Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
367 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, GDR, marc9000 (4 members, 363 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,896 Year: 21,932/19,786 Month: 495/1,834 Week: 495/315 Day: 91/82 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Obama is full of it
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3421 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 16 of 119 (528131)
10-04-2009 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by rueh
10-04-2009 12:43 PM


'seems to me', eh?

Well, how can such strong objective evidence as that be argued with?
[ /snark]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by rueh, posted 10-04-2009 12:43 PM rueh has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(1)
Message 17 of 119 (528603)
10-06-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by rueh
10-03-2009 4:15 PM


Purified Wrong
Yeah but he spent 25 minutes talking to him after letting the Generals request for more troops sit on his desk for the past month. How much could he have possibly have done in those 25 minutes? He hasspent more time preparing for this bid to the IOC then he has deciding how we are going to handle a war that we are in desperate need to fiqure out a better srategy in.

First of all, he was reading the classified version of McCrystal's report the very moment it was available, on his vacation mind you. So your accusation that he let it sit on his desk is more defamation.

Second, you have no idea how much time he has spent deciding about how we are going to handle the war in Afganistan. Just because he hasn't caved to an impetuous generals intentionally leaked request for more troops does not mean he is not working the issue.

Third, most people who are not idiots or war-mongers know and are advising Obama correctly that there is no such thing as a military solution to the problem of Afganistan. It is a legitimatly difficult and perhaps even impossible problem which quite likely will only be made more difficult or impossible by naievly adding 40,000 more troops.

Edited by Jazzns, : Spelling, probably some more I left behind but is it really worth it?


If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by rueh, posted 10-03-2009 4:15 PM rueh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by rueh, posted 10-06-2009 4:12 PM Jazzns has responded

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 1998 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 18 of 119 (528672)
10-06-2009 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jazzns
10-06-2009 2:12 PM


Re: Purified Wrong
Jazzns writes:

So your accusation that he let it sit on his desk is more defamation.


Actually that statement was meant to imply not that he left it while he went to Denmark, but that he has had it for over a month now with no action taken to address the issues within it.

Jazzns writes:

Second, you have no idea how much time he has spent deciding about how we are going to handle the war in Afghanistan. Just because he hasn't caved to impetuous generals intentionally leaked request for more troops does not mean he is not working the issue.


Your right I have no way to show exactly how much of President Obama's time has been spent working each issue. However I don't believe it is impetuous of the Generals to call for more troops. General McChrystal has been in command of the Afghanistan operations since June now and it is my belief that he would know what the situation calls for the best. I agree with you that the solution for Afghanistan will require more than military might, however if we are losing control of the situation than more troops are necessary in order to not lose all the ground we have made so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jazzns, posted 10-06-2009 2:12 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 10-06-2009 5:57 PM rueh has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(1)
Message 19 of 119 (528715)
10-06-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by rueh
10-06-2009 4:12 PM


Re: Purified Wrong
Actually that statement was meant to imply not that he left it while he went to Denmark, but that he has had it for over a month now with no action taken to address the issues within it.

Then perhaps you should choose your words more carefuly to avoid suggesting that the POTUS is derelict in his duty as CiC. You also have no idea what actions have been taken to address the issues within it because you have not read that report unless you happen to have a top secret DoD clearance and a need-to-know.

The only thing you do know is that he hasn't give McChrystal his 40k more troops that he asked for in the unclasified version which there is a fundamental and legitimate debate going on right now that such an action is even the right thing to do.

Your right I have no way to show exactly how much of President Obama's time has been spent working each issue. However I don't believe it is impetuous of the Generals to call for more troops.

It is not impetuous to ask for more troops, it is impetuous to intentionally leak a report to create a media frenzy. He had already requested the troops in the classified version that Obama had already read.

General McChrystal has been in command of the Afghanistan operations since June now and it is my belief that he would know what the situation calls for the best.

Generals are historically VERY bad a making policy decisions with few exceptions. He might know what he needs to defend against the current insurgency, but he is responding operationally to the situation. The solution, if there is one, is likely going to involve policy beyond which McCrystal has the authority to speak about.

I agree with you that the solution for Afghanistan will require more than military might, however if we are losing control of the situation than more troops are necessary in order to not lose all the ground we have made so far.

That makes a large assumption that we have even made "progress" at all. It is also quite possible that the vast majority of the insurgency, of which the majority is NOT al-qaida, is actually of our own creation to which adding more troops would only inflame the situation. A good chunk of the men who are fighting us are doing so because it is literally the only way they can feed their families.

Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.


If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by rueh, posted 10-06-2009 4:12 PM rueh has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(1)
Message 20 of 119 (528783)
10-06-2009 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jacortina
10-03-2009 12:25 AM


quote:
'The state and town HE picked'? Odd that I don't see the name 'Daley' in your post and that was the only 'he' that directed this whole process and allotted CITY funds for it.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/33130.../sports-olympic_sports

If you can show me unequivocally that Obama had nothing to do with choosing Chicago over any other state, I will retract my original statement, and feel more inclined to think Obama is an unbiased person.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jacortina, posted 10-03-2009 12:25 AM jacortina has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by subbie, posted 10-06-2009 11:45 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 25 by jacortina, posted 10-06-2009 11:48 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 28 by Joe T, posted 10-07-2009 9:43 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(1)
Message 21 of 119 (528784)
10-06-2009 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taz
10-03-2009 2:10 AM


quote:
You're nitpicking every move he makes and look for a reason to not like him.

Nitpicking every move? Show me one other time I said anything about Obama. Please retract that statement.

I was much harder on Bush than I am Obama, outside of this forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 10-03-2009 2:10 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(1)
Message 22 of 119 (528785)
10-06-2009 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
10-03-2009 2:50 PM


taz writes:

See, you throw out statements like these from time to time, which is why (and I freely admit, crucify me if you want) I don't have a lot of respect for you, riverrat. You're a fine guy, I'm sure. But from time to time, you let it slip that you don't really know the facts. What scares me is you are very strongly opinionated about these things based on fiction.

See 2 posts ago and follow that link. Obama pushed hard for Chicago. SO if that's the case, you can take everything you said in that long ridiculous post you made, trying to teach me about life and everything, back.

You should step outside your own body once and while and read what you write to people.

And for the last time EVER in this forum, I am neither a conservative, or a liberal, or a democrat, or a "fundie". I do not hate anyone for what they believe, or how they were born. I dislike certain ideas.

Stop the dumb tactics.

quote:
One night at about 3 AM or so, I went to my car and drove to a local construction site. I stole one of those things and brought it back to my place. Opened it up and found batteries.

Thanks for that short. That explains a lot. It will help me in my approach to you. FYI, everyone is not out to trick you or get you. Maybe your father just didn't know. Maybe he thought you were talking about the reflectors, or maybe he thought it was a reflector. Open your mind, and try to see the other side of people's actions. Try to look at them the way God might (if He exists). Maybe your Dad just didn't lie to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 10-03-2009 2:50 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 23 of 119 (528786)
10-06-2009 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by riVeRraT
10-06-2009 11:35 PM


Not quite unequivocal proof, maybe someone can find something more compelling, but the Chicago package was submitted to the IOC on Feb 12, 2009. Now, if you want to think that Obama engineered that in his first 23 days, you must think he's a very effective and efficient person.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by riVeRraT, posted 10-06-2009 11:35 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by riVeRraT, posted 10-06-2009 11:47 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(1)
Message 24 of 119 (528788)
10-06-2009 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by subbie
10-06-2009 11:45 PM


subbie writes:

Not quite unequivocal proof, maybe someone can find something more compelling, but the Chicago package was submitted to the IOC on Feb 12, 2009. Now, if you want to think that Obama engineered that in his first 23 days, you must think he's a very effective and efficient person.

You are joking right? How many pages were in the bailout plan? How long did that take?
Yes, the staff of the white house is very efficient, and Obama does a great job of implementing things into motion. Totally possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by subbie, posted 10-06-2009 11:45 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3421 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 25 of 119 (528789)
10-06-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by riVeRraT
10-06-2009 11:35 PM


That article isn't about picking Chicago as the American city, it's about his recent trip to Copenhagen once it was one of the final four.

This a link to the Chicago Reader's coverage of the Mayor's angling for the Olympics with articles going back to the beginning of 2007:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/2016-chicago.../Content

And everything in there points to it being Daley's baby. Nothing about the upstart candidate Obama being involved at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by riVeRraT, posted 10-06-2009 11:35 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2009 8:50 AM jacortina has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 26 of 119 (528798)
10-07-2009 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
10-02-2009 8:24 PM


Right On, RR
Obama used our tax payer's dollars to benefit his own personal gain. If Bush would have tried to bid for Texas to hold the Olympics, it would have been all over the media in a negative way.
Horse poop. Liberal/democrats are hypocrites. Been saying it for years. So are republicans, but that's besides the point.

Hi River Rat. Right. If the city would have been Dallas, he would not likely have made the trip. In his speech he said that it would please him to have it in his town, Chicago. Perhaps in light of all of the scandal and corruption, a terrible crime record and where he did his community organizing primarily to get together an army of political organizers to get himself in high office and where his good buds, Ayers and Wright etc were.

Remember that old song, Me, Me, I wanna talk about me etc. That song's for Obama. In his speech he said more about himself than he did for America. He never promotes America or Americanism. Whenever he mentions America abroad it's some kind of silly apology for all of the alleged wrong rather than to remind the world how benevolent we have been when disaster strikes abroad, etc.

So far my concerns about the man in the archived Obama thread have been on target and a lot of the sheeples are beginning to figure it out. The ratings bear this out. This is not the thread to go into it. Yah, the man and his family are having a ball on our dime.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Change sentence structure


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 10-02-2009 8:24 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(1)
Message 27 of 119 (528850)
10-07-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by jacortina
10-06-2009 11:48 PM


That link is pretty dam confusing, and not evendent enough to back up your claim. Quoted from your own link:

quote:
Please re-think your Olympic bid Mr. President. To many of Valerie Jarrett's real estate developer friends are going to make $millions$ if Chicago is selected. She is on your Olympic Comm. & the Chicago Olympic Comm. and has influcenced where the Olympic venues are to be located. For her friends to benefit from the Olympics is a HUGE conflict of interest. Mr. President, please get out of this deal before it bites you in the hinny!

One could also say that Daley knew the president would back him being that he was from Chicago. They might have even talked about it. It all points to corruption if you ask me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jacortina, posted 10-06-2009 11:48 PM jacortina has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jacortina, posted 10-07-2009 10:09 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Joe T
Member (Idle past 506 days)
Posts: 41
From: Virginia
Joined: 01-10-2002


(1)
Message 28 of 119 (528863)
10-07-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by riVeRraT
10-06-2009 11:35 PM


RR:
quote:
If you can show me unequivocally that Obama had nothing to do with choosing Chicago over any other state, I will retract my original statement, and feel more inclined to think Obama is an unbiased person.

From the Wikipedia page,

quote:
Initially, five American cities vied for the 2016 Olympics: Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. The USOC's chairman at the time, Peter Ueberroth, visited all potential host cities during April and May 2006. He visited Chicago on May 10. On July 26, 2006, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) narrowed its list of American applicant cities to three: Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco.[5] San Francisco withdrew its application on November 13, 2006 after the San Francisco 49ers pulled out of a deal for the construction of a new stadium that would be the centerpiece of the games.[6]
The final stage of the USOC internal selection occurred on April 14, 2007, at Washington, D.C.'s Embassy Row Hotel, where the two remaining bid cities, Chicago and Los Angeles, made a last 40-minute presentation to the USOC board members.[7] At about 9:00 pm UTC, Chicago was announced as the winner of the United States bid for the 2016 Olympic Games by Ueberroth.[8]

So the process began, at the latest, in May 2006 and the USOC made its selection in April of 2007. Seems pretty cut and dried that if there was White House influence in the city selection it would have to have been Bush White House influence.

Joe T.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by riVeRraT, posted 10-06-2009 11:35 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2009 1:31 PM Joe T has not yet responded

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3421 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 29 of 119 (528867)
10-07-2009 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by riVeRraT
10-07-2009 8:50 AM


This article was from ONE WEEK after Obama announced his candidacy.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/hes-going-to.../Content
quote:
Meanwhile, the Park District cuts programs and raises fees. The city's ready to build that Olympic stadium but somehow can't find enough money to mop the floors or replace the burned-out lightbulbs in its gyms and field houses.
...
Yet Daley's proposals for audacious projects keep coming. The reconstruction of Soldier Field was followed by the construction of Millennium Park, which is to be followed by the 2016 Olympics. How the city's going to pay for the Olympics is anyone's guess.

Do you know anything at all about Chicago or its politics or the Daley family? This thing has been in the works for a LOT longer than Obama has been of any real interest to anyone.

Only a couple of weeks later, they'd ALREADY voted in the City Council to commit $500 million in public dollars in order to get the USOC to let Chicago give the US bid for the Olympics:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/.../stir-soul-not-quite

Any mention of the (at the time) 3rd-place-in-the-early-polls Democratic Presidential candidate there?

Is it sinking in yet? Just browse the archives of the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times in 2006-2008. There's simply no question whatsoever that the whole idea and the whole impetus behind the thing was Little Richie Daley, wanting one BIG thing to outdo his old man.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2009 8:50 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2009 10:48 AM jacortina has not yet responded
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 10-07-2009 12:21 PM jacortina has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 30 of 119 (528873)
10-07-2009 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by jacortina
10-07-2009 10:09 AM


"......Olympic Push 'Political Payback' for Chicago Cronies?"
jacortina writes:

Is it sinking in yet? Just browse the archives of the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times in 2006-2008. There's simply no question whatsoever that the whole idea and the whole impetus behind the thing was Little Richie Daley, wanting one BIG thing to outdo his old man.

Hi Jacortina. Relative to the topic as to Obama's personal interest to the point of expending public funds for his own interests lends some insight.

That's what I call it. I think it's very clear and transparent and obvious that this is all about paying back the Daley machine. Richard M. Daley, the son of the famous boss of Chicago.

HANNITY: Michelle, I want to — can you connect the dots? I've read your article three times just to make sure that I understood it fully and completely. And you connect a lot of dots here and I want to do it step by step so the audience can understand this here. Because, you know, first of all, you know, he's going to Copenhagen. He's doing this.

We know the connection with Daley to the president to Axelrod, to Valerie Jarrett. Why don't you tie it together as you did in your article so people can understand it?

MALKIN: Well, this is all about the president's Chicago cronies. That's what this Olympic push is all about. And it starts with Richard M. Daley, the mayor of Chicago. He's been there since 1989. He would like to see this $5 billion party cap off his long grand tenure.

And it's a great way to white wash all of the city's ills in the Windy City and in Illinois for that matter. This tenure has been marked by graft, pay-for-play scandals, deteriorating public housing, schools that are a mess, and as you've pointed out and I've pointed out, Sean, a teen violence epidemic that is unabated that has not been helped by all these community organizers, et cetera, et cetera.

And so Richard M. Daley has been pushing the 2016 bid for the Summer Olympics. This has been his, quote-unquote, "vision." And he, along with all the cronies that have been installed in the White House, had made this their pet cause.

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jacortina, posted 10-07-2009 10:09 AM jacortina has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019