Obama has out-generalled them all!

[Dinner]

Now you're just being dumb.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Now you're just being dumb.

Clearly you don't understand the power of this movement and its promises.

There is simply only one reason you would disagree with what Obama promises.

Please quit being insensitive.

[Patroklos]

Are you aware of the definition of "immediate"? Find me one thing that says he's going to pull all troops out within the week is takes office, or anything to that effect. We've had this argument before and you lost. You must be desperate for points.

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," said Obama.

"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481393/Obama-calls-immediate-withdrawal-US-combat-troops-Iraq.html

Note this was in September 2007 so:

1.) He wanted to pull out troops immediately.
2.) He did not support the surge, which is in fact what has facilitatied actual responsible withdrawal ongoing right now like McCain said from the beginning of it.
3.) "Now," which was actually then, and means regardless of what the conditions were.
4.) Your fail. Again.

I don't know about the drilling, frankly I don't care. From what I understood he doesn't want to stop drilling but he doesn't want to use it as the "solution" to oil prices. I'm willing to bet you just don't comprehend the intricacies of a nuanced position, since you're used to Bush's "I hate the towel heads" approach to governance.

You understand wrong. Obama wanted ZERO expanded drilling and in fact not only did not think it should be a component of relieving our energy problems, but that it would exacerbate them. He switched on the drilling rather recently when it became a public opinion liability for him.

McCain wanted to expand some drilling (the shelf, not ANWAR) and has always included it as component of a broader energy policy including nuclear and other alternatives coming online.

McCain is obviously to nuanced for you.

If Obama carbon copied McCain's Iraq plan then how come your first point was how Obama had a policy of pulling the troops out of Iraq immediately? Is that also McCain's plan, or are you just too stupid to construct a simple point-form post?

Apparently you are too stupid to read a point-form post.

I said " Not support the surge and support an immediate withdrawl regardless of anything?"

Immediately followed by " Carbon copy McCain's Iraq plan since?"

So not only was Obama on the wrong side of the issue before, be has admitted it by adopting his oponents policy. Talk about being out generalled.

Finally, "sane nuclear policy" is subjective and given that you're a loyal eager brownnoser in the military that conducts unlawful wars and supports torture, I'm guessing your sanity is a little suspect at this point.

If I remember correctly, you are a proponent of nuclear power. Obama is not. In fact, he is so much of a non proponent he actually said those very words. He also doesn't include nuclear power in the summary of his energy poicy on his website. He doesn't trust the technology, the proven safety record, or the proven clean enviroment benefits.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," said Obama.

"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481393/Obama-calls-immediate-withdrawal-US-combat-troops-Iraq.html

Note this was in September 2007 so:

1.) He wanted to pull out troops immediately.
2.) He did not support the surge, which is in fact what has facilitatied actual responsible withdrawal ongoing right now like McCain said from the beginning of it.
3.) "Now," which was actually then, and means regardless of what the conditions were.
4.) Your fail. Again.

So he said begin immediately, not withdraw immediately. Big difference.

Withdraw immediately means you tell all soldiers to get the **** out by the end of the week, begin immediately means you draw up the plans and set up the handovers to local authorities...

You understand wrong. Obama wanted ZERO expanded drilling

Cite?

and in fact not only did not think it should be a component of relieving our energy problems, but that it would exacerbate them.

Cite?

McCain wanted to expand some drilling (the shelf, not ANWAR) and has always included it as component of a broader energy policy including nuclear and other alternatives coming online.

McCain is obviously to nuanced for you.

No, that's not nuanced, it's called shallow. McCain's bold plan is to continue doing what we're doing.

I'll await your citations, but from what I've been able to gather is they're more alike than they're different.

Apparently you are too stupid to read a point-form post.

I said " Not support the surge and support an immediate withdrawl regardless of anything?"

Immediately followed by " Carbon copy McCain's Iraq plan since?"

So aside from major fundamental differences, you are saying it is a carbon copy of the plan. Oi.

If I remember correctly, you are a proponent of nuclear power. Obama is not.

You do not remember correctly.

[Patroklos]

So he said begin immediately, not withdraw immediately. Big difference.

Withdraw immediately means you tell all soldiers to get the **** out by the end of the week, begin immediately means you draw up the plans and set up the handovers to local authorities...

I am wondering if you think you banal whining makes you seem intelligent. OMFG YOU SAID IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL THAT MEANS OBAMA WILL CLICK HIS FINGERS AND *POOF*

Obama wanted to an immediate withdrawal starting in September 2007, without the record stability achieved since then. He was wrong to call for that then. You were just soundly stomped, get over it an move on.

Cite?

Have you been living under a rock for the past year?

"The Democratic candidate said he would dip into the US strategic oil reserves to try to drive down prices, a policy he had previously opposed. He also confirmed that, as president, he would be willing to compromise over his earlier opposition to an expansion of oil drilling in US offshore waters."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/05/barackobama.uselections2008

Cite?

"When I'm president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida's coasts," Obama told reporters in Jacksonville in late June. "That's how we can protect our coastline and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/

How can drilling be a part of your energy plan when you don't support it. How is domestic drilling going to increase our forigen dependence?

No, that's not nuanced, it's called shallow. McCain's bold plan is to continue doing what we're doing.

Attacking the problem from multiple directions is not nuanced? You prefer Obama's "lets do nothing and wait for a miracle technology" approach?

How is it the same approach when we are not currently drilling the shelf? How is dramatically expanding nuclear energy the same approach? How is advocating alternatives the same aproach?

Obama supports domestic ethonal! Honeslty, that alone sinks him.

I'll await your citations, but from what I've been able to gather is they're more alike than they're different.

They are alike in that they both advocate alternative fuels and clean coal.

So aside from major fundamental differences, you are saying it is a carbon copy of the plan. Oi.

The concept is not hard to grasp Asher. Obama was wrong, and now he is clinging to McCain's coat tails. I even bolded the word in my original post that makes the concept simple to undersand. He gets credit for recognizing he was wrong, but since McCain was right in this instance in the first place that means Obama was out generalled.

You do not remember correctly.

May I ask why you don't support nuclear energy?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I am wondering if you think you banal whining makes you seem intelligent. OMFG YOU SAID IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL THAT MEANS OBAMA WILL CLICK HIS FINGERS AND *POOF*

Obama wanted to an immediate withdrawal starting in September 2007, without the record stability achieved since then.

You are delusional if you think Iraq is stable...

Have you been living under a rock for the past year?

You just called Iraq stable and you ask this of me?

"The Democratic candidate said he would dip into the US strategic oil reserves to try to drive down prices, a policy he had previously opposed. He also confirmed that, as president, he would be willing to compromise over his earlier opposition to an expansion of oil drilling in US offshore waters."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/05/barackobama.uselections2008

You seem to ignore the details. He didn't oppose drilling, he originally opposed additional offshore drilling? Am I the only one that understands the difference between blanket statements and specific statements? You seem to confuse them habitually.

How can drilling be a part of your energy plan when you don't support it. How is domestic drilling going to increase our forigen dependence?

I'm not sure you realize it, but if you look really closely you'll see a qualifier of "off-shore". You've yet to cite anything to support your claim that Obama wanted to stop drilling, he just didn't want additional offshore drilling?

Attacking the problem from multiple directions is not nuanced? You prefer Obama's "lets do nothing and wait for a miracle technology" approach?

But that's not his approach, quite clearly. McCain's is actually the "do nothing" approach -- he wants business as usual. That's doing nothing, it requires no action on his part. He wants oil companies to keep drilling and alternative energy companies to keep doing their research and experiments. Sorry, this isn't a real position. It's called a cop-out or a non-position.

They are alike in that they both advocate alternative fuels and clean coal.

Don't ever say we are alike again. You're a "yes-sir" obedient little **** serving a warmonger.

The concept is not hard to grasp Asher. Obama was wrong, and now he is clinging to McCain's coat tails.

People can and should change their positions. But you're acting like McCain is some kind of intellectual heavyweight that saw additional drilling offshore as an answer. It's not, it won't do **** all (something I've discussed in detail elsewhere), but to idiot simpletons such as yourself the idea makes a lot of sense. Obama may have changed his opinion on an insignificant meaningless piece of PR such as supporting additional small-scale offshore drilling, but that's not a genuine impact-making decision nor is it remotely close to the level of making grandiose claims such as Obama "clinging to McCain's coat tails".

May I ask why you don't support nuclear energy?

No.

Let's focus on the fact that McCain supports an illegal war that has killed more Americans people than 9/11 and exacted zero "revenge" on the "terrirsts" that enacted 9/11 to begin with. Let's focus on the fact that McCain supports the same failed financial policies as Bush.

There's all kinds of massive issues here you are ignoring while you fixate on the most trivial of issues. If you understood even the most basic aspects of the oil industry, you'd see why the discussion of offshore drilling on the US is a complete waste of time from a practical standpoint. Demand is growing faster (particularly due to China) than any increased production from offshore facilities in the US within 10 years could remotely make an impact on. It's a game of superficial politics for superficial simpletons, and you're playing it.

[Zkribbler]

Re: Yeah... nothing new here

Originally posted by VJ

... Zkribbler's personal employement is based on how well the unions do, so he is part of a special interest group which is indebted to Democrats. ...

Just to clarify. I'm employed by the government, not by the union. My job as union president pays me $0.

I've announced to my local that this will be my last term as President. As of Jan. 1, someone else will be in charge.

[PLATO]

"record stability" = "stable" ?

interesting.

But it matters not! Obama is going to get me good job, help me buy a car, lower my taxes and insurance premiums, and pay for my kid's college.

Not to mention that his $150 billion investment of some rich guys money into research will provide all the fuel we will ever need! (as long as we keep our tire pressure right that is)

Screw Iraq. We are saved!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Then why has he:

1.) Not support the surge and support an immediate withdrawl regardless of anything?

He's never supported an immediate withdrawl. He's supported a phased withdrawl. His catch phrase is "We need to be as careful getting out of Iraq and we were careless going in.

2.) Carbon copyMcCain's Iraq plan since?

McCain has a goal of having all U.S. combat forces out in 18 months?? And AFAIK, McCain has not yet signed onto Obama's plan to shift two combat brigades to Afgahnistan to battle the terrorist who actually attacked us on 9/11.

3.) Reverse himself on drilling?

Obama didn't reverse himself. He said he'd be willing to consider drilling as part of a compromise to get an energy policy package.

4.) Fail to have a sane nuclear policy?

Many people have legitimate concerns about meltdowns, leaks, and disposal of nuclear waste [a problem we still have solved yet].

[Patroklos]

I am actually wondering if Asher's little temper tantrum negates the bootstomping he recieved a post earlier...

Nope.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I am actually wondering if Asher's little temper tantrum negates the bootstomping he recieved a post earlier...

Nope.

It's interesting your delusions about the real world also extend to yourself.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by PLATO
"record stability" = "stable" ?

interesting.

But it matters not! Obama is going to get me good job, help me buy a car, lower my taxes and insurance premiums, and pay for my kid's college.

Not to mention that his $150 billion investment of some rich guys money into research will provide all the fuel we will ever need! (as long as we keep our tire pressure right that is)

Screw Iraq. We are saved!

Ahhh, such cynicism.

The Democrats are the "yes we can" party.
The Republicans are the "no we can't" party.

[Asher]

Originally posted by PLATO
"record stability" = "stable" ?

interesting.

Please explain how one can achieve "record stability" without the concept of "stable"?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Patroklos
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now"

What part of the word "begin" don't you understand?

[Asher]

I think it's time for the Navy to up its standards.