wkfan wrote: I wanted to believe what he had to say....

however, common sense told me that he could never cash all of the checks he was writing in order to get elected.

Too bad so many others were taken in by his style and discounted his lack of substance.

Maybe the majority of people were a little sick and tired with the GOP, and how badly they lied and fucked up the country. Ever think of that?

I suppose that the GOP politicians are somehow exempt from the very things that you and your crowd are pudwhacking over...just sayin.

believer wrote:

Prescott wrote: Forget this reform bill for a moment and focus on the transparency and the change that was promised by Mr. Obama.

Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN. Sure thing, Mr.Obama.
It will not be POLITICS as usual in Washington. Right, Mr. Obama.
Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials. Right, Mr. Obama.
Allow five days of public comment before signing bills. Right, Mr.Obama.

Why would anyone believe anything Mr.Obama says?

BHO also promised a spirit of bipartisanship in Washington. Right...

Isn't the spirit of bipartisanship a 2 way street? No?

Footwedge wrote: Isn't the spirit of bipartisanship a 2 way street? No?

Bipartisanship to the left is when you agree with them. Get one moderate republican to vote with them and they are out bragging about bipartisanship. Personally I prefer partisan gridlock. At least they can't spend any more money and screw things up any more than they already have.

majorspark wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Isn't the spirit of bipartisanship a 2 way street? No?

Bipartisanship to the left is when you agree with them. Get one moderate republican to vote with them and they are out bragging about bipartisanship. Personally I prefer partisan gridlock. At least they can't spend any more money and screw things up any more than they already have.

It's a shame that gridlock wasn't in full force when the Iraq war was being bantered about. But again...if one questions the motives of the war party, then you by default become a terrorist lover, a traitor, an American pussy.

But now, we own it over there...at a sunk cost of 1 trillion, and projected cost of another 2 to 3 trillion more.

All the while we fight "an army" of less than 100 Al Quada people in Afg/Pak (according to our own generals), and yet our economy at home continues to crumble.

ccrunner609 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

believer wrote: Only 11 months into this disaster and here are even more broken promises:

Earmark reform. BHO's "Gotta spend it NOW or unemployment will soar past 8%" Porkulus Bill includes earmarks. Oh yeah....unemployment is now above 10%.

Bring home the troops. His pledge to bring home all the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan by May 2010 helped him defeat Queen Hillary who was her party's shoe-in for the nomination. BHO is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan but promises to bring them home in 18 months. I'm sure the Secretary of State will gladly help him make that happen. Right.

Executive signing statements. The Anointed One ragged on Bush for this practice and pledged he would not do the same. He attached his own signing statements to his own spending bill but now promises to do so in the future with "caution & restraint." Uh huh...

...there's plenty more but you get the idea.

BHO...Change we can believe in. Right.

Your point number 2 is wrong. Not even close to what he said he would do.

LOLOLOLOL, you fail. "You can take that to the bank!!!!!!

Tell you what runner...if either you or Believer can find even one quote, whereby Obama laid claim to bringing home the troops from Afghanistan in 18 months, I'll buy everyone on the political huddle an egg nogg.

Good luck in your fruitless search.

believer wrote: Bring home the troops. His pledge to bring home all the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan by May 2010 helped him defeat Queen Hillary who was her party's shoe-in for the nomination. BHO is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan but promises to bring them home in 18 months. I'm sure the Secretary of State will gladly help him make that happen. Right.

Wrong about that one chief. When speaking about bringing troops home he was referring to Iraq, and it was around 13 months I believe. Once he got into office, the DoD and him compromised on 18 months for complete combat withdrawn from Iraq, pending situations on the ground.

In Afghanistan, during the campaign he pledged to send more troops and equipment, which he did his first month in office. The now surge of troops are the ones that will be withdrawn in the next 18 months from there. No where in his West Point speech did he say the U.S. would pull out all combat forces.

Obama has not lived up to his word, it is that simple. The change he promised doesn't exist and he alone is responsible for that.

ccrunner609 wrote: First off, who said anything about 18 months? Listen to what he said in the video. I think he thought he could do it in 18 days the way his arrogant ass campaigned with all the false promises.

Now I found this dandy in 30 seconds. Pretty clearly states that he was done in Iraq in18 months.


http://ibnlive.in.com/news/obama-set-to-withdraw-troops-from-iraq-sets-deadline/86473-2.html


Just stop, you look like an idiot everytime you post.

Ummm chief, the reference was talking about taking troops out of Afghanistan, not Iraq. Also, there is strong argument from commanders and a legally binding agreement from the Iraqis to leave their country by 2012. So, I and footwedge are right.

Oh my God, a politician lied for a vote?!?!!?

Huh??? We live in a country where our government can be bought for the right price???? They'll actually screw you over for a price???


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z5hD38Bs8Y

Democrats do need to be held accountable. I really hope this Health reform does not pass. But unfortunatley it will, considering the Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate.

"Bipartisanship" is such a joke - "Bipartisanship" is where republicans compromise and democrats don't in order to make a deal.

Before his death Ted Kennedy laughed about how his 'compromises' consisted of him not giving an inch while repubs did.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:Wrong about that one chief. When speaking about bringing troops home he was referring to Iraq, and it was around 13 months I believe. Once he got into office, the DoD and him compromised on 18 months for complete combat withdrawn from Iraq, pending situations on the ground.

In Afghanistan, during the campaign he pledged to send more troops and equipment, which he did his first month in office. The now surge of troops are the ones that will be withdrawn in the next 18 months from there. No where in his West Point speech did he say the U.S. would pull out all combat forces.

Giving the enemy even veiled time-lines is a colossal mistake.

From WorldNetDaily....

On his campaign website, Obama promised he would "remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

His commitment to bring combat troops home by May 20, 2010, and end the war gave him an edge among Democrats over candidate Hillary Clinton.

believer wrote: Giving the enemy even veiled time-lines is a colossal mistake.

From WorldNetDaily....

On his campaign website, Obama promised he would "remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

His commitment to bring combat troops home by May 20, 2010, and end the war gave him an edge among Democrats over candidate Hillary Clinton.

It is a double edged sword, really.

If we are talking abut Iraq, remember the Bush Administration signed and then the Iraqi Parliament passed the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that said combat forces should be out by the end of 2011. Obama did want to get out quicker, but compromised with the Pentagon and settled on the SOFA timeline, and all was dependent on the situation on the ground. What he said on the campaign changed and better reflected the commanders on the ground at that time.

I really don't see a problem with Iraq. Violence has gone down, there is sufficient time to build up institutions and the Iraqi security forces, we are bound by the Iraqi law, and if needed we can go back in.

On Afghanistan, we are not totally pulling out, just in the next 18 months, a slow withdraw of the same number of forces we are sending in now.

Now, the double edged sword is a tough one. On the one hand, we can not give an open ended commitment to the corrupt Afghan government. We need to give them a point to say we are outta here if this isn't done by this date.

On the other, is the fear it does give the enemy a time to wait it out. While that may be true in some sense, the strategy can be updated and changed ot better reflect the situation on the ground. So, if we start to withdraw those numbers in Afgh. and the situation is remaining the same, I'm sure the President will halt the withdraw and allow the troops to stay and fight. He, and the commanders would change the strategy.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:On Afghanistan, we are not totally pulling out, just in the next 18 months, a slow withdraw of the same number of forces we are sending in now.

Now, the double edged sword is a tough one. On the one hand, we can not give an open ended commitment to the corrupt Afghan government. We need to give them a point to say we are outta here if this isn't done by this date.

On the other, is the fear it does give the enemy a time to wait it out. While that may be true in some sense, the strategy can be updated and changed ot better reflect the situation on the ground. So, if we start to withdraw those numbers in Afgh. and the situation is remaining the same, I'm sure the President will halt the withdraw and allow the troops to stay and fight. He, and the commanders would change the strategy.

While I agree with you on this point, rest assured that when this all goes down, BHO will be knee deep in his re-election effort. The anti-war left who helped him wrestle the party nomination away from Hillary will be on him like white on rice and the Republicans will be more than happy to remind them of it.

Obama will have a very, very politically dangerous situation on his hands.

Another example of a politician saying anything to win an election.

Also an example of how dumb the American public is to keep voting these clowns into office. I am voting against every incumbant in the next election and I suggest everyone else do the same.

Forget experience politicians, their experience is worth nothing, they are ruining the country. Let's put fresh blood into office and see what happens. Career politicians can only make the country worse.