keiverarrow: I am a strong supporter of Obama, but I hope people come to understand that withholding criticism was just for the lead up to the election, and that it's open season on the man now.

Yep. We'll have to basically ignore the dipshiat neocons who have proven that their criticism is based on nothing but a desire for revenge, but citizens who actually care about the country should have their say.

the_pgoat

Even though I agree with everything you say, I will not raise a finger to defend your right to say it.

Or something like that.

Lando Lincoln: Criticize all you like, but if you could hold off the criticism until 1) he's actually President, and 2) they actually begin to implement some policy changes, then your criticism will be more effective.

Isn't the criticizism about appointments he is rightfully going ahead with before he takes the actual office? Obama is not delivering on the anti-war message like he was before the banking collapse took center stage.

Diogenes: If you think one president -- any president -- can fulfill all your wishes and desires to your complete satisfaction, well, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

This is bad news for the First Ladies.

I'll definitely be critical of obama....once he is president and once he starts to govern. Until then, it seems silly....like sour grapes.

/voted for Obama
//rooting for the guy.

Obama was never an anti-war candidate beyond his initial senate race. No Democrat was. Now that the election is over, maybe you people can actually discuss the matter instead of hemming and hawing about concern trolls and Fark Independents^TM

Lando Lincoln: Criticize all you like, but if you could hold off the criticism until 1) he's actually President, and 2) they actually begin to implement some policy changes, then your criticism will be more effective.

How can we have instant gratification if we have to wait till January? No fair!!

Of course his cabinet contains people who voted for the Iraq War. Practically EVERYBODY freaking voted for the Iraq War. He'd have to fill his cabinet with Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich to satisfy the anti-war groups.

Balderdash!

Not only can you directly criticize him, you should!

He's the bloody PRESIDENT, the most powerful elected office in the country, perhaps the world! He should his every action scrutinized, analyzed and criticized from every angle and at every opportunity!

/_{Provided it's legitimate criticism and not tinfoil-hat nonsense like this "birth certificate" garbage!}

king_nacho: keiverarrow
Shouldn't it have been open season from the beginning? Shouldn't people have known who they were voting for before he was elected.

In this day and age of technological advancement how hard is it find information about the guy?

Corvus: Umm did these people not notice the tons of times Obama said he would send more troops to Afghanistan?

The thing is, they're talking about less than 10k more troops for Afghanistan. Yet Mr. Obama voted to send 30,000 more troops to Iraq while they were asking for it. The things that make you say hmmmm...

Shaggy_C: Obama was never an anti-war candidate beyond his initial senate race.

I don't want an "anti-war" President...
I want a "pro-sensibility" President!

Lando Lincoln: Criticize all you like, but if you could hold off the criticism until 1) he's actually President, and 2) they actually begin to implement some policy changes, then your criticism will be more effective.

why should you wait till he's president before you criticize his picks for staff and cabinet?

FTFA: "Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning," said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.


That's great... but what's their stance now? A lot of people were fired up and looking for blood after 9/11 and the Bush administration sold it pretty hard. Just because they voted for it in 2002 does not mean that:

1) They still think, with the benefit of six years' hindsight, that it was a good idea.

or even

2) That they were 100% sure it was a good idea when they voted for it.


So please, Mr Activist, update your character references and get back to me.
=Smidge=

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Shaggy_C: Obama was never an anti-war candidate beyond his initial senate race.

I don't want an "anti-war" President...
I want a "pro-sensibility" President!

Obama has said in the past he isn't anti-war but against dumb ones

/makes sense to me

Edsel: Of course his cabinet contains people who voted for the Iraq War. Practically EVERYBODY freaking voted for the Iraq War. He'd have to fill his cabinet with Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich to satisfy the anti-war groups.

DENNIS KUCINICH!
ron paul?

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: I don't want an "anti-war" President...

I'm glad you can sleep at night knowing that your taxes paid each day go to slaughtering innocent people around the world.

Todo la vida es sagrado!

You can have peace, or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.~Robert Heinlein

Obama's stance on Iraq and Afghanistan is one of the reasons I voted for him. It's stupid head-in-the-sand thinking to be "anti-war". I am anti the Iraq war, but to be anti-war is to be willfully ignorant of history and human nature.

"There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him."

No really? Obama hero worship? You don't say!

People will learn. When there's so many accolades & so many "journalists" who practically blow the guy on the air, there's something fishy.

And then there was wailing and gnashing of teeth on the American left.

/In before the "get over it, you lost" crowd of fail
//Dem

Brainsick: It's stupid head-in-the-sand thinking to be "anti-war".

As opposed to 'pro-War'? Sorry, it should be an absolute last resort.

keiverarrow: I am a strong supporter of Obama, but I hope people come to understand that withholding criticism was just for the lead up to the election, and that it's open season on the man now.

WRONG! it's wabbit season

glassa:
there's something fishy.

That's just your vag.

Who the hell is saying Obama can't be criticized? Where does this crap even come from?

Shaggy_C: Brainsick: It's stupid head-in-the-sand thinking to be "anti-war".

As opposed to 'pro-War'? Sorry, it should be an absolute last resort.

No it shouldn't. We should make up reasons to go to war. And pay for it with a credit card.

Gangway Fathead: Who the hell is saying Obama can't be criticized? Where does this crap even come from?

Hillary democrats and republicans

king_nacho: keiverarrow
Shouldn't it have been open season from the beginning? Shouldn't people have known who they were voting for before he was elected.

Of course it's been open season. That stupid "he's a gay muslim socialist thing who pals around with professors they hardly knew who were terrorist-wannabes in their callow youth" was all over the media for months.

I think what this guy is talking about is real criticism. You know - things that actually matter.

Almost completely due to the fact that the GOP has been taken over by its own lunatics, there has been very little actual adult criticism of Obama's decisions.

I hope that will change.

Obama was never an anti-war candidate and never claimed to be one. He was against the Iraq War and for the Afghanistan War. Anti-war groups who didn't know this prior to his nomination were not paying attention.

Gangway Fathead: Who the hell is saying Obama can't be criticized? Where does this crap even come from?

The people who have been criticizing him for two years ironically.

glassa: blow the guy

again?

Shaggy_C: Brainsick: It's stupid head-in-the-sand thinking to be "anti-war".

As opposed to 'pro-War'? Sorry, it should be an absolute last resort.

I agree; but to say "I will not participate in a war" is akin to saying "please kill my neighbors and take my land by force" when there are other warlike elements about in the world. I'd love to see a world where countries settle disputes with negotiations and mutually beneficial arrangements, but when there's a horde of heavily armed killers headed your way "war" suddenly seems a lot less abhorrent. Sometimes, in order to survive, you have to kill. Just a sad fact.

SeismicJizzer: Hillary democrats

Which is odd, because people keep talking about Hillary for Sec of State, which would put her pro-war vote and sabre-rattling in a scary position.

Hillary is exactly the kind of person that these anti-war people are worried about. And anti-war folks aren't generally Republicans either.

Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet

As well they should. So far, I've got nothing but sh*t here for pointing it out.

"Change" does not mean doing the same old crap...

They are just concerned now? Did they not notice that he has consistently supported the war in Iraq since becoming a senator?

Obama has spent the last 20 months promising everything to everybody. His entire campaign was spent telling people exactly what they wanted to hear. Even if he fulfills 75% of his campaign promises, that will still leave a certain number of people unhappy that he broke a promise. Many, many people think of the guy as the messiah, while others are more pragmatic and realize that he was simply the most sensible candidate. The hero worship will subside when he doesn't do something he said he would (health care reform, for instance, has exactly zero chance of getting through Congress). Then hopefully we can move on as a country. We don't need a God as president, we just need somebody that isn't Bush.

Biological Ali: Much like 'pro-life', I feel that the label 'anti-war' doesn't really mean anything.

Well you have to make a distinction between those who are against war as a means to resolve conflict, but understand the necessity, and a true 'peacenick' who would rather see the United States invaded and controlled by a dictatorship rather than take up arms. *shrug* Count me in the first group. War is a nasty, nasty business.

whidbey: Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet

As well they should. So far, I've got nothing but sh*t here for pointing it out.

"Change" does not mean doing the same old crap...

The problem is that Barrack pledged to reach across the aisle and put moderates into power positions. Guess what, all the "moderates" are assholes like McCain and Lieberman, and they're all pro-war. So that leaves Barrack with some lousy options - go back on his word, appoint those hawkish losers, or appoint Ron Paul as secretary of EVERYTHING.

Brainsick: but to say "I will not participate in a war" is akin to saying "please kill my neighbors and take my land by force" when there are other warlike elements about in the world

Uh no. Keep in mind that the US is arguably the most powerful country in the world, and what we say carries a lot of weight.

I'd love to see a world where countries settle disputes with negotiations and mutually beneficial arrangements, but when there's a horde of heavily armed killers headed your way "war" suddenly seems a lot less abhorrent. Sometimes, in order to survive, you have to kill. Just a sad fact.

Which "horde" are you talking about? And how is bombing a bunch of innocents "survival?"

Brainsick: Sometimes, in order to survive, you have to kill. Just a sad fact.

I don't think we've fought a real war for survival since 1812.

whidbey: As well they should. So far, I've got nothing but sh*t here for pointing it out.

"Change" does not mean doing the same old crap...

Change from not preemptively invading Middle Eastern countries doesn't mean the drop your pants brigade is taking over foreign policy.

If you thought he would do any different than he is, you weren't really paying attention.

When Obama campaigned, he proposed:

-Increasing the size of the military.

-Increasing the presence in Afghanistan.

-Increasing the threat to Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

That's not dovish. Its just non-stupid.

Pxtl: whidbey: Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet

As well they should. So far, I've got nothing but sh*t here for pointing it out.

"Change" does not mean doing the same old crap...

The problem is that Barrack pledged to reach across the aisle and put moderates into power positions. Guess what, all the "moderates" are assholes like McCain and Lieberman, and they're all pro-war. So that leaves Barrack with some lousy options - go back on his word, appoint those hawkish losers, or appoint Ron Paul as secretary of EVERYTHING.

Or basically, no matter what he doesn't the freepers are going to complain about it.

Somehow he has to appoint moderates who haven't been in Washington long or have been lobbyists who also never supported the Iraq War.

As I said all through the camapign, it's unlikely that Obama will alter American foreign policy very much. Bush's policies will be Obama's policies, practically speaking. I'm not surprised by it at all.

Pxtl: SeismicJizzer: Hillary democrats

Which is odd, because people keep talking about Hillary for Sec of State, which would put her pro-war vote and sabre-rattling in a scary position.

Hillary is exactly the kind of person that these anti-war people are worried about. And anti-war folks aren't generally Republicans either.

From what I hear from these people Obama isn't qualified for office and Hillary will have to clean up his mess and she won't get any credit for it. Republicans have been pushing the meme Obama is a messiah and the liberal media's infatuation with him prevents them from criticizing him. The extreme lefties won't be happy with him unless he reincarnates into a Mike Gravel.

Thank god the rest of America just points and laugh at these people.

Pxtl: The problem is that Barrack pledged to reach across the aisle and put moderates into power positions.

He could at least do some more in-depth interviewing, and he doesn't HAVE to draw from the old guard.

You'd think that positive, creative people would be clamoring for the role.

bartink: -Increasing the size of the military.

Geez, what a 'progressive'. Here I was thinking we could maybe carve something out of the biggest money pit in the US government and use it for something useful for our own people. Geez, I'm such a sucker.

So let me get this straight:

2008 = Wait 'til he's president to criticize

2009 = It's just his first year in office! Wait a year to criticize!

2010 = Wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2011 = Didn't you hear me? wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2012 = It was just his first term. Criticize him his second term!

2013 = OMG! He's black, quit talking bad about him!

I'm generally a pacifist, although I recognize that war is sometimes a necessary evil. I'm also enthusiastic about the possibilities presented by an Obama presidency. That said, he's not an idiot - he knows that (a) withdrawing from Iraq will be a complicated, dangerous business, (b) Afghanistan is a mess which must be fixed and, like it or not, there will be a substantial military component to the process, and (c) he needs tough, credible, experienced people who are willing to stand up to him with opposing viewpoints in his cabinet - and in the country at large - if he is to avoid the danger of governing from an echo chamber.

Pxtl: whidbey: Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet

As well they should. So far, I've got nothing but sh*t here for pointing it out.

"Change" does not mean doing the same old crap...

The problem is that Barrack pledged to reach across the aisle and put moderates into power positions. Guess what, all the "moderates" are assholes like McCain and Lieberman, and they're all pro-war. So that leaves Barrack with some lousy options - go back on his word, appoint those hawkish losers, or appoint Ron Paul as secretary of EVERYTHING.

STEVE HOLT!

which of us would like to see the USA demoted to the status of canada or mexico or france in terms of 'DOMINATION of the Global village'???

// thats why the military machine will get extra support from the current Admin. We will be stepping up...steppn up north, to Iran, afganistan, pakistan, tajikasan, Russia.....
we have so much hunting to do!

Pacifists will be affectionately calling Bush an enlightened hippy by 2010,
and we will all be missing him.....people will even say the constitution should be changed to allow Mr. Bush to run again.

// all because nobody read or understood Mr. Obama's carefully written statements....nor understood the 5&10$ words in His speeches.
The smile is genuine
and generally mis understood

Mr Obama knows his grammar,
most of us...
not so much

EX: You can has bailout [cheeseburger]

'sounds' like
I has your cheesburger, i eated it.

// did you hear what you thought u heard?

lectos: So let me get this straight:

2008 = Wait 'til he's president to criticize

2009 = It's just his first year in office! Wait a year to criticize!

2010 = Wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2011 = Didn't you hear me? wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2012 = It was just his first term. Criticize him his second term!

2013 = OMG! He's black, quit talking bad about him!

FTFY.

Pretty much exactly that. If the rest happens, be sure to let us know. Until then...

They'll get over it. I've been called every name in the book for opposing Obama. Eventually you just quit giving a shiat what arbitrary labels libs love to fling at you and just say what you want.

lectos: So let me get this straight:

2008 = Wait 'til he's president to criticize

2009 = It's just his first year in office! Wait a year to criticize!

2010 = Wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2011 = Didn't you hear me? wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2012 = It was just his first term. Criticize him his second term!

2013 = OMG! He's black, quit talking bad about him! I'm an idiot

FTFY

bartink: When Obama campaigned, he proposed:

-Increasing the size of the military.

-Increasing the presence in Afghanistan.

-Increasing the threat to Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

That's not dovish. Its just non-stupid.

"Non-stupid?" Explain that one, given the foreign policy failures of the past 20 years...

Though, granted, if this administration can at least take the step of going through the UN, that's a big difference.

I just realized I dropped the F-bomb in a way the filter wouldn't catch it.

Sorry, admins.

lectos: So let me get this straight:

2008 = Wait 'til he's president to criticize

2009 = It's just his first year in office! Wait a year to criticize!

2010 = Wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2011 = Didn't you hear me? wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2012 = It was just his first term. Criticize him his second term!

2013 = OMG! He's black, quit talking bad about him!

lectos: So let me get this straight:

2008 = Wait 'til he's president to criticize

2009 = It's just his first year in office! Wait a year to criticize!

2010 = Wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2011 = Didn't you hear me? wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2012 = It was just his first term. Criticize him his second term!

2013 = OMG! He's black, quit talking bad about him!

generally people assess a presidency around the end of the 4th year, but that won't stop the Obama derangement syndrome constituents from whining, hell this thread is evident of it.

barneyfifesbullet:

DIAF.

Darconix: They'll get over it. I've been called every name in the book for opposing Obama. Eventually you just quit giving a shiat what arbitrary labels libs love to fling at you and just say what you want.

No you've been called every name in the book because you are a troll and an idiot.

Wow, it's going to be really funny watching the previously anti-war liberals start to defend continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan over the next couple years. You can already see the transition happening.

?

During the campaign, he wanted to use the "$10 billion a month we're spending on Iraq" to fund his domestic priorities.

I always wondered how he got that figure - does it include service personnel's salaries, does it assume there will be zero continuing American presence in Iraq?

Of course, if we simply move the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, there may be a net cost increase.

Well one good thing about this thread is that I can update my favorites list...

Arnold T Pants: Wow, it's going to be really funny watching the previously anti-war liberals start to defend continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan over the next couple years. You can already see the transition happening.

Don't act like you could ever explain or understand their positions.

FlashHarry: b...b...b...but obama is the most liberal bipedal life-form ever! sarah palin told me so!!

Wow both parties are right-of-center...

Now who would'a thunk it?

whidbey: Brainsick: but to say "I will not participate in a war" is akin to saying "please kill my neighbors and take my land by force" when there are other warlike elements about in the world

Uh no. Keep in mind that the US is arguably the most powerful country in the world, and what we say carries a lot of weight.

I'd love to see a world where countries settle disputes with negotiations and mutually beneficial arrangements, but when there's a horde of heavily armed killers headed your way "war" suddenly seems a lot less abhorrent. Sometimes, in order to survive, you have to kill. Just a sad fact.

Which "horde" are you talking about? And how is bombing a bunch of innocents "survival?"

Completely hypothetical horde, I was just illustrating my point. I never mentioned bombing innocents, so your question is moot. (Of course I don't condone "bombing innocents") I was just making a point; namely, that being "anti-war" is a good way to get killed when someone else brings war to you. You also forgot to quote where I said I was aginst the Iraq war. I'm not making statements about our current power, just statements concerning war in general.

Arnold T Pants: Wow, it's going to be really funny watching the previously anti-war liberals start to defend continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan over the next couple years. You can already see the transition happening.

Where?

bartink: Don't act like you could ever explain or understand their positions.

Well you can't rationally explain them because they aren't rational. But they are easily understood: partisan politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

Brainsick: I never mentioned bombing innocents, so your question is moot. (Of course I don't condone "bombing innocents") I was just making a point;

But you were also ignoring the fact that bombing innocents is pretty much what this country has done in the past 20 years or more...

namely, that being "anti-war" is a good way to get killed when someone else brings war to you.

Well, seeing as how we haven't actually had a war in my lifetime, especially one that someone has "brought" to us, your point is irrelevant.

You also forgot to quote where I said I was aginst the Iraq war. I'm not making statements about our current power, just statements concerning war in general.

Then you're really out to lunch, sorry. I disagree with everything you've posted, then.

Darconix [TotalFark] 2008-11-20 03:02:21 PM
They'll get over it. I've been called every name in the book for opposing Obama. Eventually you just quit giving a shiat what arbitrary labels libs love to fling at you and just say what you want.""


// ahhh yes people have misunderstood my support of Mr. Obama.
I do respect his skill at Law & command of the english lang.

// However... I wanted Him in the top seat ...
To punish and scratch & maul as many uneducated, unmotivated, lazy, spineless, & greedy americans as possible[adds to 90%]..
very efficient.
He's doing & gonna do just about every thing i would do.. if was prez, saving me the labor.

its all in the grammar....

if a Cat is recommending a Pres. for y'all...
common sense should tell you its not for your comfort

// Your cheeseburgers...
i eat them up.....

Moses To Sandy Koufax: Obamaeveryone who has ever run for the office has spent the last 20 months promising everything to everybody. His entire campaign was spent telling people exactly what they wanted to hear.

I'm reminded of this tfa and thread

(Some Guy) Remember 2006, when Rahm Emanuel " labored hard to keep strongly anti-war candidates off the Democratic line and slate Iraq equivocators instead"? Get ready to get dissapointed with Obama's "anti-war" promises (9)

Arnold T Pants: Wow, it's going to be really funny watching the previously anti-war liberals start to defend continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan over the next couple years.

That will be almost precisely as funny as watching the neocons say we need to get the fark out now, when they previously said we couldn't leave.

/Your game, it's fun to me.

whidbey: FlashHarry: b...b...b...but obama is the most liberal bipedal life-form ever! sarah palin told me so!!

Wow both parties are right-of-center...

Now who would'a thunk it?

Or a better way to view it would be that the Republicans are insanely far right and the Democrats are the ones that are actually central.

FlashHarry: b...b...b...but obama is the most liberal bipedal life-form ever! sarah palin told me so!!!

reposted elchip pic


to


/political compass now moved gravel further to the right.

Party Boy: Get ready to get dissapointed with Obama's "anti-war" promises

*shrugs*

Well you know, if he f*cks up, we can always vote him out in four years.

The thing is, criticism like this is healthy...

Party Boy: political compass now moved gravel further to the right.

What do you attribute that to?

Was he just a pretender?

CaptMacMillian: Or a better way to view it would be that the Republicans are insanely far right and the Democrats are the ones that are actually central.

In other words, there's no real alternative for progressives. But we knew that...:)

whidbey: The thing is, criticism like this is healthy.

Absolutely.

I think of it like Eagles fans. You know, the die hard ones who boo during the draft pics.

Arnold T Pants: Well you can't rationally explain them because they aren't rational. But they are easily understood: partisan politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, you are the one who cannot explain it. That doesn't make you somehow brilliant. It makes you the one that can't understand the candidate who has had the most educated supporters of your lifetime.

Its not them, its you.

whidbey: Brainsick: I never mentioned bombing innocents, so your question is moot. (Of course I don't condone "bombing innocents") I was just making a point;

But you were also ignoring the fact that bombing innocents is pretty much what this country has done in the past 20 years or more...

namely, that being "anti-war" is a good way to get killed when someone else brings war to you.

Well, seeing as how we haven't actually had a war in my lifetime, especially one that someone has "brought" to us, your point is irrelevant.

You also forgot to quote where I said I was aginst the Iraq war. I'm not making statements about our current power, just statements concerning war in general.

Then you're really out to lunch, sorry. I disagree with everything you've posted, then.


Yes. Yes we have.

/And Bushco led us into a war in a country that had nothing to do with it

whidbey: What do you attribute that to?

I never checked why they moved him to the right.

let me google that for me.

bartink: lectos: So let me get this straight:

2008 = Wait 'til he's president to criticize

2009 = It's just his first year in office! Wait a year to criticize!

2010 = Wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2011 = Didn't you hear me? wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2012 = It was just his first term. Criticize him his second term!

2013 = OMG! He's black, quit talking bad about him!

FTFY.

Pretty much exactly that. If the rest happens, be sure to let us know. Until then...

I'll take that and raise you a:

Corvus: Umm did these people not notice the tons of times Obama said he would send more troops to Afghanistan?

Which I agree with.

And Pakistan

Which I agree with.

Joke is on the libs.

Iran is going to test him and he'll have the troops in there too...

Party Boy: I'm reminded of this tfa and thread

(Some Guy) Remember 2006, when Rahm Emanuel " labored hard to keep strongly anti-war candidates off the Democratic line and slate Iraq equivocators instead"? Get ready to get dissapointed with Obama's "anti-war" promises (9)

I do remember. I also fully expected his war policy to be a moving target through the election so meh, it'll still be better than the alternative.

If he renegs on curbing executive power and honoring treaty commitments though, I will blow a gasket.

Does anybody that's listened, actually listened, to what Obama has had to say, actually believe he's anti-war?

The alts are out in full force today...

Brainsick: Yes. Yes we have.

/And Bushco led us into a war in a country that had nothing to do with it

Your point, its right. Your method, its old.

Karma Curmudgeon: I will blow a gasket.

I'm playing wait-and-see at the moment, too.

Brainsick: Yes. Yes we have.

Sorry to burst your patriotic bubble, but 9/11 wasn't a war. It was a criminal act, and our country would have been saved a lot of hassle had the Bush administration classified it as such.

rcantley: actually believe he's anti-war?

It was anti-Iraq war. Hes been rather open on wanting to ramp up Afghanistan and increase ground troops.

Party Boy: It was anti-Iraq war. Hes been rather open on wanting to ramp up Afghanistan and increase ground troops.

My girlfriend just raised and excellent point. His hero is Abraham Lincoln. Did you really think he was going to be some kind of idealistic dove?

whidbey: .

BTW, isnt that "let me google that" the snarkiest thing on the internet?

/I put "for me" on purpose, but wanted to share some lulz

I usually by books on line, so I'm rarely in a bricks & mortar bookstore anymore. I did, however, go to Buns and Noodle last night to pickup a Birmbaum guide.

First, I notice just how much I missed real book stores.

Then I noticed the place was chock full of Obama porn.

When you guys realize you ain't getting what you thought you voted for, you can pick these up online . . .

bartink: Did you really think he was going to be some kind of idealistic dove?

Analogues are weak. and is "Idealistic dove" really equivalent withParty Boy: It was anti-Iraq war. Hes been rather open on wanting to ramp up Afghanistan and increase ground troops?

This is where the campaign was.

Pxtl

I like what you said:

RON PAUL FOR SECRETARY OF EVERYTHING

rcantley: Does anybody that's listened, actually listened, to what Obama has had to say, actually believe he's anti-war?

I thought he was a bit reticent, really. I admired the fact that he opposed the Iraq invasion and that he pledged to end the occupation.

Afghanistan is more wincing. Anyone with knowledge of the UN charter and international law should know the bombing was a war crime, plain and simple. Any ground troops in Afghanistan should be for reparations and rebuilding and nothing else.

Party Boy: It was anti-Iraq war. Hes been rather open on wanting to ramp up Afghanistan and increase ground troops.

Mother-farkin' THIS

whidbey: Brainsick: Yes. Yes we have.

Sorry to burst your patriotic bubble, but 9/11 wasn't a war. It was a criminal act, and our country would have been saved a lot of hassle had the Bush administration classified it as such.

Now you're arguing semantics. Pearl Harbor wasn't a "war" either, it was the catalyst that got us involved. I responded to your assertation that war has not been brought to us, and you twisted it to fit your argument. We were attacked, we declared war on the attackers, and then went after someone else entirely. If you can't understand that, then we're done here.

Party Boy: BTW, isnt that "let me google that" the snarkiest thing on the internet?

I LOL'D. Very snarky...

Brainsick: Now you're arguing semantics. Pearl Harbor wasn't a "war" either, it was the catalyst that got us involved. I responded to your assertation that war has not been brought to us, and you twisted it to fit your argument. We were attacked, we declared war on the attackers, and then went after someone else entirely. If you can't understand that, then we're done here.

Whidbeys bright, but sometimes he types before he really thinks it through. Then he will spend hours defending something stupid he wishes he would have never said. He understands, move on.

the_pgoat: Um, this is mother-f*ckin' America! Of course, you can criticize him.

I think the problem with ANYBODY who complains about being unable to criticize a politician is that he really wants to be able to criticize the politician without anyone objecting. The whole point is that you say something, someone objects, then you defend your position. People are so godddamned lazy.

I hope you're wrong, but you're probably right.

Brainsick: Now you're arguing semantics. Pearl Harbor wasn't a "war" either, it was the catalyst that got us involved. I responded to your assertation that war has not been brought to us, and you twisted it to fit your argument. We were attacked, we declared war on the attackers, and then went after someone else entirely. If you can't understand that, then we're done here.

You can't understand that both Afghanistan and Iraq were BOTH illegal operations, war crimes, in fact, and that no, we did not "declare" war on anyone...

So go wave your flag somewhere else.

Smidge204: That's great... but what's their stance now? A lot of people were fired up and looking for blood after 9/11 and the Bush administration sold it pretty hard. Just because they voted for it in 2002 does not mean that:

1) They still think, with the benefit of six years' hindsight, that it was a good idea.

or even

2) That they were 100% sure it was a good idea when they voted for it.

I'd prefer a representative who could see past the BS and act for the good of his or her country, if it's not too much to ask. This sort of decision required no hindsight. It was apparent when the House Resolutions were being voted upon that war was unnecessary and that in the long term it would harm America greatly. Those in either party who believed that this Iraq adventure was in the best interests of America are simply disqualifying themselves from any future office. They're telling you that they couldn't foresee the predictable fallout of our invasion or worse, that they did know but voted in favor of war to sate a voting public with revenge on its mind.

Hindsight, my ass. We deserve better.

whidbey: Brainsick: Now you're arguing semantics. Pearl Harbor wasn't a "war" either, it was the catalyst that got us involved. I responded to your assertation that war has not been brought to us, and you twisted it to fit your argument. We were attacked, we declared war on the attackers, and then went after someone else entirely. If you can't understand that, then we're done here.

You can't understand that both Afghanistan and Iraq were BOTH illegal operations, war crimes, in fact, and that no, we did not "declare" war on anyone...

So go wave your flag somewhere else.

Do I have to take back my solid? Way to fark someone sticking up for you...

bartink: Change from not preemptively invading Middle Eastern countries doesn't mean the drop your pants brigade is taking over foreign policy.

If you thought he would do any different than he is, you weren't really paying attention.

When Obama campaigned, he proposed:

-Increasing the size of the military.

-Increasing the presence in Afghanistan.

-Increasing the threat to Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

That's not dovish. Its just non-stupid.

Party Boy: This is where the campaign was.

I was agreeing with you. His opponents made him out to be an idealistic dove. He wasn't. He was, like his hero Lincoln, a pragmatic, reluctant hawk. He isn't against kicking ass and taking names, killing innocents as collateral damage. He is against doing it without thought to consequences, just like a huuuuuge chunk of his supporters, who weren't wide-eyed idealists so much as smart/educated enough to see the Bush thing was beyond stupid.

bartink: Whidbeys bright, but sometimes he types before he really thinks it through. Then he will spend hours defending something stupid he wishes he would have never said. He understands, move on

Excuse me?

Emmanuel and Clinton worry me, but not Gates. He is not a controversial figure and would ideally keep his job for at least the first year. I'll judge Mr. Obama on his actions, but maybe if anything good comes out of this it's that it helps refrain Israel from doing anything stupid.

Brainsick: Do I have to take back my solid? Way to fark someone sticking up for you...

How were you "sticking up" for me? You thought we declared a war, presumably against Afghanistan, or was it Al Qaeda? and then you berated me for correctly stating that no one has actually "brought war" to this country in my lifetime.

whidbey: How were you "sticking up" for me? You thought we declared a war, presumably against Afghanistan, or was it Al Qaeda? and then you berated me for correctly stating that no one has actually "brought war" to this country in my lifetime.

I was sticking up for, in a way.

I have to go, but I could probably bait you for a long while.

/mmmmmm, bating

bartink: I have to go, but I could probably bait you for a long while.

Yeah you could. What is this, payback? ;-p

whidbey: I LOL'D. Very snarky...

I wish I would have thought of it. shiat, its funny.

bartink: I was agreeing with you. His opponents made him out to be an idealistic dove. He wasn't. He was, like his hero Lincoln, a pragmatic, reluctant hawk. He isn't against kicking ass and taking names, killing innocents as collateral damage. He is against doing it without thought to consequences, just like a huuuuuge chunk of his supporters, who weren't wide-eyed idealists so much as smart/educated enough to see the Bush thing was beyond stupid.

I see your point now. I've seen various 'anti-war' people get butthurt over obama even before the election. Id say theres a mix here of what your saying and other things.
Right (see archive list to the right)
More Right
Left

whidbey: Brainsick: Do I have to take back my solid? Way to fark someone sticking up for you...

How were you "sticking up" for me? You thought we declared a war, presumably against Afghanistan, or was it Al Qaeda? and then you berated me for correctly stating that no one has actually "brought war" to this country in my lifetime.

War on Terror ring any bells? I didn't berate you, you were assigning meaning and specifics where I had none, and I was correcting you. Failing to recognize someone trying to help (Bartink) didn't help your case, either. Just stop before you say something that turns you into a Fark meme...

Brainsick: War on Terror ring any bells? I didn't berate you, you were assigning meaning and specifics where I had none, and I was correcting you. Failing to recognize someone trying to help (Bartink) didn't help your case, either. Just stop before you say something that turns you into a Fark meme...

I already am one.

And your ignorance is astounding. The "War" on "Terror" is neither.

Brainsick: War on Terror ring any bells?

So, does the fact that Class Warfare has been a term used for over a century now, that different social classes have actually been at war? How about War of the Sexes?

War is armed conflict among nation states. Therefore, 9/11 was not an act of war. This isn't just semantics...this is an important distinction that you're blurring by making the above comment.

I think a lot of people from both sides of the aisle are confusing idolatry and hero-worship with the fact that he's simply not George Bush. There's millions of people - hell, there might be billions of people partying on 1/20, and they would have been doing so if the counter guy from my convenience store were taking over.

We will continue the War on Drugs as well:

Barack Obama's selection of Eric Holder as his attorney general is a very discouraging sign for anyone who hoped the new administration would de-escalate the war on drugs. As Dave Weigel noted earlier today, Holder pushed for stiffer marijuana penalties when he was the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and the details are strikingly at odds not only with Obama's signals regarding marijuana but with his opposition to long sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.

Crocoduck: War is armed conflict among nation states. Therefore, 9/11 was not an act of war. This isn't just semantics...this is an important distinction that you're blurring by making the above comment.

WIKI: War on Terror
The casus belli for the Bush administration's conceptual War on Terror, which resulted in the 2001 Afghan war and the 2003 Iraq war, was the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and the apparently intended attack on the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C..

So, you're saying an attack by a political/ideological group on a sovereign nation is not an act of war, right? Because it looks to me like this "criminal" act has led to at least two "real" wars by your definition.


/Semantics again

Just so I'm clear

LibertyFirst: We will continue the War on Drugs as well:

It really should be the new motto for the Republicrats - Change we can put off for another generation!

Shaggy_C: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: I don't want an "anti-war" President...

I'm glad you can sleep at night knowing that your taxes paid each day go to slaughtering innocent people around the world.

Todo la vida es sagrado!

So there's no middle ground at all between "total pacifism" and "homicidal maniac"?

Moses To Sandy Koufax: Obama has spent the last 20 months promising everything to everybody.

Then why did we keep hearing (and still keep hearing) that he never promised anything, that all he did was talk airily about "hope" and "change" without any specific content?

Is this kinda like how Obama is going to completely wreck the country and make it a stalinist hell-hole, but he's also just a business-as-usual politician who will completely fail to deliver on his empty promise of "change"?

(Does that mean that America already is a Stalinist hell-hole?)

Brainsick: So, you're saying an attack by a political/ideological group on a sovereign nation is not an act of war, right? Because it looks to me like this "criminal" act has led to at least two "real" wars by your definition.

No, a "criminal act" has led to two illegal POLICE ACTIONS.

And we made a mistake when we refused to classify the attacks on the WTC as a criminal action. The pursuit of justice should have been a criminal investigation, not the klstrfk it turned out to be for everyone.

Bombing Afghanistan accomplished nothing but the deaths of untold innocents.

If you tell people that President Obama is a tool of the military-industrial complex, that is valid criticism, though maybe not correct.

If you tell people that President Obama is a Muslim America-Hating Monkeyman, DIAF.

poot_rootbeer: If you tell people that President Obama is a tool of the military-industrial complex, that is valid criticism, though maybe not correct.

I knew going into this that any President is going to face the same pressures that any of them face to keep this country a well-oiled war machine...

It's what we are/do.

Snot Monster from Outer Space: So there's no middle ground at all between "total pacifism" and "homicidal maniac"?

There is definitely a middle ground. That's exactly my point; everyone should be anti-war because it's a nasty business. It should be the absolute last resort.

Brainsick: So, you're saying an attack by a political/ideological group on a sovereign nation is not an act of war, right? Because it looks to me like this "criminal" act has led to at least two "real" wars by your definition.

Yes and no. You're correct in recognizing the 9/11 attacks as criminal acts perpetrated by a political/ ideological group upon a sovereign nation. This, by my definition and many others, including the UN, does not constitute an act of war.

Now, to say that these acts directly led to our response of engaging in war with either Iraq or Afghanistan...well, there's where I see a disconnect. America was in no way bound to wage war against either nation. We chose to invade, when we might have adopted any number of different responses.

JohnBigBootay: That will be almost precisely as funny as watching the neocons say we need to get the fark out now, when they previously said we couldn't leave.

/Your game, it's fun to me.

Well, the real neocons will never say we need to get out. They want to be there. Bill Kristol couldn't be happier with Obama right now. The partisan Republicans that were just following the neocons at the time will switch their positions. And yes, that will be funny as well.

bartink: Again, you are the one who cannot explain it. That doesn't make you somehow brilliant. It makes you the one that can't understand the candidate who has had the most educated supporters of your lifetime.

Its not them, its you.

It must be hard being a brain dead partisan. Faithfully following your party as they change positions when they go from a role of just rhetoric to leadership. Pretending that views the party had months ago coincide with their current or upcoming actions.

/most educated supporters. LOL.

poot_rootbeer: If you tell people that President Obama is a Muslim America-Hating Monkeyman, DIAF.

As opposed to the current criticism levelled against the sitting President that he is a Redneck, Constitution-Trampling, America-Hating Monkeyman.

Crocoduck: Brainsick: So, you're saying an attack by a political/ideological group on a sovereign nation is not an act of war, right? Because it looks to me like this "criminal" act has led to at least two "real" wars by your definition.

Yes and no. You're correct in recognizing the 9/11 attacks as criminal acts perpetrated by a political/ ideological group upon a sovereign nation. This, by my definition and many others, including the UN, does not constitute an act of war.

Now, to say that these acts directly led to our response of engaging in war with either Iraq or Afghanistan...well, there's where I see a disconnect. America was in no way bound to wage war against either nation. We chose to invade, when we might have adopted any number of different responses.

I already stated that my original post was meant to be a broad generalization, but since people seem hellbent on making my statements apply to our current society, let me respond:
We chose to invade, which I disagree with. I was making the point that being "anti-war" is akin to being "anti-speeding-train". You can be against it all you want, but the people who attack you don't care. As for our other options after 9/11 I myself have often wondered why our special forces teams didn't go in and do what they are best at. If GWB and Co. hadn't squandered our standing in the world things may have played out very differently, I'll give you that, but what? Can you name three of these "other options"?

Lol, turns out idiots on BOTH sides think Obama as a peacenik for some reason. Why? He may have been against the Iraq war, but he wasn't ever against all war. He always said he would take a harder stance on Pakistan and Afganistan. If these groups don't like it they can STFU and STFU (that's shut the fark up and sit the fark down) because he's never said he was the peace and love candidate.

/Not quite on topic, but close enough for me.

Darconix: poot_rootbeer: If you tell people that President Obama is a Muslim America-Hating Monkeyman, DIAF.

As opposed to the current criticism levelled against the sitting President that he is a Redneck, Constitution-Trampling, America-Hating Monkeyman.

When Obama has been president 8 years and ends up instituting Sharia law and throwing his feces at a prime minister, as Bush has acted like a redneck and trampled the constitution, THEN you can call Obama a muslim america hating monkeyman.

Arnold T Pants: It must be hard being a brain dead partisan. Faithfully following your party as they change positions when they go from a role of just rhetoric to leadership. Pretending that views the party had months ago coincide with their current or upcoming actions.

Kind of like the flip-flop between Kosovo and Iraq, eh? Republicans were the anti-war party in the 2000 elections, promising a 'humble foreign policy'. Bush himself was calling for timetables and whatnot all throughout 1999. So the people voted for him. What did we get? More bloodshed than before. Suddenly the Republicans are the 'pro-war' party and the Democrats, who 5 years before were supporting the bombings, were suddenly the 'peace' party. And the loyalists on both sides took the flip without even batting an eye. For shame.

Brainsick: I was making the point that being "anti-war" is akin to being "anti-speeding-train". You can be against it all you want, but the people who attack you don't care.

And your solution is to sink to the attackers' level?

As for our other options after 9/11 I myself have often wondered why our special forces teams didn't go in and do what they are best at.

Ah more illegal meddlings. You really don't believe in the concept of international law, do you? You don't seem to think this country should follow it, anyway...

Not following established protocol, protocol this country was more than instrumental in setting up, only undermines our credibility.

whidbey: Ah more illegal meddlings. You really don't believe in the concept of international law, do you? You don't seem to think this country should follow it, anyway...

Really, we should have gone to the UN, gotten approval, and then moved in under an international banner to shut down all Al Qaeda facilities and hunt down Bin Laden - with or without the Taliban's agreement. We never needed to go anywhere near Kabul.

Arnold T Pants: It must be hard being a brain dead partisan.

Really? You seem to pull it off pretty well.

But hell, keep it up. People like you drove me out of the party. It's hardly lonely here, but the quicker you drive out the last remaining non-crazies out of the GOP, the quicker there is a chance of an actual adult opposition party forming.

RemyDuron: Darconix: poot_rootbeer: If you tell people that President Obama is a Muslim America-Hating Monkeyman, DIAF.

As opposed to the current criticism levelled against the sitting President that he is a Redneck, Constitution-Trampling, America-Hating Monkeyman.

When Obama has been president 8 years and ends up instituting Sharia law and throwing his feces at a prime minister, as Bush has acted like a redneck and trampled the constitution, THEN you can call Obama a muslim america hating monkeyman.

No I can't. Because you'll just accuse me of engaging in partisan hackery, despite the fact that you libs were engaging in partisan hackery against Bush the entire time. Bush hasn't "trampled the Constitution," you libs just claim he does because of your partisan political differences. So if you were to be completely honest you'd let me call Obama the same as soon as he takes the oath of office.

Darconix: So if you were to be completely honest you'd let me call Obama the same as soon as he takes the oath of office.

Why wait? Liberals didn't.

Darconix: They'll get over it. I've been called every name in the book for opposing Obama. Eventually you just quit giving a shiat what arbitrary labels libs love to fling at you and just say what you want.

"Opposing Obama" is fine. Some of my friends didn't just vote for McCain - they voted AGAINST Obama.

But merely opposing Obama is not the same as hoping 15,000,000 Americans starve to death so President Obama looks bad.

whidbey: Brainsick: I was making the point that being "anti-war" is akin to being "anti-speeding-train". You can be against it all you want, but the people who attack you don't care.

And your solution is to sink to the attackers' level?


Hell yeah! Didn't we round up every Aryan and put them into concentration camps after WWII?

Okay...we DID execute Japanese war criminals for waterboarding POWs, while our government now officially endorses this method of interrogation...but that was different - they aren't Caucasian, just like A-rabs aren't.

USA! USA! USA!

/Am I doing it right?

Darconix: poot_rootbeer: If you tell people that President Obama is a Muslim America-Hating Monkeyman, DIAF.

As opposed to the current criticism levelled against the sitting President that he is a Redneck, Constitution-Trampling, America-Hating Monkeyman.

Well at least that attack has a hint of truth to it.

Shaggy_C: Snot Monster from Outer Space: So there's no middle ground at all between "total pacifism" and "homicidal maniac"?

There is definitely a middle ground. That's exactly my point; everyone should be anti-war because it's a nasty business. It should be the absolute last resort.

I agree with you there. I'm pretty sure that Obama would agree with you too. The difficult part is deciding when we've reached "the last resort."

I marched in the streets against the invasion of Iraq before it had been (at least officially) decided upon. I didn't march against the invasion of Afghanistan, although I felt deeply conflicted about it. Had Bush resisted the lure of Iraq, kept his focus on shoring up a credible central power in Afghanistan and found a way to help it become a functioning state, history would judge him very, very differently. As it is, he's going to get the official Worst President Ever seal for many years to come.

It may be too late for American military force to do any good in Afghanistan. On the other hand a rapid withdrawal of US forces will certainly lead to a lot more killing and a lot of future suffering under the restored Taliban. I'm glad I don't have to make that choice--I can certainly see arguments either way.

Shaggy_C: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: I don't want an "anti-war" President...

I'm glad you can sleep at night knowing that your taxes paid each day go to slaughtering innocent people around the world.

Todo la vida es sagrado!

Phuque... You!

If you can't tell the difference between "anti-war in Iraq" and "anti-war" period...

No, phuque THAT, too! You can DAMNED well tell the difference!

There's just no level of stupidity and ignorance you're not willing to feign as long as it keeps you from having to admit you're wrong!

If you ever want to see the absolute dregs that any facet of society has to offer, you need look no further than FARK!

Lando Lincoln:

Hey, could you ask your crystal ball what the next winning lottery numbers are going to be? I really could use the cash.

Easy. Just take 666 and divide by zero and

Shaggy_C: Obama was never an anti-war candidate beyond his initial senate race. No Democrat was. Now that the election is over, maybe you people can actually discuss the matter instead of hemming and hawing about concern trolls and Fark IndependentsTM

I'm sorry but if gets votes from people on a few promises and then doesn't even attempt to deliver on them, I think people have the right to call him out on it. Even being the TF messiah.

Lando Lincoln: lectos: So let me get this straight:

2008 = Wait 'til he's president to criticize

2009 = It's just his first year in office! Wait a year to criticize!

2010 = Wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2011 = Didn't you hear me? wait for the changes to kick in before you criticize

2012 = It was just his first term. Criticize him his second term!

2013 = OMG! He's black, quit talking bad about him!

Hey, could you ask your crystal ball what the next winning lottery numbers are going to be? I really could use the cash.

You forgot how everything will be pushed onto Bush.

Nemo's Brother: You forgot how everything will be pushed onto Bush.

Like how things were pushed onto Clinton?

/love the blame game

Nemo's Brother: Shaggy_C: Obama was never an anti-war candidate beyond his initial senate race. No Democrat was. Now that the election is over, maybe you people can actually discuss the matter instead of hemming and hawing about concern trolls and Fark IndependentsTM

I'm sorry but if gets votes from people on a few promises and then doesn't even attempt to deliver on them, I think people have the right to call him out on it. Even being the TF messiah.

Well yeah, if he farks up he deserves to be called out on it. As of right now you're trying to call him out on things that he hasn't even done.

Which makes you look stupid.

CaptMacMillian: Nemo's Brother: You forgot how everything will be pushed onto Bush.

Like how things were pushed onto Clinton?

/love the blame game

What will your stance on Obama be when we are still in Iraq in 2010?

My prediction on Iraq is that it will become more popular once Obama is president. Things have been getting better there for a while, but once O is president, the media will start reporting on it again. The implication will be because of Obama things are finally getting better.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: If you can't tell the difference between "anti-war in Iraq" and "anti-war" period...

No, phuque THAT, too! You can DAMNED well tell the difference!

This isn't just about Iraq. It's about our attitudes, individually, and as a nation, about war. In the week just before the election, US forces were engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, and Pakistan. And that's the stuff we know about. Citizens of sovereign nations, killed, by our military, and none of it as part of any declared war. Beyond that, we have more than 800 permanent bases in over 100 countries. We're a militarized nation, and an aggressive nation, and Iraq or no Iraq, we need a sea change to our attitude about armed conflict.

Some of us want a Defense Department focused on just that, defense. We've become the bad guys on the world stage, and some of us were hopeful that a nwe administration might change that. That each of the proposed appointments point to more of the same

When you exist solely as the creation within each individual supporter's mind, it can be a bit hard to become that reality for each individual supporter.

The Great Placator Pyramid Scheme begins to collapse.

CaptMacMillian: Nemo's Brother: Shaggy_C: Obama was never an anti-war candidate beyond his initial senate race. No Democrat was. Now that the election is over, maybe you people can actually discuss the matter instead of hemming and hawing about concern trolls and Fark IndependentsTM

I'm sorry but if gets votes from people on a few promises and then doesn't even attempt to deliver on them, I think people have the right to call him out on it. Even being the TF messiah.

Well yeah, if he farks up he deserves to be called out on it. As of right now you're trying to call him out on things that he hasn't even done.

Which makes you look stupid.

But he is already beginning to give us a window to what he will do. His anti-nuclear and oil environmental cabinet pick reflect his election rhetoric. His foreign adviser picks do not.

But you had to resort to name calling because I touched a nerve with bringing up questions about your savior.

Nemo's Brother: I touched a nerve with bringing up questions about your savior.

Oh please. And you wonder why you find real discussion so rare here...

Party Boy: whidbey: The thing is, criticism like this is healthy.

Absolutely.

I think of it like Eagles fans. You know, the die hard ones who boo during the draft pics.

or during hotel california

Lando Lincoln: colon_pow: why should you wait till he's president before you criticize his picks for staff and cabinet?

Because they're assuming that the people he picks are going to dictate the policy and not him. This is a spurious assumption.

he said spurious

Nemo's Brother: But you had to resort to name calling because I touched a nerve with bringing up questions about your savior.

Nemo's Brother: I'm sorry but if gets votes from people on a few promises and then doesn't even attempt to deliver on them, I think people have the right to call him out on it. Even being the TF messiah.


If you act like an asshole, you get treated like one. You are of course free to do so, but don't act surprised, and don't whine about it.

Seems everyone wants to get their licks in and try to work the refs. Gay rights, NAFTA, Education, Environmental concerns, beating Lieberman with a rubber hose, Hispanic representation, rescinding all the Bush policies, etc. It's all the most important thing we need to do RIGHT NOW. I'm pretty sure that the President Elect will be able to do just fine without all the helpful suggestions from everyone, but go ahead and keep providing them - it'll do you some good. And when he doesn't act right away on your sound advice, I'm sure that primal scream will feel good as well.

Except for Darconix.

Look kiddies: The best way to make America strong and safe is to radically slash military spending.

rufus-t-firefly: D
But merely opposing Obama is not the same as hoping 15,000,000 Americans starve to death so President Obama looks bad.

LOL they're probably all turrists and welfare queens anyway.

Real Americans hate the blue staters. We need to do something.

Nemo's Brother: But he is already beginning to give us a window to what he will do. His anti-nuclear and oil environmental cabinet pick reflect his election rhetoric. His foreign adviser picks do not.

But you had to resort to name calling because I touched a nerve with bringing up questions about your savior.

Let me bold something from my previous post that you for some reason don't understand:

...you're trying to call him out on things that he hasn't even done.

How you can sit here talking about how Obama is going to do this and that or how long he'll be in Iraq and actually believe that anyone takes you seriously really calls into question your cognitive ability. What you're doing is akin to watching an NFL team play a preseason game and then trying to extrapolate that over the entire season. It's idiocy and you know it.

/Oh and saying that something makes you look stupid != saying that you're stupid

rufus-t-firefly: whidbey: Brainsick: I was making the point that being "anti-war" is akin to being "anti-speeding-train". You can be against it all you want, but the people who attack you don't care.

And your solution is to sink to the attackers' level?

Yes, waterboarding and the Bataan death march are very much the same thing....

/note I disagree with the concept of Americans waterboarding anyone, but seriously, read a farking book.
Hell yeah! Didn't we round up every Aryan and put them into concentration camps after WWII?

Okay...we DID execute Japanese war criminals for waterboarding POWs, while our government now officially endorses this method of interrogation...but that was different - they aren't Caucasian, just like A-rabs aren't.

USA! USA! USA!

/Am I doing it right?

rufus-t-firefly: whidbey: Brainsick: I was making the point that being "anti-war" is akin to being "anti-speeding-train". You can be against it all you want, but the people who attack you don't care.

And your solution is to sink to the attackers' level?

Hell yeah! Didn't we round up every Aryan and put them into concentration camps after WWII?

Okay...we DID execute Japanese war criminals for waterboarding POWs, while our government now officially endorses this method of interrogation...but that was different - they aren't Caucasian, just like A-rabs aren't.

USA! USA! USA!

/Am I doing it right?

stupid crap putting my text in the wrong place, preview is your friend!


Yes, waterboarding and the Bataan death march are very much the same thing....

/note I disagree with the concept of Americans waterboarding anyone, but seriously, read a farking book.