Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by ShadowSD at 2012-10-08 09:26:17

Big%20bag%20of%20assorted%20nigger%20parts said	[orig][quote]
In 2007/2008, the biggest talking point wasn't finances, it was war, chiefly about ending it / bring the boys back home. Check out the Obama vs Clinton stuff from the time, it's all about "I'll have them home within a year." Yep. Yobama gets in and increases troops, not decreases, and then got us into Afghanistan as well. It was only earlier THIS YEAR that he brought us down to pre-surge levels.

Your first two sentences are spot on, but from there you are unintentionally mixing up Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Obama/Clinton primary was about ending the Iraq War, they never talked about ending the Afghanistan War.

Obama said in the general election and even the Democratic primary that he wanted troops out of Iraq, but an increased surge of troops in Afghanistan. He said it over and over and over:

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan..." - Barack Obama, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...d-take-war-on-terror-into-pakistan/

Google the words Obama 2007 Afghanistan and you'll find hundreds of links like that.

See, this is what I'm talking about unreasonable criticisms of Obama. They're not even based in reality. By setting up no permanent bases in Afghanistan and a withdrawal date while already bringing out troops, Obama went beyond anything he promised in the campaign when it came to ending wars. And yet somehow the perception has been spun as the opposite.

Big%20bag%20of%20assorted%20nigger%20parts said	[orig][quote]
Dude is president #44. Dude spent more money than presidents numbers 1 through 40, combined. Facts > talking points.

How is that possible when Obama has cut the increase in federal spending more than any President in sixty years? Is there any data to back that up like I did for what I said?

Big%20bag%20of%20assorted%20nigger%20parts said	[orig][quote]
I don't argue that at all, Romney wants us to go into Iran NOW and it's totally bullshit. But that's the "no difference," they all have their own agendas and they all end with dead Americans.

I think the question is then do numbers count or do dead Americans = dead Americans regardless of the numbers?

I'd say a handful dead (Libya) beats thousands dead and tens of thousands disabled (Iraq). That's not "no difference" to me. For as long as Obama's President, it's going to be the first approach to conflict, not the second. Given that the second kills THOUSANDS of times as many Americans and rips our deficit and national debt new assholes, I'll take it. Romney's Iran War will among other things bankrupt us.

[default homepage]

[print][

9:27:25pm May 06,2024
load time 0.00789 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]