• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama scraps visit to wounded troops

Where do you make this stuff up?

I never said you should keep your mouth shut about Obama. But when the vast majority of your threads about Obama are either completely over blown to the point where its laughable, about a non-issue that is mind numbling unimportant, or is a rehash of a post you already made with a slight tweak, it lowers your credibility and the desire to take the post seriously. Yes, you saying he's creating a Ghestapo to have his own Republican guard is about as useful to debate and a legitiamte issue in my mind as people calling Bush a Chimp. You're going on about his gaffe's are about as important in my mind as well....people going on about Bush's gaffes. Unlike you, my distaste for this kind of mindless, bottom of the barrel, lowest common denominator political crap is universal...right AND left.

No where am I saying stop talking about Obama. What I am saying is if the majority of what you post concerning him is crap that doesn't matter, don't be surprised when people think your opinion on the issues concerning obama are mostly crap that doesn't matter.

I'll care more about the opinion and believe a poster like DonSoutherland who posts something that's well thought out, actually seems to put thought instead of emotion into its creation, is well reasoned and tries to take a intelligent look at an issue and both sides, and then makes a statement that is generally about an actual real substantial issue and isn't a rehash of the same BS over and over again over 50 threads in a two week span, 45 of which are rehashs, non issues, or overblown.

Someone that wants to actually debate would be worrying more about quality over quantity in my mind. Someone that's simply trying to propogandize, smear, and cause a scene is going to care more about quantity over quality.

There's nothing wrong with taking the later approach, but don't be surprised when you or your posts aren't thought of as an honest attempt to debate and more of just an attempt to propogandize and smear.



i do both approaches. the other approaches get ignored. need i post the issues threads?


see it does not matter what i or others post. hell show me any obama thread where someone has a hissy fit and debates the person attacking obama....


and on that note i am not going to waste my time explaining it to you.


i get attacked daily here yet somehow me posting on obama is the problem. :roll:
 
Moderator's Warning:
Obama has never identified that he prefers to use his middle name. You have done this several times in this thread, and in others. The only reason to be doing this is to bait others. Please stop doing it.

So now using someone's "given" name is baiting? Is using his entire name also baiting; Barack Hussein Obama?

Here's my definition of baiting; when someone constantly suggests that Bush lied us into a war with Iraq; when someone suggests that Cheney outted Valerie Plame; or when someone suggests that Bush knew that 9-11 was going to happen.

There are thousands of "baiting" threads on this forum intended to evoke an emotional response rather than honest debate. Why is it you target ONE member of the forum?

Is using the term McBush to describe McCain also baiting?
 
The topic of this thread is the exact reason I can't stand hyper partisans on either side, it just seems to highlight it on the right here.

If Obama had gone and visited troops I have no doubt that Reverend Hellhound would've started a thread about him using our tax money to get a photo op with the troops who he really doesn't care about but is just using for political posturing.

However

If Obama chooses not to visit them so as not to make it a photo op or have it seem that he's exploiting them during a trip that's specifically a campaign trip, then he hates the troops and is disrespecting them.

Its one of those issues that, if I could believe that the OP was sincere and would look at it fairly if it had gone the other way, perhaps I could have the same venom. But I don't, I believe this was a situation that no matter what Obama would've done he would've got blasted for it by some and I can understand, even if I don't agree, with his reasoning on this.

It’s kind of like Liberals using the war dead to argue we should get out. Or how about the argument that we only went in because of WMDs or that Bush lied and troops died?

Yes, hyper partisanship is an ugly thing, particularly when it is used by a political party in this country that uses the dead troops to push an agenda that could not be supported on its own without divisive hyper partisan rhetoric.

But this is what happens in political blog forums. I suggest that you ignore them, or at least add more substance than tell us how much you hate it.
 
Or to look at the situation with a little honesty and recognize that his visit to the troops was only scrapped when he was told he couldn't take his campaign staff with him.
This is absolutely meaningless to me in a vacuum. I know that he has visited troops in private without it being a photo-op. I also could care less whether he went to begin with.
I don't dislike the man. I dislike the politician and the campaign. That's my right; it's why we vote. Get used to it.
As if I was assailing your right to an opinion or to vote.
 
This is absolutely meaningless to me in a vacuum. I know that he has visited troops in private without it being a photo-op. I also could care less whether he went to begin with.

Well that speaks for itself right there.

As if I was assailing your right to an opinion or to vote.

As if you weren't trying to reframe the discussion around whether or not I...how did you put it?

Hmm, yes, let's see...

The only reason you'd want to do that is if you already didn't like him or his views.

Another attempt at playing the "waaaaa you're an Obama hater" card. It gets old trying to have honest conversations about Obama when this crap gets thrown at us constantly.
 
As stated previously by many posters, Obama was damned if he went to visit the troops and damned if he did NOT visit the troops.

For weeks, Mr. Obama had been planning to visit wounded troops in Germany, just as he did in Afghanistan last week and previously had done at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. Yet the Landstuhl visit carried more risk because it was to come in the middle of an overseas campaign trip.

Robert Gibbs, a senior strategist for the campaign, said Mr. Obama thought he could carry out the visit without being perceived as politicizing it.

But two days before the visit, Pentagon officials told the campaign that only Mr. Obama would be allowed inside the medical center in his capacity as a senator. The adviser who had intended to join Mr. Obama, Scott Gration, a retired major general in the Air Force, was told he could not go along because he was a volunteer campaign adviser.

Mr. Obama was asked by reporters to explain the matter on Saturday in London.

“That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political, and the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns,” Mr. Obama said. “So rather than go forward and potentially get caught up in what might have been considered a political controversy of some sort, what we decided was that we not make a visit and instead I would call some of the troops that were there.”

NYT: Fact-checking Obama's canceled visit - The New York Times - MSNBC.com
 
As stated previously by many posters, Obama was damned if he went to visit the troops and damned if he did NOT visit the troops.

You're wasting your time trying to explain to those who refuse to read or cogitate, I've posted similar from the BBC earlier. Even if a Pentagon spokesperson came to this forum said the same thing certain posters here would refuse to accept it and would prefer their little conspiracies.
 
You're wasting your time trying to explain to those who refuse to read or cogitate, I've posted similar from the BBC earlier. Even if a Pentagon spokesperson came to this forum said the same thing certain posters here would refuse to accept it and would prefer their little conspiracies.

Good point. Isn't it disappointing that some people are so partisan that they can't be rational? ;)
 
Good point. Isn't it disappointing that some people are so partisan that they can't be rational? ;)

I have met very few rational right wingers from the US sadly :)
 
I have met very few rational right wingers from the US sadly :)

LOL My brother is one of them. He is a die-hard Republican but easily states that George Bush sucks and that this administraiton has allowed torture. ;)
 
LOL My brother is one of them. He is a die-hard Republican but easily states that George Bush sucks and that this administraiton has allowed torture. ;)

So they do exist?! wow... :2wave:
 
i do both approaches. the other approaches get ignored. need i post the issues threads?

see it does not matter what i or others post. hell show me any obama thread where someone has a hissy fit and debates the person attacking obama....

and on that note i am not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

i get attacked daily here yet somehow me posting on obama is the problem. :roll:

Have you ever thought that perhaps the other threads of yours get ignored because you've proven yourself to apparently not desire actual, real debate, but just want to distribute propoganda and constant spin. There have been threads concerning actual Obama policies and issues that aren't over exaggerated that have worked. So if some have worked, and yours hasn't, perhaps the issue is not the issues but the one variable still present in that issue.

But yes, you continue to act like "you posting on obama is the problem". Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. I mean, those words over and over again. It has nothing to do with you posting constant overblown overreactions or non-issue threads or swamping the forums with substanceless threads about Obama. No, its simply "stop posting on obama" that is EXACTLY what I've stated the problem is.

:roll:

Its the same reason why if Joe Hill posted something even vaguely correct factually it'd likely be ignored by most people, because all he does is post propoganda focusing upon his narrow ideology and view and has no actual desire to debate but instead just wants people to respond so he can insult them or call them idiots or some other name. Want people to take your Obama threads seriously, start focusing on posting threads that have a good bit of substance to them, look at the situation rationally, and focus on actual issues about him.

I garauntee that if you put up one good, substance filled, level headed thread about Obama in a day it'd get much better response and much better debate than posting up 10 over reacting hysterical ones. Its nothing about not posting about Obama, its that you get the kind of reaction you do based on the type of threads you post. That's what I'm saying, not "don't post about obama".

I do think you can post actual substance filled, level headed, Obama threads. If I didn't, I wouldn't have brought it up.
 
I wouldn't have a problem with tax dollars being spent for that leg of the trip. Anything that's good for the troops is worth it. I wish "Messiah" saw it that way.

I say his decision WAS the best for the troops.
;)
 
Have you ever thought that perhaps the other threads of yours get ignored because you've proven yourself to apparently not desire actual, real debate, but just want to distribute propoganda and constant spin. There have been threads concerning actual Obama policies and issues that aren't over exaggerated that have worked. So if some have worked, and yours hasn't, perhaps the issue is not the issues but the one variable still present in that issue.


Right, and the obama threads others start oh get so much traction.

did you actuall do research before you played the lame "it's the messenger" game?


But yes, you continue to act like "you posting on obama is the problem". Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. I mean, those words over and over again. It has nothing to do with you posting constant overblown overreactions or non-issue threads or swamping the forums with substanceless threads about Obama. No, its simply "stop posting on obama" that is EXACTLY what I've stated the problem is.


No wonder we cant get people to discuss the issues. Here we have mod doint the same attack the messenger crap as the usual suspects.


Are you ACTUALLY telling me to stop posting on a presidential canidate on a freakin debate forum? WTF? :roll:



Its the same reason why if Joe Hill posted something even vaguely correct factually it'd likely be ignored by most people, because all he does is post propoganda focusing upon his narrow ideology and view and has no actual desire to debate but instead just wants people to respond so he can insult them or call them idiots or some other name. Want people to take your Obama threads seriously, start focusing on posting threads that have a good bit of substance to them, look at the situation rationally, and focus on actual issues about him.


This is patently rediculous. I am willing to discuss rationally anything with anyone. When posters act the fool and start insulting me post after post, excuse me if i am not so effin polite.


I garauntee that if you put up one good, substance filled, level headed thread about Obama in a day it'd get much better response and much better debate than posting up 10 over reacting hysterical ones. Its nothing about not posting about Obama, its that you get the kind of reaction you do based on the type of threads you post. That's what I'm saying, not "don't post about obama".


http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/33462-obama-s-plan-connecting-farmers-net.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/33494-obama-veterans-issues.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/33448-obama-education.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/33493-obama-urban-policy.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/32623-obama-pulling-troops-out.html

What is wrong with these?


Do your homework next time jack. :roll:



I do think you can post actual substance filled, level headed, Obama threads. If I didn't, I wouldn't have brought it up.



I have, they have been ignored or continuous attacks on the Good Reverend.


Show me any Obama post that does not have the usual obama supporters attacking the poster, from ANYONE.
 
Last edited:
Right, and the obama threads others start oh get so much traction.

did you actuall do research before you played the lame "it's the messenger" game?

No wonder we cant get people to discuss the issues. Here we have mod doint the same attack the messenger crap as the usual suspects.

Are you ACTUALLY telling me to stop posting on a presidential canidate on a freakin debate forum? WTF? :roll:

.

..

...

:boom

MY GOD IT WAS SARCASM!

The ENTIRE point of my post was saying that you constantly responding to each of my posts saying "You're telling me to stop talking about Obama" was mischaracterizing what I'm saying. My ENTIRE post was pointing to the fact that I'm NOT telling you to post about Obama, but actually encouraging you to post about him.

My...I can't...I...wow

This literally left me speechless, lost cause. Just...wow....wow
 
.

..

...

:boom

MY GOD IT WAS SARCASM!

The ENTIRE point of my post was saying that you constantly responding to each of my posts saying "You're telling me to stop talking about Obama" was mischaracterizing what I'm saying. My ENTIRE post was pointing to the fact that I'm NOT telling you to post about Obama, but actually encouraging you to post about him.

My...I can't...I...wow

This literally left me speechless, lost cause. Just...wow....wow




Odd, I usually can tell sarcasm... I live in the land it flousishes.... My bad.... :mrgreen::doh
 
Back
Top Bottom