How utterly stupid they were...

This is getting good.

blackredyellow stated facts. There were no excuses.

You keep trying to prove a point that you think that there will be zero change. Oddly enough. I see evidence of plenty of change on the horizon.

How you continue to argue vague, opinionated points as fact (in an attempt to get folks to turn on Obama in your continued, well documented, and slanted anti-Obama campaign) is mind boggling.

Anon

Mutiny! he cried wrote:

I also say this because of all the name calling and 'sore losers' and 'sour grapes' instead of an actual discussion.

I know there have been a few mentions of 'sore loser's and sour grapes', but i didn't think that i had seen it on more than half a dozen times?

I can do a search if you like to see how many times those words have been used, and then at the same time i can also search the word 'sheep'. You know, that condascending word that gets dropped around here very often. I don't think that's actual discussion either.

I guess two wrongs don't make a right though. Have a look at the number of really switched on and great debaters that have stopped posting here recently. I guess eventually they get sick of being told this is how they feel and this is how they see things when time and time again they say that is not the case. It's like hitting your head against a brick wall time and time again. Eventually you can't do it anymore.

How many people here actually want good debate? Honestly. Or how many just wanna tell you how you feel, what you think, and how stupid you are because you don't think like they do?

It happens all the time. There is no denying it.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Roland that is not what blackredyellow is saying and you know it. He was very clear on what he said. He posted links to quote exactly what obama said. He also said if people read more into that or made their own assumptions based on what they 'wanted to hear' not what he actually said, then how is it obamas fault.

Having 'hope', doesn't make one stupid. Having 'hope' does not make one blind to what Obama said. He doesn't even mention hope in his post.

Hope...ok...expectations then.

It's like saying all those Obama supporters expecting any kind of substantial change from him with regards to altering the pathways from the same old "as per usual norms" in policy were just being incredibly stupid, and dense...but we're smart.

The "as per usual" route from the MIC perspective has stepped up it's game substantially in the past 8 years.

aNiMaL

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Hope...ok...expectations then.

It's like saying all those Obama supporters expecting any kind of substantial change from him with regards to altering the pathways from the same old "as per usual norms" in policy were just being incredibly stupid, and dense...but we're smart.

The "as per usual" route from the MIC perspective has stepped up it's game substantially in the past 8 years.

How do you know what Obama supporters expectations are? You're not one of them, yet you take the liberty of speaking on behalf of them all the time.

Again though, 90% of your AMT posts are just plainly boiled down to being "Anti-Obama."

RolandTD20Kdrummer

aNiMaL wrote:

How do you know what Obama supporters expectations are? You're not one of them, yet you take the liberty of speaking on behalf of them all the time.

Again though, 90% of your AMT posts are just plainly boiled down to being "Anti-Obama."

So you're saying it's not the case, you speak for the Obama supporters instead of me.

Which is it?

I post all kinds of stuff. I was highly critical of Bush also. Exit one supporter...insert the next...

slowly but surely you guys are going to figure it out.

Anon

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

slowly but surely you guys are going to figure it out.

Figure what out?
This is what i mean.

fuck

aNiMaL wrote:

Again though, 90% of your AMT posts are just plainly boiled down to being "Anti-Obama."

Is anti-Obama the new anti-Semitic?

aNiMaL

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

So you're saying it's not the case, you speak for the Obama supporters instead of me.

Which is it?

I post all kinds of stuff. I was highly critical of Bush also. Exit one supporter...insert the next...

slowly but surely you guys are going to figure it out.

To answer your question, no, I don't think that is the case. I think you have a different view and expectation of the word "change" than the Obama supporters do. And for the sake of the argument, we should really wait for the Obama supporters to make it as they are who want to pretend that you are so concerned for.

And why are you more concerned with a different countries politics that you have no right to vote or participate in, than that of your own countries? Who would you have voted for if you were an American citizen and had the right to vote for the US president?

aNiMaL

_outlaw wrote:

Is anti-Obama the new anti-Semitic?

No. But, way to try and draw a line between the religious persecution of the Jews, and a couple of people hell-bent on tarnishing Obama's image before he even takes office.

Anon

_outlaw wrote:

Is anti-Obama the new anti-Semitic?

Outlaw, c'mon now., how can you even compare the two?
Honestly, is this how you see it? Honestly...

Sometimes i swear i AM on a different planet to some of you people.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

aNiMaL wrote:

To answer your question, no, I don't think that is the case. I think you have a different view and expectation of the word "change" than the Obama supporters do. And for the sake of the argument, we should really wait for the Obama supporters to make it as they are who want to pretend that you are so concerned for.

And why are you more concerned with a different countries politics that you have no right to vote or participate in, than that of your own countries? Who would you have voted for if you were an American citizen and had the right to vote for the US president?

You can't change the rules of the game if you continually agree to abide by them. I would have voted more against the current bush era philosophies rather than simply pretending to be against them by using empty catch phrases and slogans.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

aNiMaL wrote:

No. But, way to try and draw a line between the religious persecution of the Jews, and a couple of people hell-bent on tarnishing Obama's image before he even takes office.

I think Obama is doing it all by himself, and I'm just bearing witness to it. Some referred to it as Obama comedown syndrome several months ago.

If it wasn't for critical viewpoints that put pressure on the President elect, nothing would really change at all regardless of who sits in the chair....not when you have an entity such as the MIC backed with illegal theft of taxpayer dollars turning the machine.

If US affairs only affected the US, and not the world at large, there would be valid reason to criticise foreign viewpoints.

fuck

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Outlaw, c'mon now., how can you even compare the two?
Honestly, is this how you see it? Honestly...

Sometimes i swear i AM on a different planet to some of you people.

It was partly a joke, but the idea is that these sort of terms try to discredit other people. Someone who criticizes something like Israel is labeled "anti-Semitic" and now apparently if you criticize Obama for doing something you disagree with (and rightly so) you're "anti-Obama"? How can you even be anti-Someone? It makes no sense.