toldailytopic: Barrack Obama, your thoughts.

[Ecumenicist]

You know that Obama himself said he wasn't worthy of the prize, but rather he accepted it as a mandate.

The reason we're not talking about the war between Egypt and Israel is because of Jimmy Carter. He earned it.

 

[assuranceagent]

While you're at it, take a history class. For Germany, WWII was fought on two fronts. The US fought both a European war, and a Pacific war, two different enemies seperated by 12,000 miles in each direction.

Here's a simple link for you to start with.

http://www.worldwariihistory.info/WWII/

But honestly, I give you more credit than that. You probably know how and where WWII was fought, and the magnitude and cost of the effort, in lives and in resources.

Be careful, while you're busy trying to downplay the wars that Obama inherited, you're also diminishing the contributions of those who serve in those conflicts.

I'm not trying to downplay anything but your left-wing rhetoric.

And WWII was a series of battles, all part of one larger war fought on multiple fronts.

Just like the "War on Terror." You can agree with the war or not, but that doesn't change the fact that it is one war.

I've got family in both Afganistan and Iraq. Half of which have been waiting months to find out if they would get the required numbers to do their job while their "Commander in Chief" has been diminishing their contributions by refusing to pull the trigger on a decision to send them much needed reinforcements.

The fact that you would try to demonize me on point of the contributions made by our military and then, out of the other side of your mouth, stand up for a President who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude or leadership acumen to be decisive in supporting them is laughable.

My nephew has been at unnecessary risk for the better part of three months while the "greatest president since Johnson" made up his mind on whether or not to commit to send them the troops their General told him were necessary to the continuation of their work.

And then you want to teach me civics?! Did you google Obama Patriot Act yet, Professor Miller? :squint:

 

[Nick M]

It looks like he could be worse the Carter. Himself directly, and others like him that pushed policy intent on destory our economy is just like Carter.

And then he is the most wicked person in the White House. Not even Bill Clinton would support infancicide. Or maybe he would.

 

[assuranceagent]

You know that Obama himself said he wasn't worthy of the prize, but rather he accepted it as a mandate.

Yet knowing that he didn't deserve it, and they still awarded it, you still try to play the Nobel card as though it intensifies the credibility of Carter.

It does nothing for him.

The reason we're not talking about the war between Egypt and Israel is because of Jimmy Carter. He earned it.

That makes his comments regarding racism and the president no less foolish for their ridiculous generalization, and you no less a fool for eating it up, hook, line, and sinker.

 

[elohiym]

Did you know Taiwan's current president faced some controversy during his election campaign? His opponents accused him of being a US citizen and having a current Green Card. :chuckle:

How is he at bowing?

 

[Town Heretic]

He may not be the best president ever but at least now the rest of the country is being represented. The left needed to gain some balance.

Okay, does anyone else find it funny that the ANTIknight sounds like a right leaning moderate? :think:

 

[Stripe]

How is he at bowling?

How many times do I have to tell you people? Taiwanese have no idea what cricket is!

 

[elohiym]

Right. Because the Nobel Peace prize has really shown unassailable credibility in recent times...

Are you saying Arafat lacked credibility? :sibbie:

Carter and Obama are in good company.

 

[koban]

I don't understand how you clowns can actually think that all opposition to Obama is due to racism and still keep a straight face.

It's just asinine. That level of stupidity is staggering to me.

It's certainly disappointing, coming from Dave.


It's like arguing with a three year old.

 

[koban]

... while the "greatest president since Johnson" ...

Maybe Dave's right.

Maybe Bammy is as great a president as LBJ.

 

[Ecumenicist]

I'm not trying to downplay anything but your left-wing rhetoric.

And WWII was a series of battles, all part of one larger war fought on multiple fronts.

Just like the "War on Terror." You can agree with the war or not, but that doesn't change the fact that it is one war.

I've got family in both Afganistan and Iraq. Half of which have been waiting months to find out if they would get the required numbers to do their job while their "Commander in Chief" has been diminishing their contributions by refusing to pull the trigger on a decision to send them much needed reinforcements.

The fact that you would try to demonize me on point of the contributions made by our military and then, out of the other side of your mouth, stand up for a President who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude or leadership acumen to be decisive in supporting them is laughable.

My nephew has been at unnecessary risk for the better part of three months while the "greatest president since Johnson" made up his mind on whether or not to commit to send them the troops their General told him were necessary to the continuation of their work.

And then you want to teach me civics?! Did you google Obama Patriot Act yet, Professor Miller? :squint:

I respect and appreciate the contributions your family is making to the conflicts. I also respect the President's sense of responsibility in weighing all decisions seriously, rather than reacting in a knee-jerk political fashion. The left has wanted withdrawl from the beginning. The right seems to be waffling now, many say we should pull out and many others say he should stay. Obama wants to do what's best for the country, and I respect that.

Bush wanted to do what was best too, but he and his cronies thought they knew better than anyone else, so they made decisions in isolation and then tried to "sell" the decisions after the fact. He was advised from Powell and many others not to enter a conflict without clear goals and an exit strategy. All those advisors either were fired or quit.

I thank God we have a President willing to listen to all the experts before making a decision, and I support whatever decision he anounces on Tuesday.

 

[Ecumenicist]

Maybe Dave's right.

Maybe Bammy is as great a president as LBJ.

Misquote here. I said "He's the best president in my memory, which goes back to Johnson." Meaning better than Johnson and all who followed.

 

[Son of Jack]

Point of clarification...

Can we quit referring to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as conflicts? It's like people want us all to think that our wars are little more than a minor squabble over a few insignificant disagreements...:sigh:

 

[Ecumenicist]

Point of clarification...

Can we quit referring to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as conflicts? It's like people want us all to think that our wars is little more than a minor squabble over a few insignificant disagreements...:sigh:

Yeah, that's a tough one. On the one hand, some people argue that declaring war escalates status of criminals into that of enemy combatants, an honor cowardly butchers of innocent women and children don't deserve. On the other hand, the term war accurately depicts the use of significant military resources, which we are clearly doing.

Certainly at this point, we're at war, in two arenas, two seperate and distinct countries, with Iran seperating one "front" from the other. (That was for AA's benefit.)

 

[Ecumenicist]

Notice how Obama says he intends to "end" this war, rather than "win." The right seems to think this thing is a football game of some kind.

This has always been a problem. Winning implies conquest and occupation. If that's not our goal, that's not the right term to use. We want to end hostilities, against ourselves and against innocent civilians in the arenas of conflict.

 

[koban]

Notice how Obama says he intends to "end" this war, rather than "win."

Yeah - I noticed the other day that Bammy is willing to commit to a withdrawl of US troops from Afghanistan by 2017. :darwinsm:

 

[elohiym]

Point of clarification...

Can we quit referring to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as conflicts? It's like people want us all to think that our wars are little more than a minor squabble over a few insignificant disagreements...:sigh:

They are more accurately called low intensity conflicts (LIC) in military parlance, not a war or wars. Congress authorized the military action in Afghanistan under Public Law 107-40, which is clearly not a declaration of conventional war.

 

[zoo22]

[the nation's financial crisis] ...largely created by the Left.

I'm glad someone brought that up. If the financial meltdown was largely created by the left, yet GW and his administration spent 8 years leading the country, when does Obama's responsibility for the financial state of the nation come into play? After one year? That seems a reamrkabe leap.

Similarly, when will GW and his administration's responsibility (if any) for the financial state of the nation come into play? ...Or will it ever? Will he and his eight year administration just be bypassed?

We were told by many (here at TOL) through GWs eight year presidency that whatever was going wrong was Clinton's fault. But now, one year into his Presidency, it's Obama's fault. Seems there's an eight year hole here. I suppose that's a convenient way to look at it (or should we say not look at it?).

 

[Son of Jack]

They are more accurately called low intensity conflicts (LIC) in military parlance, not a war or wars. Congress authorized the military action in Afghanistan under Public Law 107-40, which is clearly not a declaration of conventional war.

I suppose that is fair enough...Typically, though, when most people think of the death of U.S. soldiers on foreign soil as a result of the actions of hostiles, they think war...my complaint had more to do with colloquial as opposed to technical usage.

 

[elohiym]

The fault of the financial crisis is solely due to the monetary system (banks), not any policy of any party or administration. So the whole right-left blame-game is just over-the-top silly, in my opinion.