Obama General Discussion - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-02-2009, 12:58 AM   #136
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:45 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Keep up the good work trolling the non-stories, d.
Actually I found a nugget in here to help your side, but you must of missed it and resorted to another tact.

Here's the nugget:

Quote:

She also denounced persistent allegations that Obama is not a natural-born American citizen, saying that she is angered by the "outrageous, absurd, calculated conspiratory claim" that he was born outside the United States and is ineligible to be president. She recalled receiving a letter and photos from Obama's father announcing his son's birth in Hawaii.
Being fair and balanced I thought this should be posted and about nullify the birther movement.

<>
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 01:21 AM   #137
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
An Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore | MichaelMoore.com

November 30th, 2009 3:44 AM
An Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That's the way General Washington insisted it must be. That's what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. "You're fired!," said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).

So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea -- "Let's invade Afghanistan!" Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin.

There's a reason they don't call Afghanistan the "Garden State" (though they probably should, seeing how the corrupt President Karzai, whom we back, has his brother in the heroin trade raising poppies). Afghanistan's nickname is the "Graveyard of Empires." If you don't believe it, give the British a call. I'd have you call Genghis Khan but I lost his number. I do have Gorbachev's number though. It's + 41 22 789 1662. I'm sure he could give you an earful about the historic blunder you're about to commit.

With our economic collapse still in full swing and our precious young men and women being sacrificed on the altar of arrogance and greed, the breakdown of this great civilization we call America will head, full throttle, into oblivion if you become the "war president." Empires never think the end is near, until the end is here. Empires think that more evil will force the heathens to toe the line -- and yet it never works. The heathens usually tear them to shreds.

Choose carefully, President Obama. You of all people know that it doesn't have to be this way. You still have a few hours to listen to your heart, and your own clear thinking. You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there. You can feel it in your bones.

I know you know that there are LESS than a hundred al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan! A hundred thousand troops trying to crush a hundred guys living in caves? Are you serious? Have you drunk Bush's Kool-Aid? I refuse to believe it.

Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you're doing it so you can "end the war") will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you've said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone -- and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout "tea bag!"

Choose carefully, Mr. President. Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning.

We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can't take it anymore. We can't take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of "landslide victory" don't you understand?

Don't be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor. You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn't be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can't change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge.

The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can't be won over by abandoning the rest of us.

President Obama, it's time to come home. Ask your neighbors in Chicago and the parents of the young men and women doing the fighting and dying if they want more billions and more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you think they will say, "No, we don't need health care, we don't need jobs, we don't need homes. You go on ahead, Mr. President, and send our wealth and our sons and daughters overseas, 'cause we don't need them, either."

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do? Not send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that's what they'd do. Not spend billions and trillions to wage war while American children are sleeping on the streets and standing in bread lines.

All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights, invading nations who had not attacked us, blowing up neighborhoods that Saddam "might" be in (but never was), slaughtering wedding parties in Afghanistan. We watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and tens of thousands of our brave young men and women were killed, maimed, or endured mental anguish -- the full terror of which we scarcely know.

When we elected you we didn't expect miracles. We didn't even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn't even function as a nation and never, ever has.

Stop, stop, stop! For the sake of the lives of young Americans and Afghan civilians, stop. For the sake of your presidency, hope, and the future of our nation, stop. For God's sake, stop.

Tonight we still have hope.

Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON'T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother's son.

We're counting on you.

Yours,
Michael Moore
So how many people here in "Little San Francisco" agree with Barack Obama rather than Michael Moore on Afghanistan?

I'm amazed at how silent "Little San Francisco" is on the night of President Obama's biggest Foreign Policy and National Security speech as President. INDY500 is the first and only person to offer a comment.

I thought the speech was good and I hope it convinces Americans who's support for the war in Afghanistan was starting to waver. But there were some obvious little attempts in the speech to placate the liberal wing of his party which I think includes many people in this forum.

Its clear that Barack Obama has learned much over the past year about national security and he is far removed from the Barack Obama who opposed the surge in Iraq in January 2007. He is light years from the Michael Moores nut case idea's on Afghanistan and US foreign Policy.

Michael Moore also opposed United States military intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo which saved the lives of millions of people.

Barack Obama today clearly has far more in common with George Bush than Michael Moore when it comes to his views on US foreign Policy.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 08:11 AM   #138
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Barack Obama today clearly has far more in common with George Bush than Michael Moore when it comes to his views on US foreign Policy.
Something we can agree on.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 09:31 AM   #139
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
So how many people here in "Little San Francisco" agree with Barack Obama rather than Michael Moore on Afghanistan?

I'm amazed at how silent "Little San Francisco" is on the night of President Obama's biggest Foreign Policy and National Security speech as President. INDY500 is the first and only person to offer a comment.

I thought the speech was good and I hope it convinces Americans who's support for the war in Afghanistan was starting to waver. But there were some obvious little attempts in the speech to placate the liberal wing of his party which I think includes many people in this forum.

Its clear that Barack Obama has learned much over the past year about national security and he is far removed from the Barack Obama who opposed the surge in Iraq in January 2007. He is light years from the Michael Moores nut case idea's on Afghanistan and US foreign Policy.

Michael Moore also opposed United States military intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo which saved the lives of millions of people.

Barack Obama today clearly has far more in common with George Bush than Michael Moore when it comes to his views on US foreign Policy.
I'm one of the leftiest of the lefties here and I wholeheartedly agree with what Obama is doing. In fact, during the campaign, I said that pulling out of Iraq too soon would be a huge mistake, that after Bush's fuck up by starting the misguided war in the first place, the US owes it to the Iraqi people not to pull out until security is restored - the Pottery Barn rule.

Now, Obama is doing what should have been done in the first place, by taking care of matters in Afghanistan, something that many liberals, myself included, and many nations, would have endorsed at the time. It's clearly what Bush should have done in the first place. Every time I see on the news that another Canadian soldier has been killed, which happens way too frequently, I curse Bush for his idiocy. If Bush had concentrated his efforts where he should have in the first place, it would be over by now, and most, if not all of the troops would be home.

So, to paint all Liberals with an anti-war brush is wrong. I don't think there are many that would dispute the need to go into Afghanistan, it's the trumped up reasons for going into Iraq that most take issue with.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 10:05 AM   #140
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Sting hovering over "little San Francisco":

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 10:29 AM   #141
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
I'm one of the leftiest of the lefties here and I wholeheartedly agree with what Obama is doing. In fact, during the campaign, I said that pulling out of Iraq too soon would be a huge mistake, that after Bush's fuck up by starting the misguided war in the first place, the US owes it to the Iraqi people not to pull out until security is restored - the Pottery Barn rule.
Well, most Democrats including Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton supported removing Saddam from power back in 2003. The Persian Gulf is a much more secure place today with Saddam removed from power and it would be rather difficult to argue that the region and the world would be better off if Saddam were still the leader of Iraq.

Quote:
Now, Obama is doing what should have been done in the first place, by taking care of matters in Afghanistan, something that many liberals, myself included, and many nations, would have endorsed at the time. It's clearly what Bush should have done in the first place. Every time I see on the news that another Canadian soldier has been killed, which happens way too frequently, I curse Bush for his idiocy. If Bush had concentrated his efforts where he should have in the first place, it would be over by now, and most, if not all of the troops would be home.
Obama clearly stated in his speech that as President, he does not have the luxury of just concentrating on one problem at a time. Bush did not have the luxury of simply concentrating on just Afghanistan. There were other security needs and problems. In addition, much of the reason that the Taliban is currently resurgent has to do with the safe area's in Pakistan where they were allowed to rebuild, the primitive and undeveloped nature of Afghanistan society, and much less to do with a lack of US supplied resources for Afghanistan during the Bush years.

It is not at all clear that a more concentrated effort during the Bush years in Afghanistan would have meant that all troops would be home now and the situation would no longer be a problem. Afghanistans problems, what was accomplished there during the Bush years, and why the Taliban is now resurgent is complex and involves many different factors.

Quote:
So, to paint all Liberals with an anti-war brush is wrong. I don't think there are many that would dispute the need to go into Afghanistan, it's the trumped up reasons for going into Iraq that most take issue with.
Current polls show that 60% to 70% of registered Democrats are against the War in Afghanistan and do not support the troop surge in Afghanistan. Hopefully, Obama's speech will bring those numbers down. But people like Michael Moore who seem to live in their little own fantasy world will probably never be convinced.

The anti-war push has almost always nearly exclusively come from liberals. Despite what happened on 9/11, 60% to 70% of Democrats oppose the Afghanistan war and oppose the troop surge. It will be interesting to see if Obama's speech put a dent in any of those poll numbers.

"Little San Francisco" is still unusually silent after this speech.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 10:39 AM   #142
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
"Little San Francisco" is still unusually silent after this speech.
Well, I think you mean your perception of "LSF" has been squashed.

Some of us understand the nuances and the gray areas between ideals and reality.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 10:49 AM   #143
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
...
I've watched for years as you've attempted to justify Bush's actions, to the extent now that when I see you've posted, I mostly just scroll right on past, because I know your arguments off by heart.

I could very easily counter argue everything that you just said, but it would be a waste of my time. I know what happened, and as time passes, the evidence piles up on the side of the Liberals, period. Now, Obama has to go and clean up another of Bush's messes. Same shit, different day.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 11:06 AM   #144
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
I'm one of the leftiest of the lefties here and I wholeheartedly agree with what Obama is doing. In fact, during the campaign, I said that pulling out of Iraq too soon would be a huge mistake, that after Bush's fuck up by starting the misguided war in the first place, the US owes it to the Iraqi people not to pull out until security is restored - the Pottery Barn rule.

Now, Obama is doing what should have been done in the first place, by taking care of matters in Afghanistan, something that many liberals, myself included, and many nations, would have endorsed at the time. It's clearly what Bush should have done in the first place. Every time I see on the news that another Canadian soldier has been killed, which happens way too frequently, I curse Bush for his idiocy. If Bush had concentrated his efforts where he should have in the first place, it would be over by now, and most, if not all of the troops would be home.

So, to paint all Liberals with an anti-war brush is wrong. I don't think there are many that would dispute the need to go into Afghanistan, it's the trumped up reasons for going into Iraq that most take issue with.


you need to stop with your thoughtful, nuanced perspective that makes sweeping characterizations like "little San Francisco" impossible to sustain. the only way STING can talk about anything is if he constructs non-existent strawmen and imaginary opposition to his positions, as well as fabrications about what Obama has and has not said.

please, stop.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 11:07 AM   #145
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
"Little San Francisco" is still unusually silent after this speech.


so, yes, you're really just a troll.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 11:14 AM   #146
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
you need to stop with your thoughtful, nuanced perspective that makes sweeping characterizations like "little San Francisco" impossible to sustain. the only way STING can talk about anything is if he constructs non-existent strawmen and imaginary opposition to his positions, as well as fabrications about what Obama has and has not said.

please, stop.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 11:19 AM   #147
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:45 AM
san francisco is also a really awesome city and most people would kill to live there and it has a huge quality of life. so the slams seem kind of insane.

would you rather live in "little Topeka, KS"?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 11:19 AM   #148
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
you need to stop with your thoughtful, nuanced perspective that makes sweeping characterizations like "little San Francisco" impossible to sustain.
Maybe members of Little San Francisco have independently functioning brains and are able to think critically about events rather than being sheeple. This is an unfortunate by-product of liberal elitism, of course.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 11:42 AM   #149
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Well, I think you mean your perception of "LSF" has been squashed.

Some of us understand the nuances and the gray areas between ideals and reality.
Not at all. Its just interesting to see that there is no reaction, either for, against, or undecided about the policy after such a big speech.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 11:47 AM   #150
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
I've watched for years as you've attempted to justify Bush's actions, to the extent now that when I see you've posted, I mostly just scroll right on past, because I know your arguments off by heart.

I could very easily counter argue everything that you just said, but it would be a waste of my time. I know what happened, and as time passes, the evidence piles up on the side of the Liberals, period. Now, Obama has to go and clean up another of Bush's messes. Same shit, different day.
Well, I don't see any evidence that it would have been better to keep Saddam in power in Iraq, that Kuwait, Saudi Arabia would be safer today with Saddam in power, or that the Iraqi people would be better off with Saddam in power. If you want to argue for Saddam, go ahead, but the evidence continues to show that it was necessary to remove him from power for the security of the region and the world.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Democratic National Convention Thread MrsSpringsteen Free Your Mind 504 09-02-2008 03:37 PM
US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1001 01-30-2008 02:07 PM
MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount? 2861U2 Free Your Mind Archive 586 01-12-2008 01:50 PM
Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread Varitek Free Your Mind Archive 1003 09-23-2007 03:31 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com