The audacity of Obama

M. Bréqs · Post by **M. Bréqs** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:56 pm

Machinate wrote: well put, D K, and nicely seen. I am convinced you are right.

It's amazing that the article, given the origin of the author!, doesn't go into detail about this - In Denmark such a blatantly rushed article would turn a few faculty heads for sure!

The author does acknowledge that the bill isn't likely to pass... But that doesn't excuse Obama from raising it. WHAT IF IT ACTUALLY DID PASS?!?! I mean, if I were a legislator, I wouldn't introduce bills that I didn't want passed, and I certainly wouldn't raise bills with the intention of hyperbole.

That's just irresponsible. I think that that was the point that the author was trying to make.

kramerica · Post by **kramerica** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:12 pm

M. Bréqs wrote:
Machinate wrote: well put, D K, and nicely seen. I am convinced you are right.

It's amazing that the article, given the origin of the author!, doesn't go into detail about this - In Denmark such a blatantly rushed article would turn a few faculty heads for sure!
The author does acknowledge that the bill isn't likely to pass... But that doesn't excuse Obama from raising it. WHAT IF IT ACTUALLY DID PASS?!?! I mean, if I were a legislator, I wouldn't introduce bills that I didn't want passed, and I certainly wouldn't raise bills with the intention of hyperbole.

That's just irresponsible. I think that that was the point that the author was trying to make.

While I agree with you, I could cite several examples of Republicans doing the same - the most notorious being the 3rd term abortion ban, which was struck down as unconstitutional soon after it was passed.

Although it is different in that it was "passed", the law that was passed could never be enforced b/c Republicans refused to put in the constitutionally mandated exceptions for rape/incest and the life of the mother. So, for the purpose of political grandstanding, they passed an unconstitutional law that was struck down as soon as someone challenged it from being enforced.

The end result: taxpayer money being wasted on legislators creating illegal laws.

Dumb as you said. But I also think Obama might be serious about his proposal. The question is what does "redeployment" mean, as it is and will be the keyword used by democrats wanting to get out of this war. I don't believe it means full on retreat from the region, but rather pulling bases and troops into the kurdish north and outskirts of Iraq, while continuing training of iraqi national troops, continued funding of the iraqi govt., and a fully operational base from which to launch air strikes, covert ops, and short term ground assaults. The d/f I suppose from the present plan is that we don't have US soldiers working the beat on Iraqi streets, searching homes, dismantling IEDs, etc., thus (in theory) reducing our casualties.

If anything such as a genocide happened to occur (if it isnt' already happening), our troops are there to stop it as best as they can now.

M. Bréqs · Post by **M. Bréqs** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:48 pm

kramerica wrote:The question is what does "redeployment" mean, as it is and will be the keyword used by democrats wanting to get out of this war. I don't believe it means full on retreat from the region, but rather pulling bases and troops into the kurdish north and outskirts of Iraq, while continuing training of iraqi national troops, continued funding of the iraqi govt., and a fully operational base from which to launch air strikes, covert ops, and short term ground assaults. The d/f I suppose from the present plan is that we don't have US soldiers working the beat on Iraqi streets, searching homes, dismantling IEDs, etc., thus (in theory) reducing our casualties.

If anything such as a genocide happened to occur (if it isnt' already happening), our troops are there to stop it as best as they can now.

I agree with you about the futility of raising irresponsible bills. Quite on point.

So, you're talking something like a reserve reaction force, like what was put in Bosnia after SFOR (Stabilization Force) transitioned to DFOR (Deterrent Force)? I take it your model would be to not leave the base, but stay there, well armed and in a high state of readiness, to go smash anything that gets out of hand?

Sounds safer anyways...

davec1 · Post by **davec1** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:57 pm

Armenian Proverb:
One idiot threw a stone in the well, fourty wise people couldn't get it out.

Fits like a glove!

I'd hate to be one of those that voted against the war in the USA, cause the only thing they can offer now is "I told you so!" and they will have to take the blame for being smartasses that can't help the situation (instead of blaming the idiots that got you there in the first place).

It's appalling how cheney just kept lying on cnn recently, arguing going to iraq was still better than not going, cause "just imagine the training ground for terrorists it could have been"....Saddam kicked Al Quaida out of Iraq, he didn't want anything to do with them. Oh and look what Iraq is now? a perfect training ground for terrorists....

But somehow facts are forgotten if the people in the right positions just keep repeating their lies on tv over and over.

I don't get it, how can so many be so mad at one president about lying to you about his love affair (that was as inconsequential to the well-being of the nation as is possible) and totally ignore the blatant lies (WMD, Al Quaida in Iraq) of another that have cost thousands of people their lives (yeah, I know, most of them not your people, but still) and are costing your country billions and billions that you won't have to educate your children and pay for your momma's medical bills...

ProducerDJ · Post by **ProducerDJ** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:33 am

jb61264 wrote:I don't see Obama having enough real experience in much of anything to be making a run for presidency...don't get me wrong though, I'm glad to see an African American male running...just wish it was Colin Powell at this time though...now there is an immediately electable African American that should run for President...he would get my vote!

Let's all be very clear: America is in no way going to have an African-American president in this millenium. It has nothing to do with 'elecatability' at all. It's not racism either. It's politics. It's a great story but it won't happen.

forge · Post by **forge** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:02 am

I've been getting right into "the west wing" lately - it's become my new must watch

I guess you'd be way ahead in the states but here they're on the campaign trail with "Santos" the latino candidate running - it's great to watch and really interesting look at the politics of it all

of course it's still just TV - who knows how accurate it is to real life, but it's good

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:20 am

davec1 wrote:
Armenian Proverb:
One idiot threw a stone in the well, fourty wise people couldn't get it out.
Fits like a glove!

I'd hate to be one of those that voted against the war in the USA, cause the only thing they can offer now is "I told you so!" and they will have to take the blame for being smartasses that can't help the situation (instead of blaming the idiots that got you there in the first place).

It's appalling how cheney just kept lying on cnn recently, arguing going to iraq was still better than not going, cause "just imagine the training ground for terrorists it could have been"....Saddam kicked Al Quaida out of Iraq, he didn't want anything to do with them. Oh and look what Iraq is now? a perfect training ground for terrorists....

But somehow facts are forgotten if the people in the right positions just keep repeating their lies on tv over and over.

I don't get it, how can so many be so mad at one president about lying to you about his love affair (that was as inconsequential to the well-being of the nation as is possible) and totally ignore the blatant lies (WMD, Al Quaida in Iraq) of another that have cost thousands of people their lives (yeah, I know, most of them not your people, but still) and are costing your country billions and billions that you won't have to educate your children and pay for your momma's medical bills...

Because here in the states, sex and infidelity is more scary to people than violence and death. I don't get it either, but that's how it is.

jamester · Post by **jamester** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:24 am

ProducerDJ wrote:
jb61264 wrote:I don't see Obama having enough real experience in much of anything to be making a run for presidency...don't get me wrong though, I'm glad to see an African American male running...just wish it was Colin Powell at this time though...now there is an immediately electable African American that should run for President...he would get my vote!
Let's all be very clear: America is in no way going to have an African-American president in this millenium. It has nothing to do with 'elecatability' at all. It's not racism either. It's politics. It's a great story but it won't happen.

Same goes for a woman. It's just not going to happen; not yet at least. But maybe we're closer than we ever have been, and that alone is progress? The optimist in me hopes so.

As for Obama's "lack of experience", The Great Second Coming Of Conservatism was president of the Screen Actor's Guild before being elected Commander In Chief! So if Reagan can go down as one of the greats with having no real political experience whatsoever, I think Obama's highly qualified thank you....

tekkers · Post by **tekkers** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:27 am

both Obama and H Clinton are democrat candidates aint they?

would be nice if one was democrat and one republican... then either u would get either a black man or white woman as president of the usa..

and i'm sure the conservative majority of america would go for the lesser of 2 evils..would be interesting to see what that would be for them..

but as it is... as much as i would like to see a president clinton and vice president obama ... i think they are too radical and yah ppl will go for what they feel comfortable with

another middle aged white dude who prolly likes guns a real lot

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:35 am

Can we all take a second and back in the glee that no matter what happens in November of '08, no matter who wins, what the voting machines do or how Florida votes.

George W. Bush will not be the next President.

No matter what.

There's a happy thought. No more W. I say we strike the letter W from the American alphabet. Vadda ya say?

Voting democrat no matter vhat.

Edited to conform to the modern alphabet.

ethios4 · Post by **ethios4** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:45 pm

no kidding....to never have to see one of his smartass arrogant speeches again =

glu · Post by **glu** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:48 pm

yeah, but vhat about Vorld Var III

kennerb · Post by **kennerb** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:46 pm

glu wrote:yeah, but vhat about Vorld Var III

Give him time. He's vorking on it. He's still the prez for a vhile.

kramerica · Post by **kramerica** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:25 pm

jamester wrote:
ProducerDJ wrote:
jb61264 wrote: As for Obama's "lack of experience", The Great Second Coming Of Conservatism was president of the Screen Actor's Guild before being elected Commander In Chief! So if Reagan can go down as one of the greats with having no real political experience whatsoever, I think Obama's highly qualified thank you....

Reagan was governor of California, one of our largest and most powerful states (and the 4th largest economy in the world or something like that) before he was President. He was also quite the conservative intellectual and wrote a lot of pieces at that time. So I wouldn't say he had no experience "whatsoever".

A better analogy would be with Lincoln, who was, like Obama, a State Senator before he ran for Presidential Office.

jamester · Post by **jamester** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:31 pm

That's right, I forgot that he was governor.