Obama wants Bush war team to stay, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 03:45 PM by sos37
Originally posted by Lasheic
Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Lasheic


I'm starting to see more and more posts by people coming to their senses - after they voted - so that post wasn't meant to be directed solely at any one person. Hence the use of "you all".


If it wasn't meant to be directed solely at any one, then perhaps you shouldn't have stated it in a direct response to me and addressing my comment. There's other ways to word it when addressing a general target audience. Think before you hit the reply button.


Hey, lay off, pal. Here at ATS you have a lot of people who did vote for Obama and went to great lengths to spout off all the great ways he was going to change change change. Centurion has been here a long time, through the election and such and those of us who favor conservatism have been the subject of lots of attacks.

If you didn't vote for Obama well then bully for you. But if you got your panties in a bunch over the post then hey, either build up a thick skin or find another site to post on.


reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 04:58 PM by Lasheic
reply to post by sos37


Irregardless, I was not one of those people. What Centurion said was a thinly veiled personal attack based on a (faulty) assumption of my political affiliations based on a stereotype. Why? Simply because I agreed with a move Obama made?

If Centurion wants to "move on" and discuss the topic at hand, I suggest he start by addressing the topic at hand - not using it as a platform to rant and thumb his nose at his political opponents (whether actual or imagined). Note that he didn't actually say anything about the point I made, despite the fact that I'm sure valid opposing views exist. Now he wants to play it off as if I was the instigator taking the topic off course? Wasting everyone's time? Talk about "CYA".

And time on the forum means nothing. A statement stands or fails on the validity of it's claim, regardless of who's speaking it.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by Lasheic]


reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 05:28 PM by centurion1211
reply to post by Lasheic




Ah, another (elitist?) pseudo-intellectual has joined our ranks. What you are attempting to do is called a deflection attempt here, and is definitely against the T & C.

BTW, "irregardless" is not really a word, but I've met a lot of people from CA that think it is. They also like to say "mute point" instead of the correct "moot point", too.

Regarding the topic, if you'll check back I started this thread, so it's likely that I know what the topic is. So, if you want to discuss why obama is now quite content to keep what were once regarded as war criminals in the Defense Department, please feel free to do so. I see your previous post has gotten a couple of stars. No doubt from others here that would rather continue deflecting rather than dealing with the unpleasantness of a candidate they supported turning his back on a key reason they voted for him.



[edit on 12/23/2008 by centurion1211]



reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 06:18 PM by Lasheic
reply to post by centurion1211




Ah, another (elitist?) pseudo-intellectual has joined our ranks.


Ad homenim.


What you are attempting to do is called a deflection attempt here, and is definitely against the T & C.


Talk to a mod about it. I'm still waiting for a coherent or a reasonable response to my point, one in which apparently you found enough fault with to comment on directly without actually addressing or rebutting.


BTW, "irregardless" is not really a word, but I've met a lot of people from CA that think it is.


Take it up with Merriam-Webster.



Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : regardless

Usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.




So, if you want to discuss why obama is now quite content to keep what were once regarded as war criminals in the Defense Department, please feel free to do so.


I already gave my base appraisal of the situation, and I don't recall ever mentioning them as "War Criminals". I don't recall them ever being convicted or standing trial for war crimes either. I'm still waiting for any actual counter-argument you have to this choice in policy. If you have a problem with his policy, then that should be made clear - however, it seems to me that you seem to be just trolling for responses from those who have opposing political views.



I see your previous post has gotten a couple of stars. No doubt from others here that would rather continue deflecting rather than dealing with the unpleasantness of a candidate they supported turning his back on a key reason they voted for him.


What does the number of stars my posts get have to do with anything?


reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 06:46 PM by centurion1211
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


No, the truth BH is that after years of dishing out sometimes the lowest form of political bashing, including name calling here on ATS, you and those like you can't seem deal with even the slightest dissent on obama. As some of the nicest on the liberal side used to point out, dissent is part of the democratic process. So, please learn to deal with it with some sort of grace and understanding whenever someone posts about the latest obama screw-up or when something from his past that you all might prefer to stay hidden is discovered. You have to know the future holds some of both.

And please remember that many of us - left and right - did support Bush for awhile after he took office and after 9/11, only saying "oops" after mis-management of the war and other key issues occurred. Seems like a bunch of obama's supporters are starting to say "oops" before he is even sworn in.

Might be some sort of clue on what's to come, don't you think?



[edit on 12/23/2008 by centurion1211]


reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 07:33 PM by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by centurion1211


Just so we're all really clear on the subject: Do you agree or not agree with Obama keeping Gates in the position?



reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 11:54 PM by The Bald Champion
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by The Bald Champion

I think it would be stupid of Obama to clean out the experienced war mongers and put in hippies. I think it would be irresponsible to put in newbees during the transition...
Anyhow aren't You NEOCONS happy that the war is on??? Remember, spread freedom and Democracy???

So you got a good thing going for you! Cheers


No, but that's exactly what you (anti-war appeasers) said you wanted during the campaign, and obama was right there with you. So, bring on the hippies. Let's see once and for all how "brilliant" a move what you said you wanted would be.

Might end up costing us millions of lives and our nation as our enemies decide to take advantage of the hippies, but then we will have finally proved the point that their philosophy on this is wrong.

So, why take out your frustrations by trying to insult me when it is your guy that's let you down?

Up to you to now figure out what if any of what I just wrote was "tongue-in-cheek".

[edit on 12/23/2008 by centurion-1211]


I don't understand want you are trying insinuate or establish with this thread.

Can you please explain how you expect me to think or feel about this. Do you expect people to react the way you do???
The initial insult was the presumption that this indicates a failed campaign. If you think that liberals want to leave Iraq a flaming pile of humanity think again. Obama inherited ONE of the worst foreign policy mistakes in US history. Leader deposition is one thing, but occupation and nation building??? The US is not in a very stable position if you haven't noticed.
The missteps and lack of judgment of this president is EMBARRASSING. Could we have not spent the truckloads of money, manpower and lives on better conceived action???

I am not in the irrelevant political position this time around (you'll see, not fun). That being the case, I am assuming that Obama is going to try his best. You expect him to fail, I want to wait and see.
If Obama is going to stick with Gates thats his call. It is plausible that Gates is well versed in CURRENT actions and strategies. It seems unlikely that the there are many
folks who are as clued in to the daily goings on. As a flaming, hippy, terist libral I can
understand why any new president would want a inside guy during THIS war and transition.

I am tired of the tone of threads like these. The title reflects objective topics and threading, but the commentary is no different from JAMIE 83. I open it up and it is just emotionally charged speculation.
We will see when there is something to talk about...


reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 05:59 AM by FlyersFan
reply to post by RFBurns


Ditto. Dig that 'change'. Some of Obamas disciples will wake up and will have buyers remorse even before the inauguration.

I think we need some 'I told you so' bumper stickers made up.


reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 07:04 AM by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by centurion1211
No, the truth BH is that after years of dishing out sometimes the lowest form of political bashing, including name calling here on ATS, you and those like you can't seem deal with even the slightest dissent on obama.


Projection, much?

I deal with dissent on Obama just fine. If I agree, I say so and if I disagree, I say so. I have vocally (on ATS) disagreed with Obama on gun control, paying off Hillary's debt, his votes for the bailout and FISA and other subjects. I have written critical letters TO HIM on these subjects. So, you don't know what you're talking about. Your desire to categorize Obama supporters as not being able to deal with dissent is totally manufactured in your mind. It's just that when people disagree with YOU, or don't fit nicely in the box you have put them in, you can't deal with it - other than to call them names and make attacks as you have in this thread.

Seems like a bunch of obama's supporters are starting to say "oops" before he is even sworn in.


If people are saying "Oops" before Obama is even sworn in, and before he's had a chance to do ANYTHING, then that's their right. But in my opinion, they're jumping the gun. I just haven't seen any reason to do so. I don't follow the tides, I think for myself. I disagree with some of his decisions, but as far as I'm concerned, people turning against him because they disagree with something he'sNOT DONE YET, are being unrealistic. I have never expected to agree with him on everything. Some people do. That's their problem.

But I happen to agree with Obama that in time of multiple wars, keeping on some people in the Defense Dept, who are in the know about what's going on in these war-torn countries and in our military, is a GREAT, smart and brilliant idea. Why would I disagree with that? Because they might be Republicans? Please! I don't have this negative and divisive mindset that you do. I would much rather have an experienced, competent Republican in a critical position (like Gates) than let the party BS rule my opinions and views. That's your thing, not mine.


Might be some sort of clue on what's to come, don't you think?


I really have no idea. As I have said, I personally will wait see and make my judgments on the RESULTS, not conspiracy theories about what he might do or what his administration picks may indicate. No offense, but ATS members being critical of Obama isn't going to sway my opinions of him. I will base my opinions on FACTS, results and my own ideals, not ATS members' theories and Obama critics' group-think.

As I said, this thread is a transparent attack on Obama supporters. All anyone has to do is read the first post to see that. You clearly don't disagree with Obama on this, you're just hoping to get in a few digs at "the other side". It's pathetic, really.


reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 08:18 AM by jsobecky
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I haven't been wrong about him yet.

And the first year will be worse than I thought, unfortunately.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^