anyone else watch it? kinda interesting, especially since he claims he's been opposed to the wars abroad since the start.

anyway, discuss.





Check out my build thread!

i didnt hear his speach but i think he's doing a good thing. before he was elected he kept touting how he's going to bring the troops home. now that he is in office, and actually has informationa bout whats going on he realises we need more troops there for the time being. this is something that is going to piss his voters off a bit, but hes doing what he feels is right versus what he origonally thought.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

sndsgood wrote:i didnt hear his speach but i think he's doing a good thing. before he was elected he kept touting how he's going to bring the troops home. now that he is in office, and actually has informationa bout whats going on he realises we need more troops there for the time being. this is something that is going to piss his voters off a bit, but hes doing what he feels is right versus what he origonally thought.

Once again my thoughts exactly.



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

He is saving his political skin...nothing more. His nutswingers will vote for him again no matter what. It's the indies he's pandering to, and to get foxnews off his back a little. Any of you think he'd "do the right thing" if he knew 100% he'd suffer a loss in 2012 as a result. He's doing what politicians do.... Get re-elected.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Wade Jarvis wrote:

sndsgood wrote:i didnt hear his speach but i think he's doing a good thing. before he was elected he kept touting how he's going to bring the troops home. now that he is in office, and actually has informationa bout whats going on he realises we need more troops there for the time being. this is something that is going to piss his voters off a bit, but hes doing what he feels is right versus what he origonally thought.

Once again my thoughts exactly.

x3

ScottaWhite wrote:He is saving his political skin...nothing more. His nutswingers will vote for him again no matter what. It's the indies he's pandering to, and to get foxnews off his back a little. Any of you think he'd "do the right thing" if he knew 100% he'd suffer a loss in 2012 as a result. He's doing what politicians do.... Get re-elected.

I disagree. Neither Fox news nor his harshest critics are going to let up on him anytime soon. There are bunches of other political issues they will bring to light. I do think Obama would throw away his chance of re-election for an issue he strongly believed in. Mrs. Clinton would be a different story. That whole sniper fire thing told volumes about her. What I don't think people realize is that Obama IS different, not better just different in that he will vigorously persue the issues important to him. He is no doubt playing the game. The difference is he is playing the game to change it. I honestly believe he is a good man with good intentions. Where I find fault with him is that he persues his vision for america not the peoples.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:11 AM


FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

The road to he'll is paved with good intentions. Unfortunately America is on a toll road of good intentions.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

id say more people want the millitary to pull out and come home then to stay and finish the job so i dont think he is gaining anything re-election wise.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

sndsgood wrote:id say more people want the millitary to pull out and come home then to stay and finish the job so i dont think he is gaining anything re-election wise.

His own words and those of other democrats are why people think so negatively of the war. When all people hear is negative things like the death toll and the cost of war of course it will not be popular. When Bush was in office it was the democrats main bashing point. Now that it is Obama's problem he is having a hard time convincing people and uniting them to believe in it. Now their own words are coming back to haunt them.

I myself try real hard not to be an armchair critic especially when it comes to matters of national defense. The president has info that none of us have. It is important that we trust that our president will make the right decisions.



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Trust this president? I'd sooner trust a pickle jar full of scorpions.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Pay no mind to the Negative Nellies, Wade. They've already decided to effectively leave the room until 2012. I for one am glad they are so willing to wear their hearts on their sleeves...it makes spotting them easier. They care not about coalition or finding answers for the curent situation, so let them go cry in the corner. They're harmless there

Wade Jarvis wrote:

sndsgood wrote:id say more people want the millitary to pull out and come home then to stay and finish the job so i dont think he is gaining anything re-election wise.

His own words and those of other democrats are why people think so negatively of the war. When all people hear is negative things like the death toll and the cost of war of course it will not be popular. When Bush was in office it was the democrats main bashing point. Now that it is Obama's problem he is having a hard time convincing people and uniting them to believe in it. Now their own words are coming back to haunt them.

I myself try real hard not to be an armchair critic especially when it comes to matters of national defense. The president has info that none of us have. It is important that we trust that our president will make the right decisions.

i think allot of people who voted for him assumed that he would go in on day 1 and do everything he said he would. he does know more then we know. as it should be. the worst thing you could probalby do is let al of the general public know what the goverment knows, just for the main reason that mob mentallity never tends to work out in the best way.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

sndsgood wrote:

Wade Jarvis wrote:

sndsgood wrote:id say more people want the millitary to pull out and come home then to stay and finish the job so i dont think he is gaining anything re-election wise.

His own words and those of other democrats are why people think so negatively of the war. When all people hear is negative things like the death toll and the cost of war of course it will not be popular. When Bush was in office it was the democrats main bashing point. Now that it is Obama's problem he is having a hard time convincing people and uniting them to believe in it. Now their own words are coming back to haunt them.

I myself try real hard not to be an armchair critic especially when it comes to matters of national defense. The president has info that none of us have. It is important that we trust that our president will make the right decisions.

i think allot of people who voted for him assumed that he would go in on day 1 and do everything he said he would. he does know more then we know. as it should be. the worst thing you could probalby do is let al of the general public know what the goverment knows, just for the main reason that mob mentallity never tends to work out in the best way.

Yes! Smart and to the point. Massive change takes time, and Confidential information is top-secret for good reason.

sndsgood wrote: he does know more then we know. as it should be. the worst thing you could probalby do is let al of the general public know what the goverment knows, just for the main reason that mob mentallity never tends to work out in the best way.

I agree that the american people need not be privy to everything. How does that saying go? Something to the effect of never under estimate the stupidity of people in masses. The least the democratic party could do is stop playing politics when it comes to a war we are fighting. You can't tell people how bad it is then go back on that and expect them to unite on the war again. I listened to a portion of the speech and I think Obama gets it that we must be united but it is simply to late for that. Politicians in general just don't seem to get it that we are sick of them playing games on every single issue. They need to remember "United we stand, divided we fall"

I often wonder is it too much to ask for a president to say "I honestly don't feel I have enough information to make an informed decision I can stand by" or would the american people bash a politician for saying that? Could we accept that truth or would we rather they make it sound like they know exactly what they would do when they don't?





FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

^ is full of horse-dooky^

If taking one's time (weeks) to gather the facts to make an informed decision, is such a noble gesture.... The why in the name of bhudda, do we have to rame through thousands of earmaked pages of legislation, without the lawmakers even know what they are voting on?

Answer that question. Forget the fact that I called you full of crap, and explain why, or failing that, tell me how the two scenarios are idealogically different.

This ought to be good.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

ScottaWhite wrote:^ is full of horse-dooky^

If taking one's time (weeks) to gather the facts to make an informed decision, is such a noble gesture.... The why in the name of bhudda, do we have to rame through thousands of earmaked pages of legislation, without the lawmakers even know what they are voting on?

Answer that question. Forget the fact that I called you full of crap, and explain why, or failing that, tell me how the two scenarios are idealogically different.

This ought to be good.

\


i'll answer that since its a quite easy answer. some things you know what your going to do and know what you want, so the answer is quick and easy. some things your not sure on or not sure you have the answers on so you wait to get all the info. if this is something that you want passed and you know the info on its best to pass it quickly versus waiting a long time for your opposition to hold you up. is it the right thing to do? not nessicarily. but if you believe your right and really want it to go thru thats what people will do.





now to answer wades questions about would the public accept a president saying he doesnt know or needs more time for the answers. that depends on who's in office, if a repulican said it, the democrats would say he's stalling, he doesnt have the intelligence to see the answer in front of his face, hes not fit to lead blah blah blah, and the repulicans would say the opposite. if a democrat said it the repulcins would roast him saying basically the same as the dems in the first part of my answer.

me personally i'd trust someone who didn't know all the answers allot more then someone who says they did. the general public though has this mass belief that a president should know every single answer for every single world problem. they should know every single important figure in the world and who they represent and what they believe etc etc etc. and they should know the answer to every question asked to them immedietly without taking anytime to think about the answer.


another thing ive come to find is that somehow any person in office no matter how big or how small the general public will claim they are idiots and will tout off about how they have the real answers and that if they were in office they would fix every problem in a day.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Rather a long exanatio. Which didn't do that.

His experts on the ground (McCrystal &Co) said we need 'X' number of troops here NOW. You can either stick your head up the cow's arse to get a good look at the steak, or you can take the butchers word for it.

So the f-job president dillywhacks around for WEEKS before he holds a press conference and mealymouths some uninspiring speech, during which he mentions well send the troops.

Now, since this guy is such a cerebral dude, it must have been so he and his stateside advisors can best weigh both sides of the coin. Send or don't send. Really stupidhard decision. So either mccrystal is incompetent and just pulled a number out of his butt, or Obama was stalling for time.




“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Meh. Scott, you know no more about what goes into making this decision than any of us. Your unwillingness to suspend your distaste of Obama long enough to give the president the benefit of that doubt...well, it just makes you appear obsessed with knocking the fellow. It rather makes most of what you say about him easy to dismiss as a lack of anger management where he's concerned.

Buck up, dude...it's going to be a long four years if you can't relax a bit Taking every tiny shot that presents itself is going to wear you out!

I like this thread. It demonstrates perfectly the hypocrisy of the political parties and their followers... *Goes to find a thread from 3 years ago or so*




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster