Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I pretty much agree with the last two posts (Shenpa's and Max's).
I had some rather high, but I thought fairly realistic, hopes based on some understanding of the political process (my degree is in politics) for Obama.
Now I'm just plan disappointed. I look forward to finding out, if we ever do, the truth behind his decision to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. I find it baffling...
I pretty much agree with the last two posts (Shenpa's and Max's).
I had some rather high, but I thought fairly realistic, hopes based on some understanding of the political process (my degree is in politics) for Obama.
Now I'm just plan disappointed. I look forward to finding out, if we ever do, the truth behind his decision to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. I find it baffling...
It was a confusing speech indeed. No matter what anyone thinks of the war, the strategy is really a mystery.
"We will not abandon Afghanistan to the fate of the Taliban...but we're leaving in 18 months.....We'll fight them in the skies, fight them on the beaches, in the hills, in the streets...but only for another year and a half."
He's clearly trying to have it both ways by placating the hawks and the doves at the same time, and that won't work. Either he needed to say "Sorry, not our war, we're packing up..." or "Let's crack some skulls, smoke 'em out, etc..."
But Obama is no Pericles. And he's no Lincoln either. I think he's turning out to be LBJ; an ambitious domestic agenda undone or minimized by foreign wars.
"We will not abandon Afghanistan to the fate of the Taliban...but we're leaving in 18 months.....We'll fight them in the skies, fight them on the beaches, in the hills, in the streets...but only for another year and a half."
I agree with Thomas Friedman: our nation-building in Afghanistan (the second-most corrupt country on earth behind Somalia) is like an unemployed couple deciding to adopt a special-needs baby.
But Obama is no Pericles. And he's no Lincoln either. I think he's turning out to be LBJ; an ambitious domestic agenda undone or minimized by foreign wars.
His domestic agenda isn't as wholesome as his campaign promises would indicate. Check out Matt Taibbi's's article in Rolling Stone about the Wall Street foxes he's put in charge of financial hen house. It's worse than anything Bush did to the economy, which is no small feat.
I pretty much agree with the last two posts (Shenpa's and Max's).
I had some rather high, but I thought fairly realistic, hopes based on some understanding of the political process (my degree is in politics) for Obama.
Now I'm just plan disappointed. I look forward to finding out, if we ever do, the truth behind his decision to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. I find it baffling...
To be fair to the President though, he is pretty much doing what he said he would. He campaigned on an anti-Iraq war platform, but he was hawkish about Afghanistan.
To be fair to the President though, he is pretty much doing what he said he would. He campaigned on an anti-Iraq war platform, but he was hawkish about Afghanistan.
To be fair to the President though, he is pretty much doing what he said he would. He campaigned on an anti-Iraq war platform, but he was hawkish about Afghanistan.
We're never pulling out completely. We built a huge embassy there, and I'm sure we'll maintain a military presence there the same way we do Germany, Japan, and so many others. But whether or not Obama keeps his word, the main drawdown should be in 2011 I believe. Just in time for his re-election campaign.
I think he's turning out to be LBJ; an ambitious domestic agenda undone or minimized by foreign wars.
No, he's going to be a Carter: a talented, conscientious man who'll be blamed for problems created by irresponsible predecessors. (It kind of mystified me that <b>anyone</b> would be fighting over the presidency during the last election. Anyone who was willing to sign on for the job of taking responsibility for the messes Bush has left behind is a true patriot.)
The peace prize seems only to be awarded to the NON jobbers, why award a peace prize to a man who is currently engaged in war ?
Its a pretty meaningless award now as far many of its holders are hypocrites and media darlings. Why bother ?
Did anybody catch his speech today for the Nobel Prize? He sounded like a neo-conservative with his talk about evil and how only force could defeat al-Qaeda/the Taliban and their ilk. Some of the speech was mush, but for the most part, I liked it.
Yup :eek:
Might as well posthumously give the prize to hitler as well
That's a bit of a stretch. But I don't put any stock in the Nobel Peace Prize.
His speech was almost Bush-like. Eerily so in fact.
If his health care efforts fail and the cap-and-trade nonsense flops, AND if he stays tough on the war, I will call myself an Obama supporter by the end of his first term.
That's a bit of a stretch. But I don't put any stock in the Nobel Peace Prize.
His speech was almost Bush-like. Eerily so in fact.
If his health care efforts fail and the cap-and-trade nonsense flops, AND if he stays tough on the war, I will call myself an Obama supporter by the end of his first term.
Id hardly call it a stretch the prize is practically a joke if they can hand it to someone who continues war. :wtf:
I thought obama may be a good thing, but now i realize he's a big hype machine and no substance.
Id hardly call it a stretch the prize is practically a joke if they can hand it to someone who continues war. :wtf:
I thought obama may be a good thing, but now i realize he's a big hype machine and no substance.
I'm not going to argue with you on that. But I can't help but be entertained observing the comments on this site. I was saying the same things about him a year ago. But as the support on here for the President dwindles, it's usually over the few issues that I agree with him on.
I'm not going to argue with you on that. But I can't help but be entertained observing the comments on this site. I was saying the same things about him a year ago. But as the support on here for the President dwindles, it's usually over the few issues that I agree with him on.
As the same with all politicians they enjoy some popularity for sometime and then they are seen for what they are...liars. :rolleyes:
To be a good politician you have to be able to convince people you will deliver what they want, an excellent politician will be still able to convince you to vote for them even when they had no intention of doing what they promised.
Obamamania isnt a goodthing based on this personality cult people will always experience dissapointment when their saviour doesnt deliver. :cool:
Comments
I had some rather high, but I thought fairly realistic, hopes based on some understanding of the political process (my degree is in politics) for Obama.
Now I'm just plan disappointed. I look forward to finding out, if we ever do, the truth behind his decision to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. I find it baffling...
It was a confusing speech indeed. No matter what anyone thinks of the war, the strategy is really a mystery.
"We will not abandon Afghanistan to the fate of the Taliban...but we're leaving in 18 months.....We'll fight them in the skies, fight them on the beaches, in the hills, in the streets...but only for another year and a half."
He's clearly trying to have it both ways by placating the hawks and the doves at the same time, and that won't work. Either he needed to say "Sorry, not our war, we're packing up..." or "Let's crack some skulls, smoke 'em out, etc..."
But Obama is no Pericles. And he's no Lincoln either. I think he's turning out to be LBJ; an ambitious domestic agenda undone or minimized by foreign wars.
I agree with Thomas Friedman: our nation-building in Afghanistan (the second-most corrupt country on earth behind Somalia) is like an unemployed couple deciding to adopt a special-needs baby.
His domestic agenda isn't as wholesome as his campaign promises would indicate. Check out Matt Taibbi's's article in Rolling Stone about the Wall Street foxes he's put in charge of financial hen house. It's worse than anything Bush did to the economy, which is no small feat.
To be fair to the President though, he is pretty much doing what he said he would. He campaigned on an anti-Iraq war platform, but he was hawkish about Afghanistan.
But that doesn't make it any better.
So, when are we pulling out of Iraq?
We're never pulling out completely. We built a huge embassy there, and I'm sure we'll maintain a military presence there the same way we do Germany, Japan, and so many others. But whether or not Obama keeps his word, the main drawdown should be in 2011 I believe. Just in time for his re-election campaign.
Fool me once...
No, he's going to be a Carter: a talented, conscientious man who'll be blamed for problems created by irresponsible predecessors. (It kind of mystified me that <b>anyone</b> would be fighting over the presidency during the last election. Anyone who was willing to sign on for the job of taking responsibility for the messes Bush has left behind is a true patriot.)
Its a pretty meaningless award now as far many of its holders are hypocrites and media darlings. Why bother ?
Yup :eek:
Might as well posthumously give the prize to hitler as well
That's a bit of a stretch. But I don't put any stock in the Nobel Peace Prize.
His speech was almost Bush-like. Eerily so in fact.
If his health care efforts fail and the cap-and-trade nonsense flops, AND if he stays tough on the war, I will call myself an Obama supporter by the end of his first term.
Id hardly call it a stretch the prize is practically a joke if they can hand it to someone who continues war. :wtf:
I thought obama may be a good thing, but now i realize he's a big hype machine and no substance.
I'm not going to argue with you on that. But I can't help but be entertained observing the comments on this site. I was saying the same things about him a year ago. But as the support on here for the President dwindles, it's usually over the few issues that I agree with him on.
As the same with all politicians they enjoy some popularity for sometime and then they are seen for what they are...liars. :rolleyes:
To be a good politician you have to be able to convince people you will deliver what they want, an excellent politician will be still able to convince you to vote for them even when they had no intention of doing what they promised.
Obamamania isnt a goodthing based on this personality cult people will always experience dissapointment when their saviour doesnt deliver. :cool: