Obama - all words no substance? ... (the answer seems clear)

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » May 20, 2009, 9:50 am

Nick wrote: It's hardly HARD LEFT to wish Guantanamo was closed. Isn't that one of the reasons you voted for him? You fucking half assed shill.

Guantanamo is still open for a reason you dumbass. There are some very bad people still there and they can't turn them loose. If it was as simple as freeing innocent people, Obama and the Dems would have been on that like moles on Grandma. It would have been a huge and easy win for them at the polls. Of course anyone with a brain realizes this, which also explains why you do not.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » May 20, 2009, 10:12 pm

Nick wrote:
What the hell would we have to apologize for? It is your own credulity that is at fault. You convinced yourself that a center left candidate would become a hard left president, when it was blatantly obvious that going hard left is not at all pragmatic. Obama never advertised himself as anything less than the most pragmatic option. The left will be conceding more and more as the years go by. That will not anger me since that is how democracy is supposed to work. What you want, Nick, is a leftist version of George W. Bush. No thanks.
You're a fucking idiot pseudo intellectual Obama fanboy if ever there was one.

The issue is black and white, you simply have too much to lose, with you're Obama sucking for months on end. The issue is very straightforward to everyone on the planet. American's are the worlds children when it comes to Politics. It's hardly HARD LEFT to wish Guantanamo was closed. Isn't that one of the reasons you voted for him? You fucking half assed shill.

Yes I want Guantanamo closed, and I believe it will be closed. But your frothing at the mouth and sissy fit temper tantrums aren't going to speed things up. You're like a spoiled child who cries every time he doesn't get a cookie. You will never see the United States of America that you want. Never. Because you're way too far out in loony land and you don't realize it. You can't even recognize that the positions you hold are actually extreme, at least by American standards anyway. As far as Obama, on most issues I agree with him, some issues he's on my right and some issues I'm on his right. Nonetheless, neither one of us is as deranged or pigheaded as you (the hard left), or the hard right.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » May 21, 2009, 5:09 am

If they close Guanto, another will take its place. The amount of good that has been accomplished because of its use is substantially more important than the rights of the terrorists it detains and worth the risk of a false accusation against an innocent person. People that take issue with Guanto need to think about the bad people that make it necessary in the first place.

Nick, saying it's a black and white issue is delusional. I care less about how much you hate "the american point of view" (etc) the more you say things like this. Take issue with something more broad in scope than a little prison and maybe one of the children on this board will take your posts more seriously than the drunken rants they appear to be.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » May 21, 2009, 2:15 pm

...Obama repeated his pledge to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"Rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security," Obama said. "It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22804.html

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » May 21, 2009, 2:23 pm

Obama wrote: It is a rallying cry for our enemies.

Nick!?

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » May 21, 2009, 2:28 pm

Obama wrote:“I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges,” Mr. Obama said. “Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees — not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/po ... ma.html?hp

Is anyone amused by Dick Cheney's emergence as the face of the Republican Party. I guess he is a half-step better than Rush Limbaugh, in that instead of being evil and repugnant, he's just evil. Keep trying GOPers

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » May 21, 2009, 2:44 pm

Gzette wrote:
Obama wrote:“I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges,” Mr. Obama said. “Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees — not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/po ... ma.html?hp

Is anyone amused by Dick Cheney's emergence as the face of the Republican Party. I guess he is a half-step better than Rush Limbaugh, in that instead of being evil and repugnant, he's just evil. Keep trying GOPers

Tell that to the 14+ million listeners Rush has (no I'm not one of them).

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » May 21, 2009, 3:29 pm

I would but they're too busy ditto-ing themselves

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » May 21, 2009, 4:43 pm

The big deal in this, as far as what needs to get done, is that these prisoners be given due process, at least to the point where we are only holding people we know to be terrorists. And I mean, real ones, not people who the Bush cabal simply wanted buried. The last seven years, we have just been sitting on these fuckers and torturing them with no discernable results. If we can keep Chuck Manson and the fucking unibomber locked up on US Soil, then there is no fucking reason that the handful of honest to god authentic terrorists cannot be held there as well.

As far as Pelosi is concerned, if she had brain one in her fucking head, she would have simply said "Ok lets get everything out in the open as far as who the CIA briefed and when." This would have put the fear of their imaginary god into the GOP architects of this bullshit, instead of letting them spin all this shit into somehow being her fault. Instead, she went instantly into CYA mode and now we have a finger pointing contest in an arena dominated by bankrolled conservative pundits with lockstep talking points. She is a retard and a general failure as speaker of the house, but her crime is stupidity, whereas Newt was a liar. It is hard to say which is worse. She should be canned as speaker, but the Dem establishment will never do that, especially to the first female speaker.

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » May 21, 2009, 7:04 pm

For parity's sake:

Robot Cheney-a-tron 300 wrote:“President Obama’s own director of national intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: ‘High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.’ End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth.”

(...)

“On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods,” Mr. Cheney charged. “Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.”

As much as I hate Dick, I always thought he was an impassioned debater. anyway, since I quoted Obama's speech today, I thought it would be good to post some of the opposition.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 21, 2009, 7:30 pm

Cheney vs Obama is like Magneto vs Professor X. I understand both views, but I feel one is clearly right and the other is completely wrong.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » May 22, 2009, 8:37 am

I don't care about the value of the intelligence, that doesn't enter into it at all. That argument is just a distraction. What difference is there between a jihadi torturing someone in the middle east and a CIA person doing it in Cuba?

Fairweather Pure wrote:Cheney vs Obama is like Magneto vs Professor X. I understand both views, but I feel one is clearly right and the other is completely wrong.

Not completely wrong, just... bent. He's basing his assumptions on a world that ceased to exist ~15 years ago. That was the problem with the whole crowd Bush brought in with him, with the exception of Colin Powell.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 22, 2009, 9:14 am

It's hard for me to take Cheney seriously when he is telling everyone that Obama is making us unsafe when the largest and deadliest terrorist attack in American history happened when he was in office.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » May 22, 2009, 10:04 am

Fairweather Pure wrote:It's hard for me to take Cheney seriously when he is telling everyone that Obama is making us unsafe when the largest and deadliest terrorist attack in American history happened when he was in office.

These 4,299 Americans would agree with you, if they weren't dead.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » May 22, 2009, 10:44 am

Spang wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:It's hard for me to take Cheney seriously when he is telling everyone that Obama is making us unsafe when the largest and deadliest terrorist attack in American history happened when he was in office.
These 4,299 Americans would agree with you, if they weren't dead.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Cheney & Co were no more responsible for 9/11 than Obama is for the economic issues we currently have.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » May 22, 2009, 11:03 am

Aabidano wrote:That doesn't make any sense at all. Cheney & Co were no more responsible for 9/11 than Obama is for the economic issues we currently have.

August 6th, 2001.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » May 22, 2009, 2:06 pm

Aabidano wrote:
Spang wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:It's hard for me to take Cheney seriously when he is telling everyone that Obama is making us unsafe when the largest and deadliest terrorist attack in American history happened when he was in office.
These 4,299 Americans would agree with you, if they weren't dead.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Cheney & Co were no more responsible for 9/11 than Obama is for the economic issues we currently have.

How long does someone have to be in office before they can be credited or faulted for events that happen during their term? 9/11/09 is still 4 months away. 9 months into a term is a long ass time for any deniability, especially when being handed a document over a month in advance regarding a heinous attack on American soil. You are equating apples and oranges. Do you know what depraved indifference murder is?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 22, 2009, 4:50 pm

Xyun wrote:Do you know what depraved indifference murder is?

I am not sure, but I think it is missing a word or two!

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » May 22, 2009, 5:12 pm

And Algore won the 2000 election.

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » May 22, 2009, 7:04 pm

post 100k

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » May 22, 2009, 9:12 pm

Aabidano wrote:
Spang wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:It's hard for me to take Cheney seriously when he is telling everyone that Obama is making us unsafe when the largest and deadliest terrorist attack in American history happened when he was in office.
These 4,299 Americans would agree with you, if they weren't dead.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Cheney & Co were no more responsible for 9/11 than Obama is for the economic issues we currently have.

Those are the American and Coalition deaths from the Iraq Clusterfuck, not 9/11... you know, the invasion that ocurred even though Iraq had sweet fuck all to do with 9/11?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » May 22, 2009, 9:23 pm

Wulfran wrote:Those are the American and Coalition deaths from the Iraq Clusterfuck, not 9/11... you know, the invasion that ocurred even though Iraq had sweet fuck all to do with 9/11?

Actually, that number doesn't include the coalition deaths.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 23, 2009, 6:41 pm

Wulfran wrote:
Aabidano wrote:
Spang wrote:These 4,299 Americans would agree with you, if they weren't dead.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Cheney & Co were no more responsible for 9/11 than Obama is for the economic issues we currently have.
Those are the American and Coalition deaths from the Iraq Clusterfuck, not 9/11... you know, the invasion that ocurred even though Iraq had sweet fuck all to do with 9/11?

Clicking links is hard.

If it were about 9/11 numbers it probably would have been pointing here where one would learn that it was 2,819.

- Number of songs Clear Channel Radio considered "inappropriate" to play after 9/11: 150

Clear Channel sucks.

(edit to get in more than 10 words)

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » May 24, 2009, 2:23 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Wulfran wrote:
Aabidano wrote:
Spang wrote:These 4,299 Americans would agree with you, if they weren't dead.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Cheney & Co were no more responsible for 9/11 than Obama is for the economic issues we currently have.
Those are the American and Coalition deaths from the Iraq Clusterfuck, not 9/11... you know, the invasion that ocurred even though Iraq had sweet fuck all to do with 9/11?
Clicking links is hard.

If it were about 9/11 numbers it probably would have been pointing here where one would learn that it was 2,819.

- Number of songs Clear Channel Radio considered "inappropriate" to play after 9/11: 150
Clear Channel sucks.

(edit to get in more than 10 words)

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » May 25, 2009, 4:43 am

Xyun wrote:
Aabidano wrote:
Spang wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:It's hard for me to take Cheney seriously when he is telling everyone that Obama is making us unsafe when the largest and deadliest terrorist attack in American history happened when he was in office.
These 4,299 Americans would agree with you, if they weren't dead.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Cheney & Co were no more responsible for 9/11 than Obama is for the economic issues we currently have.

How long does someone have to be in office before they can be credited or faulted for events that happen during their term? 9/11/09 is still 4 months away. 9 months into a term is a long ass time for any deniability, especially when being handed a document over a month in advance regarding a heinous attack on American soil. You are equating apples and oranges. Do you know what depraved indifference murder is?

Hasn't it been proven that the attack was planned for YEARS? In fact previous attacks were made during both Bush Sr and Clinton years? Don't get me wrong, Bush sucked, but laying everything at his doorstep is getting a little old.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 25, 2009, 9:03 am

You can't even recognize that the positions you hold are actually extreme, at least by American standards anyway

American "standards" are obviously retarded to anyone with half a brain.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » May 26, 2009, 11:04 am

Everyone just admit that it's right. Maybe it will go away then.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 2, 2009, 11:50 pm

Hey, he's half assed Guantanamo. I know you don't think its a shame, but a lot of others do (most of these people are smarter than you)

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 3, 2009, 9:56 pm

Nick wrote:Hey, he's half assed Guantanamo. I know you don't think its a shame, but a lot of others do (most of these people are smarter than you)

Give us your plan for Gitmo Nick?

You seem to lack any sense of realism.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 4, 2009, 7:36 am

Nick wrote:Hey, he's half assed Guantanamo. I know you don't think its a shame, but a lot of others do (most of these people are smarter than you)

He's a politician..... I'm really not sure why you expected anything different.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » June 4, 2009, 9:16 am

Nick wrote:
You can't even recognize that the positions you hold are actually extreme, at least by American standards anyway
American "standards" are obviously retarded to anyone with half a brain.

Are you saying that you only have half a brain? That would explain a lot.

Post by **Sylvus** » June 4, 2009, 10:53 am

As a bit of an aside, anyone watch the NBC special "Inside the White House" the last couple nights? I found that very interesting. Weird to see a president acting like a human being, talking about picking up the dog poop (I'd have to imagine one of the Secret Service really gets stuck with that job), seeing the people smiling and having fun at work.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 4, 2009, 2:32 pm

Sylvus wrote:As a bit of an aside, anyone watch the NBC special "Inside the White House" the last couple nights?

I watched both episodes. I really enjoyed them.

Psyloche · Post by **Psyloche** » June 4, 2009, 2:52 pm

Sylvus wrote:As a bit of an aside, anyone watch the NBC special "Inside the White House" the last couple nights?

I watched a bit part on Conan O'brien's show. Obama was part of a skit! (which I thought was awesome and could probably spark a debate on whether or not he's wasting time/space/natural resources!)

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 4, 2009, 3:01 pm

Nick wrote:
You can't even recognize that the positions you hold are actually extreme, at least by American standards anyway
American "standards" are obviously retarded to anyone with half a brain.

American standards are like .. well, they're like nothing else. I love living here and can't compare it to living in some war torn middle east country, but for what people try to portray this country as being they're delusional. The US has done some great things and some great things have come from here but too many people feel entitled to shit just because we're the USfuckingA!

I'd buy Nick several brews.. but I'd do it where he lives rather than here, given the choice.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 4, 2009, 7:04 pm

Psyloche wrote:
Sylvus wrote:As a bit of an aside, anyone watch the NBC special "Inside the White House" the last couple nights?
I watched a bit part on Conan O'brien's show. Obama was part of a skit! (which I thought was awesome and could probably spark a debate on whether or not he's wasting time/space/natural resources!)

Obama is so busy with skits and talking about dog poop, you wonder when he has time to deal with issues that a president should be concerned with . He should have white hair by now and have more wrinkles than Aunt Jemima by now.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » June 5, 2009, 12:48 pm

Weren't you the one who posted a pic of Obama and commented (negatively, I should add) about how old he now looked?

Of course your whole approach with trying to criticise Obama based on any of this is pretty retarded if that's all you can come up with.

Must be hard for you to not have real issues to contend with. I guess us libs got lucky with Bush. We had an endless supply.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 5, 2009, 2:09 pm

I just figured Winnow was acting on the "bait" set by Psyloche!

Spang · Post by **Spang** » June 5, 2009, 2:15 pm

Boogahz wrote:I just figured Winnow was acting on the "bait" set by Psyloche!

Obama is doing such an outstanding job, it's very difficult to criticize him.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 5, 2009, 2:36 pm

Lalanae wrote:Weren't you the one who posted a pic of Obama and commented (negatively, I should add) about how old he now looked?

That wasn't even a real picture. In it he was aged 2 (or 4) years to show what he'd possibly look like at that time after being in office.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 5, 2009, 11:11 pm

Lalanae wrote:Weren't you the one who posted a pic of Obama and commented (negatively, I should add) about how old he now looked?

Of course your whole approach with trying to criticise Obama based on any of this is pretty retarded if that's all you can come up with.

Must be hard for you to not have real issues to contend with. I guess us libs got lucky with Bush. We had an endless supply.

Drudge posted that Obama snubbed Sarkozy. So conservatives are now posting on euro websites on how wrong this was, how embarrassed they are and posting apologies to the french for this diplomatic protocol breakdown. Freedom fries anyone?

Obama is driving the fringes, of both the left and right, insane.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... itted=true

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 8, 2009, 11:57 am

It's a shame that the best that republicans have to offer is criticism of Obama on the most trivial of things.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » June 10, 2009, 12:39 am

Siji wrote:It's a shame that the best that republicans have to offer is criticism of Obama on the most trivial of things.

So what. Why is it always a partisan leg-up in political debates on VV? Rarely can a democrap or a republicunt on this entire site sidestep the silly debates and team up to get angry at the political system itself. Every intelligent person on this website (most of the people that post) realizes that the solution to several of our problems has become beyond the grasp of our current political scope, but is within the broad reach of our human capability.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 10, 2009, 11:25 am

Leonaerd wrote:Why is it always a partisan leg-up in political debates on VV?

Because it's an easy enough way to identify your "side" in a debate. The lines between the right and left are pretty clearly defined and have been established for a long time.

The problem I have with the Republicans right now is they're crying wolf over every single stupid thing they can, and trying to make controversy where there is none. They are trying thier hardest to make mountains out of molehills over the stupidest shit. I always listen to and read various right leaning material just to try and pick up on lagitimate concerns, but the signal to noise ratio is completely out of whack. It's hard to take anything they say seriously. Right now, the Republicans are a parody of thier own party. They need to come to the center or the party is doomed.

I agree with Siji. Listening to the Republican complaints, if this is the worse they can come up with I'm feeling pretty good about the way things are headed. But goddamn, at least you can count on them to go to the same exact subjects that never fail to drive thier base into a frenzy.

The latest example is how Hannity, Rush, and company have been saying how the government's refusel to allow banks to pay back the bailouts was nothing but a power grab. They beat this line of thinking to death, for months, and conjured all sorts of doomsday scenarios and how it's fucking George Orwell and Hitler combined into one seductive scheme. It was a major point they could always fall back on or make snide comments about while ranting about something else. The banks are now cleared and can begin paying back the billions and none of these programs even mention that fact. That is not thier agenda. And then I have a conversation with someone who only listens to Rush and has no idea that the rant they are going on about is pointless and was created in a conservative's imagination and was completely invalidated days ago, yet they are still angry because Rush never told them the outcome of his scare tactic gone wrong. I can't fucking stand it.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 10, 2009, 8:53 pm

Xyun wrote: Yes I want Guantanamo closed, and I believe it will be closed. But your frothing at the mouth and sissy fit temper tantrums aren't going to speed things up. You're like a spoiled child who cries every time he doesn't get a cookie. You will never see the United States of America that you want. Never. Because you're way too far out in loony land and you don't realize it. You can't even recognize that the positions you hold are actually extreme, at least by American standards anyway. As far as Obama, on most issues I agree with him, some issues he's on my right and some issues I'm on his right. Nonetheless, neither one of us is as deranged or pigheaded as you (the hard left), or the hard right.

It's fairly obvious that passionately expressing a viewpoint makes no change when I am simply one person and the US Government is a multi trillion dollar a year outfit. Of course it's futile, doesn't stop me being angry that civil liberties are being oppressed because of an irrational and reactive response to the events of 9/11.

If thinking that the refusal to abide by the Geneva Convention, which was, by the way, designed for a very specific and legitimate reasons, whilst hypocritically espousing the virtues of freedom and fairness as a national point of pride, is "loony left", then I'm afraid it's you Xyun who has a lot of homework still to do on the matter.

Yeah, I get angry, hell, you got angry enough to start a blog, that's admirable, even if it was about as subtly written as some of the idiocy I angrily write. Because hey, passion dictates a lot of differing moral codes. Such as Kilmoll's love of guns, or my love of not having to listen to people who pretend to hold beliefs and then when the guy they voted for backs out of his expressed promise acts like a whiny viperous bitch

American standards are in themselves extreme in terms of Europe, which isn't so caught up in its own hype as a geographical and cultural area. But a pissing contest is irrelevant (sure Europe would win any day!

) I guess expressing disappointment of Obama is illegal on America's left, and tribalism is more important than objectivity. Oh well, gg with that I guess.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 11, 2009, 11:57 am

Nick wrote: Yeah, I get angry, hell, you got angry enough to start a blog, that's admirable, even if it was about as subtly written as some of the idiocy I angrily write. Because hey, passion dictates a lot of differing moral codes. Such as Kilmoll's love of guns, or my love of not having to listen to people who pretend to hold beliefs and then when the guy they voted for backs out of his expressed promise acts like a whiny viperous bitch

What promise did he back out of? You've generated a lot of hot air here without actually specifying.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 11, 2009, 1:40 pm

By keeping the place open, with all reports suggesting the torture is still occurring on a daily basis (hi google), as well as the revival of military trials, an issue Obama previously criticised both implicitly and explicitly, then yeah, I guess if your memory is shorter than a goldfish's and you dislike historical factuality, I could see how it may be considered "hot air".

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 11, 2009, 2:45 pm

...refusal to abide by the Geneva Convention, which was, by the way, designed for a very specific and legitimate reasons

What does the Geneva convention have to do with the inmates at Guantanamo? The only people subject to it are military forces of a state. Terrorists, pirates, warlords, etc... (unlawful combatants) are not protected by it's provisions.

It sounds nice, but as far as I know has no relevance.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 11, 2009, 6:56 pm

That's merely a dishonest interpretation of a larger moral document that the US has decided to push for long enough that even basically intelligent people like yourself seem to have become immune to how absolutely ridiculous a statement that is.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » June 11, 2009, 9:09 pm

Nick wrote:By keeping the place open, with all reports suggesting the torture is still occurring on a daily basis (hi google), as well as the revival of military trials, an issue Obama previously criticised both implicitly and explicitly, then yeah, I guess if your memory is shorter than a goldfish's and you dislike historical factuality, I could see how it may be considered "hot air".

What's ridiculous is you seem to think closing Guanto would end torture, or even curb it.