But the Deficit is Obama's Fault! Right!

You get points for some of them, some for your persistance, and another for attendance. I'll add a gold star to your name whenever I see you post here. That's all, since you refuse to answer other peoples questions when you know the answer isn't good for your cause, or acknowledge other peoples points ever lol

 

I'd say the real 'cornerstone promise' of his was about stabilizing the economy... which he was successful at.

 

What? Are you serious? What aspect of our economy is "stabilized"? I gotta hear this one.....

 

I think it is as repaired as it is going to be as long as we are there. They have to find their own path unless we want to stay there forever.

We disrupted Al Qaeda and their training network and killed Bin Laden. This wasn't a war to bring Afghanistan into the civilized world. They weren't there before we invaded and they won't be there after we decide to leave. Let them find their own way. We have done more than enough. Lead a horse to water and all that.

Only because we choose to be. Face it. We don't often leave. It goes from President to President and Obama is no different. WWI and WWII...still there in Europe and Japan. Korea...still there. Gulf War...still there. Iraq...still there. Afghanistan....still there.

The only glaring exception...Vietnam...but that is because we didn't really win.

 

Me too!!!!

 

We're not in a depression ...like we would have been if you and cents ruled lol

 

I just wanted to add that I don't like us having a presence in so many countries either. Our military bases are everywhere, and are frequently cited as one of the main reasons terrorists began attacking us. It would take an immense shift in political and military policy to abandon any of them. I just don't see that happening in the near or distant future.

 

In Iraq and Afghanistan, it really doesn't take any more than 1 man to do it...at least right now. In a decade from now, it will be as nearly impossible as anywhere else. What you are seeing right now is how it begins. Just wait until the 'we need to stay in Iraq' talk starts up in earnest real soon. It is coming.

 

Whoa! Pardon me, but am I actually reading what I think I'm reading?!?! Could these actually be the words of the same person who justified Obama's invasion of Libya as a humanitarian effort to save civilians?

To wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1564270,00.html

http://www.archaeology.org/0901/etc/iraq.html

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QGF5700&show_article=1

I especially find the last article rather interesting as it had this to say (from 2007):

SUNAPEE, N.H. (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now—where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife—which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.
Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it's likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.
"Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis," Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there."
The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.
"It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions," he said.
The senator has been a fierce critic of the war in Iraq, speaking out against it even before he was elected to his post in 2004. He was among the senators who tried unsuccessfully earlier this week to force President Bush's hand and begin to limit the role of U.S. forces there.
"We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they're asking the wrong question," he said. "We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade."
Obama said the answer to Iraq—and other civil conflicts—lies in diplomacy.
"When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they're under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can't solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun," he said. "There's got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts."

 

If you think we could have just gone into Iraq, destroyed it's military capablity, hunted down and captured Saddam, killed him, and left... without suffering the consequences of our actions (internal and external power-grabs, long-term U.S. soldier presence (and the expenses associated with that)... then you are thinking like Jr. and his administration did pre-invasion.

The country has to be relatively stabilized before we could attempt to leave. IMO, I'd it's about as stable as we can get it, but obviously there is still some instability there. Our armies never set foot into Libya, as they have in Iraq and Afghanistan, though some personnel have been on the ground.

Your argument that we should have used diplomacy to stop Gadhafi from slaughtering everyone opposed to his rule in Libya is about as dumb as it gets, and I'm glad you are not in power to make that decision for the U.S.

 

Forgive me, but I thought that perhaps I was initially mistaken when I thought that you weren't speaking out of both sides of your mouth. I see that you think it's alright for us to attack a foreign nation as long as we don't send ground troops in. I also see that you think diplomacy is unnecessary and that the solution is to immediately start bombing. I was half-joking when I called you a War Hawk earlier. I'm not joking now. You ARE a War Hawk.

 

I've said it before, but it applies here as well: "You see what you want to see." You're conclusions about my beliefs are incorrect.

Part of the problem you are having is during the tranferance of one of my comments from one context to another, the 'if, then' process. You see that as acceptable and logical. It isn't lol

You've accused me of putting words in your mouth, is this how you retaliate against that in particular, or is this a standard practice anyway? I enjoyed reading the opening diss... ...the last one though.... eh... it's like lehigh calling someone a clown. It loses it's 'bite' the more you use it lol

 

You right wingers are too friggin' funny. Let's see. Spending is bad. Deficits are bad. Blah, blah blah.
Your party's last presentation for POTUS A) successfully converted a surplus into a deficit. B) Increased the deficit more than any President at the time, and that was without even counting the cost of the invasion of a formerly sovereign country. C) Granted deficit increasing tax cuts for the rich, not once, but 3 DIFFERENT TIMES. D) Your party's last VP stated that "deficits don't matter".
Now...fast forward to 2012 and what's your platform? WHAT ELSE! Cut taxes for rich people, stop spending cash on poor people! Outstanding boys! What intellect! What leadership! What the F?!!!!
Priceless...simply priceless.
For corruption, evil and hypocrisy, there's the super wealthy. For everything else...there's the republican party.

 

Here's whats so funny....BO is guilty of doing exactly what he called "unpatriotic" in 2008....increasing the debt by $4 trillion, borrowing money from China to pay the interest on debt he has accumulated. Additionally, everything Bush has been bashed for has just multiplied under BO...military action, debt, unemployment and so on.
I started this post by saying it was funny but in reality it is sad & scary. And to think some people still believe BO is capable of doing the job.......

 

Even funnier is that while you continually bash Obama, your party does the same thing.

Cut taxes for the rich. Stop spending money on poor people. Deficits only matter when a liberal is in the White House. Otherwise, it's A-OK. LOL
Funny indeed, putz.

 

The Great Recession started in December 2007 and technically ended in July 2009. Since Republi-CONs will not pass any job stimulating bills and Obama cannot create legislation, we have a jobless recovery leaving millions without any hope of finding work. Republi-CONs are intentionally tying the hands of this recovery in hopes of winning in 2012. The only question is whether the American people are going to trust the very people prolonging this jobless recovery to fix tomorrow what they could fix today but choose not to for political purposes?