• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A question to the Anti-Bush, Obama true believer types.

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What's changed?



1. Obama awards Blackwater Contract.

CIA Awards Blackwater Another Contract in Afghanistan

2. Obama awards Haliburton no bid contract.

KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks (Update1) - BusinessWeek

3. Bush's Patreus now in charge of Afghanistan


Petraeus Gives Troubled Afghan Mission a Trusted Name - BusinessWeek


4. Continued the off shore drilling as a means for energy.

Byron York: Who told Obama offshore drilling is ‘absolutely safe'? | TheUnion.com

5. Used a "surge" in Afghanistan like Bush did in Iraq.

Obama launches Afghanistan surge | The Australian



Now, I think Obama made the right choices in these decisions, What I am asking however is some of our more ardent supporters of Obama whom no doubt spent the entire bush admin here at DP bashing bush over policies such as these what the difference is now regarding the policies once so despised not so long ago.
 
I think the "Obama true believer" types are pretty much entirely an invention of the conservative mind.
 
:lamo

I think the "Obama true believer" types are pretty much entirely an invention of the conservative mind.

Look! Theres one!!!

:2wave:
 
What's changed?

Now, I think Obama made the right choices in these decisions, What I am asking however is some of our more ardent supporters of Obama whom no doubt spent the entire bush admin here at DP bashing bush over policies such as these what the difference is now regarding the policies once so despised not so long ago.

Throw in the wireless wiretaps...the monitoring of ANYONES cell phones and text messages without warrants, the control of the internet, adopting Bush's anti-terrorism activities...

There IS no difference. The left extremists never gave any actual THOUGHT to their anti-Bush hatred...why should they give any though to their Obasms?
 
For me there are two very important things. Iraq has an end date. This is good because we should have never been in there in the first place.

Also, there is more of a focus on Afghanistan than there used to be under the Bush administration, which I find OK, since its a legitimate war due to the attack on 9/11.

Per your points.
1. Very unhappy with this.
2. Not happy with this. However, as far as I know, no top official has close ties to the company, so there is no known conflict of interest.
(per 1 and 2, I believe that logistics and other noncombat issues should be handled by the army, not contractors)
3. Never had a problem with Patraeus or really had an opinion about the guy whatsoever.
4. I like offshore drilling. However, for strategic reasons, I think we need to get off oil where we can and stop funding the middle east as much as we can. Bad stuff keeps coming from that area and the less resources they have, the better I think.
5. Afghanistan is a legitimate war, Iraq is not.
 
Mega you are not invited. I don't consider you a "True believer". ;)


:mrgreen:
 
I think the "Obama true believer" types are pretty much entirely an invention of the conservative mind.




I could name at least 4 posters here who would destroy this line of thinking. Want to wager a Gold Donation on it?
 
I think the "Obama true believer" types are pretty much entirely an invention of the conservative mind.

For the most part this is true. It's easier to call names than actually debate.
 
For the most part this is true. It's easier to call names than actually debate.




Anything on the actual topic today or are you trolling again? I'm specifically asking a select few individuals who for the Bush years berated every move the man made to explain what the difference is, perhaps if that not to your liking you can simply choose not to partake in this thread. :shrug:
 
What's changed?



1. Obama awards Blackwater Contract.

CIA Awards Blackwater Another Contract in Afghanistan

I do not like that Blackwater(whatever they are called these days) got the contract.


I commented on this at the time. I do not like, but accept that no-bid contracts are a necessary evil.


Like most liberals, I have never had anything but respect for Patraeus.



We are also investing more than ever in alternative energy. We have a plant not 15 miles from my apartment that is now manufacturing in that area. It will not happen overnight, and we will need oil for quite some time yet. What is the issue here?


5. Used a "surge" in Afghanistan like Bush did in Iraq.

Obama launches Afghanistan surge | The Australian

Like most liberals, I supported the war in Afghanistan under Bush, and under Obama. No change at all.

Now, I think Obama made the right choices in these decisions, What I am asking however is some of our more ardent supporters of Obama whom no doubt spent the entire bush admin here at DP bashing bush over policies such as these what the difference is now regarding the policies once so despised not so long ago.

The difference is in your eyes.
 
I do not like that Blackwater(whatever they are called these days) got the contract.



I commented on this at the time. I do not like, but accept that no-bid contracts are a necessary evil.



Like most liberals, I have never had anything but respect for Patraeus.




We are also investing more than ever in alternative energy. We have a plant not 15 miles from my apartment that is now manufacturing in that area. It will not happen overnight, and we will need oil for quite some time yet. What is the issue here?




Like most liberals, I supported the war in Afghanistan under Bush, and under Obama. No change at all.



The difference is in your eyes.




I guess you missed where I was targeting a very specific group of liberals. The fact that you answered this is perplexing to me. However I appreciate your answer and think that yes, your opinion is that of the averag thinking liberal like Megaporan and others. This thread was specifically targeted to some of our more militant pro-Obama-can-do-no-wrong posters. :shrug:
 
I see Justabubba has thanked Redress. He is one of the "true believers" i'd like to hear from. Bubba?
 
:lamo



Look! Theres one!!!

:2wave:

I've called Obama "Bush III" many times. Even on this board. How does that fit your theory?
I could name at least 4 posters here who would destroy this line of thinking. Want to wager a Gold Donation on it?

Since I used the phrase "pretty much," this isn't a very fair bet for you.

Anyway, my point is that you guys need to get your talking points straightened out. You'll call Obama "the messiah" while simultaneously crowing about his declining approval ratings or some criticism he's receiving from the left. The thing is, you have this impression that liberals will defend him on everything because we don't agree with you when you attack him over everything that he does.

When you guys attacked Obama over how much it costs to fly him to NYC on Air Force One, pointing out that executive travel is a budgeted item that every president has isn't being a "true believer." Pointing out that every president since Nixon has had "czars," and that "czar" is just a media-invented shorthand, isn't being a "true believer." Arguing that the healthcare reform bill isn't socialism because that's not what the word socialism means isn't being a true believer. Your views are skewed by the irrational hatred you have for a man that isn't drastically different from the last man who sat in that chair.
 
I guess you missed where I was targeting a very specific group of liberals. The fact that you answered this is perplexing to me. However I appreciate your answer and think that yes, your opinion is that of the averag thinking liberal like Megaporan and others. This thread was specifically targeted to some of our more militant pro-Obama-can-do-no-wrong posters. :shrug:

Perhaps the group you target is either too small to matter or doesn't actually exist.
 
I've called Obama "Bush III" many times. Even on this board. How does that fit your theory?


I will note he has indeed stated as much, on at least 10 occasions. :thumbs:



Since I used the phrase "pretty much," this isn't a very fair bet for you.

Anyway, my point is that you guys need to get your talking points straightened out. You'll call Obama "the messiah" while simultaneously crowing about his declining approval ratings or some criticism he's receiving from the left. The thing is, you have this impression that liberals will defend him on everything because we don't agree with you when you attack him over everything that he does.

When you guys attacked Obama over how much it costs to fly him to NYC on Air Force One, pointing out that executive travel is a budgeted item that every president has isn't being a "true believer." Pointing out that every president since Nixon has had "czars," and that "czar" is just a media-invented shorthand, isn't being a "true believer." Arguing that the healthcare reform bill isn't socialism because that's not what the word socialism means isn't being a true believer. Your views are skewed by the irrational hatred you have for a man that isn't drastically different from the last man who sat in that chair.


/facepalm


Please re-read my opening post, I am targeting this to the "prof's" of the left, we have right wing see no evil the republicans can do types. This thread was targeting those same folks on the left. You sir, have attributed things to me I have nothing to do with. Lets not over-generalize. thanks.
 
I guess you missed where I was targeting a very specific group of liberals. The fact that you answered this is perplexing to me. However I appreciate your answer and think that yes, your opinion is that of the averag thinking liberal like Megaporan and others. This thread was specifically targeted to some of our more militant pro-Obama-can-do-no-wrong posters. :shrug:

I don't really see many of those. That is why it is hard to tell who you are targeting.
 
I don't really see many of those. That is why it is hard to tell who you are targeting.



ADK
bubba
hazl
roughdraft I believe.
DD
glinda
etc...

lets not forget about banned or self exiled posters such as:

champs
jfuh
nojingo
billo


etc....


need I go on?


Are you really suggesting that there was no critisizm of the things I listed under Bush? Seriously have you forgotten the last 4 years before Obama?
 
ADK
bubba
hazl
roughdraft I believe.
DD
glinda
etc...

lets not forget about banned or self exiled posters such as:

champs
jfuh
nojingo
billo


etc....


need I go on?


Are you really suggesting that there was no critisizm of the things I listed under Bush? Seriously have you forgotten the last 4 years before Obama?

Why do you think this means anything? All you're doing is stating your opinion about them, which may or may not be accurate. And yes, there was criticism of Bush, and there is criticism of Obama as well. But Bush started these things. Did anyone really think there would be an immediate end to them? That's why anyone taking this job was going to struggle.

That said, many of us are nto completely happy. However, that doesn't mean there was or will be a better alternative.
 
Why do you think this means anything? All you're doing is stating your opinion about them, which may or may not be accurate. And yes, there was criticism of Bush, and there is criticism of Obama as well. But Bush started these things. Did anyone really think there would be an immediate end to them? That's why anyone taking this job was going to struggle.

That said, many of us are nto completely happy. However, that doesn't mean there was or will be a better alternative.



So will you be addressing the points at all?
 
So will you be addressing the points at all?

I think they ahve already been addressed early on:

1. Very unhappy with this.
2. Not happy with this. However, as far as I know, no top official has close ties to the company, so there is no known conflict of interest.
(per 1 and 2, I believe that logistics and other noncombat issues should be handled by the army, not contractors)
3. Never had a problem with Patraeus or really had an opinion about the guy whatsoever.
4. I like offshore drilling. However, for strategic reasons, I think we need to get off oil where we can and stop funding the middle east as much as we can. Bad stuff keeps coming from that area and the less resources they have, the better I think.
5. Afghanistan is a legitimate war, Iraq is not.

I would add I did not agree with Obama buying into the Afghan surge. There is reason to be concerned about what happens in Afghanistan, but nation building is not our domian. Nor can we really put in governments. The Taliban, as terrible as they are, are not a threat to the US. Unlike Al Qaeda, they really don't reach outside of Afghanistan. As long as we bog ourselves down in nation building, we limit our ability to actually address the real enemies and threats.

But again, this mess was not created by Obama. He just has to deal with it today. So, it would be wrong to expect the same exact distain for him as for the man who created the mess.
 
I've called Obama "Bush III" many times. Even on this board. How does that fit your theory?

Since I havent seen EVERY post you make i will accept that you have. What I DO see is you AND your little dog Toto too pretty much parroting liberal ideology at every turn...but...maybe thats just me...
 
I think they ahve already been addressed early on:

1. Very unhappy with this.
2. Not happy with this. However, as far as I know, no top official has close ties to the company, so there is no known conflict of interest.
(per 1 and 2, I believe that logistics and other noncombat issues should be handled by the army, not contractors)
3. Never had a problem with Patraeus or really had an opinion about the guy whatsoever.
4. I like offshore drilling. However, for strategic reasons, I think we need to get off oil where we can and stop funding the middle east as much as we can. Bad stuff keeps coming from that area and the less resources they have, the better I think.
5. Afghanistan is a legitimate war, Iraq is not.

I would add I did not agree with Obama buying into the Afghan surge. There is reason to be concerned about what happens in Afghanistan, but nation building is not our domian. Nor can we really put in governments. The Taliban, as terrible as they are, are not a threat to the US. Unlike Al Qaeda, they really don't reach outside of Afghanistan. As long as we bog ourselves down in nation building, we limit our ability to actually address the real enemies and threats.

But again, this mess was not created by Obama. He just has to deal with it today. So, it would be wrong to expect the same exact distain for him as for the man who created the mess.




thank you for your answer. I hope some of your more zealous comrades will join you in responding. That said. I disagree, if you say "no no bid contracts" why would you hand them out. if you don't like blackwater why give them a contract?


It seems your making a little bit of excuses for your guy. If you are against these things, he shouldn't have used them as he stated period. no?
 
Back
Top Bottom