Have you looked at the opinions of Barack Obama on this site?

 

Sure I have and I agree that many of them are based on what I considered stupid trivial matters. If you noticed my posts about Obama, you will find none (that I can recall) that have been unfair. Heck, if anything, I've been very complimentary of him. I don't agree at all with his vision of how to move this country forward and do not think he will be a unifying force (which we, in my opinion, desperately need at this time in our history) but I think he is a very intelligent, charismatic and dynamic man and very skilled orator. While I don't agree with his philosophies about the role of the federal govt, I do respect him for his beliefs, much like I respect Ted Kennedy for his beliefs. Obama and Ted are in the FDR vein of Democrats that believe the role of the federal govt is to take care of and provide for the people. I'm more of a fan of JFK philosophy of asking not what the country can do for us, but rather what we can do for this country. JFK's philosophy has been abandoned by a lot of Democrats (and some Republican elected officials too) that want to cater to voters using govt help and entitlements so that they get re-elected. I don't want the govt's help and I pray to God that I have the strength to shoot myself in the head if I ever get so desperate that I have to depend on entitlements to survive. Maybe I'm a dinosaur and am living in the wrong era of this country, but I believe strongly in self sufficiency and individual responsibility.

 

Have you looked at the opinions of Bush and McCain on this site? A lot of the attacks on them are coming from Dems based on stupid trivial matters. Mispronouncing the word nuclear. Who blooming cares if he mispronounces a word? Heck, I hear U.S. Rep Delahunt, a Dem from MA this morning on CSpan used the phrase "curricular vitae"; its "curriculum vitae". Do I think the guy is unfit to hold a high political office or is a intellectual simpleton because he mispronounced a term? Heck no I don't. But there sure are a lot of Ds that feel because a R mispronounces a word or makes a mistake while speaking that they are stupid or unfit. And I find it totally nauseating. I find it nauseating when people throw up the "mission accomplished" phrase in Bush's face, without taking the time to understand the context that the phrase was used (and the context was crystal clear in his speech, the text of which I provided a link to). I find it nauseating when people totally take McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comment totally out of context and spin it against him. I find it nauseating when Pancake makes the sophmoric comment that Bush must have slept through that class too. And yes, I am likewise nauseated when Rs do the same thing to the D elected officials or candidates. You sure as heck didn't see me attacking Obama because of a mistake involving the number of States. It was a simple verbal mistake; nothing more, nothing less and has nothing, absolutely zero, to do with whether Obama is qualified to be President.

 

Go back and look at who started a lot of the threads about silly, nitpicking isssues involving Bush, McCain, Obama and Clinton. While there are more conservatives on here than liberals, the liberals make up for that difference in volume of bomb throwing, partisan threads started. Which gets back to my response that evidently has some folks in a tizzy:the spin on here is coming from both sides and if its not exactly equal in volume, its dang close. Neither side of the many debates in this forum can utilize the "clean hands" doctrine.

Edited May 23, 200818 yr by leatherneck

Sure I have and I agree that many of them are based on what I considered stupid trivial matters. If you noticed my posts about Obama, you will find none (that I can recall) that have been unfair. Heck, if anything, I've been very complimentary of him. I don't agree at all with his vision of how to move this country forward and do not think he will be a unifying force (which we, in my opinion, desperately need at this time in our history) but I think he is a very intelligent, charismatic and dynamic man and very skilled orator. While I don't agree with his philosophies about the role of the federal govt, I do respect him for his beliefs, much like I respect Ted Kennedy for his beliefs. Obama and Ted are in the FDR vein of Democrats that believe the role of the federal govt is to take care of and provide for the people. I'm more of a fan of JFK philosophy of asking not what the country can do for us, but rather what we can do for this country. JFK's philosophy has been abandoned by a lot of Democrats (and some Republican elected officials too) that want to cater to voters using govt help and entitlements so that they get re-elected. I don't want the govt's help and I pray to God that I have the strength to shoot myself in the head if I ever get so desperate that I have to depend on entitlements to survive. Maybe I'm a dinosaur and am living in the wrong era of this country, but I believe strongly in self sufficiency and individual responsibility.

 

 

As a registered Republican who totally respects Obama and feels as if his party and his candidate are far from perfect...let me say excellent post. It irritates me to see both parties focus so much time and energy on such useless and trivial matters. Who cares if Obama's middle name is Hussein, Prince Hussein of Jordan has been an embraced political figure of America. who cares if McCain is old, he's probably in better shape than 60% of people under the age of 40 in this obese country.

I wasn't explaining away a dang thing. Quite to the contrary, I pointed out exactly what Bush said; his exact words. Period. It is people like you that have tried to twist his words to make it seem that Bush was telling the U.S. that everything thereafter was going to be easy in Iraq. He said no such thing, he implied no such thing. What he did say was that our troops had done a fantastic job in the invasion, that the major combat operations were over and we faced a very difficult job in bringing security and stability to Iraq. Yet every time there is some skirmish in Iraq, the partisan hacks and haters try to rub "Mission Accomplished" in Bush's face.

 

Again, Bush/Rove/Rummy/Cheney and the other neocons thought they would be in and out quick, would be welcomed with open arms, etc. He thought it was done, had the photo-op to impress that message upon the American people, and it backfired.

 

You know darn good and well that was the implication and intent of the photo-op.

Again, Bush/Rove/Rummy/Cheney and the other neocons thought they would be in and out quick, would be welcomed with open arms, etc. He thought it was done, had the photo-op to impress that message upon the American people, and it backfired.

 

You know darn good and well that was the implication and intent of the photo-op.

 

 

I know only what Bush said in that speech. Thus, I do not know darn good and well what the implication was. I do know darn good and well that if I was to judge a political leader that you support based on my mind reading talents, not on what that political leader actually said, you'd be the first person criticizing me and rightly so I might add. Face it Jim, you don't like Bush, haven't like Bush, didn't vote for him and have had a grudge against him from the day he was sworn into office. Thus, you are never going to give him the benefit of any doubt; rather, you will continually attack him, sinking so low as to not even accept his words, but rather rely on your own assessment of what he meant and intended. That says volumes more about you than it does about Bush.

 

And as for your frequent "welcomed with open arms" comment, we were in fact welcomed with open arms after Hussein was removed from power. Had we made better decisions for the handling of the first few weeks after Hussein's removal, things might be completely different over there right now. Then again maybe not, as I'm sure that Syria and Iran would have sent in armed insurgents anyway to cause us problems. But the bottom line is that we were in fact welcomed as liberators by a large segment of the Iraqi population, which you conveniently want to forget in your effort to spin.

Edited May 23, 200818 yr by HHSDad
Rule 2

Great post! It's Vietnam revisited, only worse.

You have got to be kidding?! NO WAY this is worse then Vietnam!!

Granted, I've not been on here long but this site is extremly conservative and to say there is a liberal for every conservative spinning facts is just not true.

 

You'll find that this site mirrors the US in that a small percentage on each side will go off but that most hang around the middle and are interested in debate rather than spin.

He said this was a 50-100 year war earlier in the campain, now it will take 4 years to win... Flip flop...

 

PLEASE post that quote as it does not exist. It's pretty easy to find for yourself what he actually said if you're interested.

Like the whole explaining away of Dubya's "Mission Accomplished" thingy with the "major combat operations" mantra? It's hogwash and you know it. Bush had that banner flown because that's what he wanted everyone to believe -- that it was over. And those misguided sots Dubya/Rove/Rummy/Cheney genuinely believed it was over, and that all troops would be coming home soon thereafter. They had no doubt in their teeny little brains that it was done, because they thought it fell right in line with another classic line of bull: "We'll be greeted with open arms as liberators."

 

Like you and HE and many of the others say, "spin it however you like it."

 

Sorry, I can't begin to match that spin. Or the bile.

Easy there fellers. Let's not get personal.

I know only what Bush said in that speech. Thus, I do not know darn good and well what the implication was. I do know darn good and well that if I was to judge a political leader that you support based on my mind reading talents, not on what that political leader actually said, you'd be the first person criticizing me and rightly so I might add. Face it Jim, you don't like Bush, haven't like Bush, didn't vote for him and have had a grudge against him from the day he was sworn into office. Thus, you are never going to give him the benefit of any doubt; rather, you will continually attack him, sinking so low as to not even accept his words, but rather rely on your own assessment of what he meant and intended. That says volumes more about you than it does about Bush.

 

And as for your frequent "welcomed with open arms" comment, we were in fact welcomed with open arms after Hussein was removed from power. Had we made better decisions for the handling of the first few weeks after Hussein's removal, things might be completely different over there right now. Then again maybe not, as I'm sure that Syria and Iran would have sent in armed insurgents anyway to cause us problems. But the bottom line is that we were in fact welcomed as liberators by a large segment of the Iraqi population, which you conveniently want to forget in your effort to spin.

 

With all due respect to your years of service, my brother tells a very different story.

With all due respect to your years of service, my brother tells a very different story.

 

And with all due respect to your brother, several of my friends still on active duty (a couple that were in Baghdad as Hussein statutes were being toppled) told me how they were very warmly received. I think we squandered considerable good will by the way we initially handled the post invasion phase, but to say that we weren't welcomed as liberators and with open arms is simply not accurate, and not supported by what I saw on TV and more importantly, by what I was told by Marines in Iraq at that time.

 

Please tell your brother, "thank you" for serving and I mean that sincerely.