It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jack Webb Schools Obama

page: 2
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Polynomial C
He Tried to Give us all Health Care.. He Tried to Helped us all...

.. We are trying to make you reason... but you don't listen...

.. The Blood of millions uninsured Americans is in your hands now...


That's the response I keep hearing from the left...while I don't speak for all opposed to healthcare, I have no problem with tort reform, selling medical insurance accross state lines, forcing insurance companies to accept pre-existing medical conditions, and I have no problem with cheap affordable healthcare for those making lets say under $25,000 a year.

What I am against is the ever growing federal government systematically taking over a private industry...Ever been to the DMV or had the post office lose stuff? Ever have a family member struggle with VA healthcare? The government can't do anything right.

They say it is constitutionally legal under the "regulation of interstate commerce" clause...well if I use their definition I am not breaking into your home stealing your stuff and raping your wife, I am merely regulating your home.




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracyrus
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


You never watched the show dragnet?


No, as I said i'm from the uk. To be honest it looks a bit before my time. I just didn't find it funny and find the the Hitler reference totally unfair



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


no the joke is in the show itself... they are cops talking to a perp... i guess i cant really explain why its funny ... look on youtube for the theme song ... i dunno heh its a great show



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by djusdjus



Outstanding!

Jack Webb never met Obama. Probably never even heard of him.



Apparently, neither did 400 contacted Columbia alumni, that attended the university the same time that Barack Obama supposedly was a student there.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I salute you, THAT WAS GOOD!!!



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder

He tried to financially break this country for the sake of his own ego...


I hope you're talking about Bush. Bush came into office with a record high surplus and left with 1.2 trillion budget deficit. He blew $3 trillion in Iraq, dividing our forces and making Afghanistan unnecessarily long if not completely impossible to end.

This site has been turned into a forum for Fox News talking points that are misleading if not completely false. Bush was a "patriot" as he drove this country into the ground but Obama is constantly described as a terrorist for doing everything in his power to bring us back from brink. Frankly, I have no respect for anyone who claims to be constitutional scholar who uttered not a single word of protest as Bush and Cheney burned it to ashes. Bush's 700 billion bailout has become Obama's through a little historical revision. The economy was "no longer" in the toilet for the last 5 months of Bush's term and Obama was unable to solve this problem within 5 minutes like the republicans claim McCain could have.

Bush was interested in fat tax cuts for the ultra wealthy and handing over trillions of our tax dollars to defense contractors. Republicans have become shill opportunists and the single greatest threat to the legitimacy of our constitution. Terrorism could never in a million years destroy our way of life. Our way of life can only be destroyed by neocons who find the constitution and US law governing torture inconvenient. You've disgraced this country for all time. Congrats - you've given Al Qaeda a foothold in Iraq and created loads of new terrorists with hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities.

Although you should be ashamed, Right Wing loons have tricked you into thinking that hatred and fear of Muslims and unprovoked war are "American values" worth protecting.


[edit on 26-11-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


No one is laughing about Hitler at all! The reference made about Hitler is the same as "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it".

This is parody,but it's serious,too(that's why "it works"!)

Those still drunk on the Kool-Aid will not see what's really going on,not even if Jack Webb told them in person!


A note to Liberals,from a quote by Norman Thomas,U.S. Socialist party pres. candidate...

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of "Liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program,until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened."

I don't want to get too serious about this right now. This subject of Anerica's exceptionalism vs. the apologetic stance of our "Undocumented President" is enough to depress me,and since it's a holiday,I would rather keep it light.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


Let's get this off the table first...I am no Pub or Dem, the two party system is a joke and people like you fell for it. Keep the masses attention off of us arguing over bull crap and their attention off the bigger picture.
This was in most part a joke, but it hit home with a lot of truth, which hurt your feelings. Yes, your god Obama is under the microscope. As was Bush, Clinton, Bush, Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy etc..., get over it and grow up. If you actual beleive that he is so great, why has he endorsed the patriot act, instead of getting rid of it as he promised to do so???????? Also, why are we staying in Afgan until 2017, when again the all mighty Obama said we would be out sooner????? Shall we continue or are you getting the picture now...you have been lied to once again. The only thing left is for you to admit it, but that is up to you.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 
I hope you're talking about Bush. Bush came into office with a record high surplus and left with 1.2 trillion budget deficit. He blew $3 trillion in Iraq, dividing our forces and making Afghanistan unnecessarily long if not completely impossible to end.


Right and saint obama tripled President Bush's deficit within his first hundred days in office with that not so-stimulating stimulus bill, took control of GM forced a partnership between Chrysler an fiat, shoving national healthcare down our throats, swore unemployment wouldn't go over 8% now it's well over 10%. Yeah, I gotta admit obama The Destroyer's doing a bang up job.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by andrewh7
 


so???????? Also, why are we staying in Afgan until 2017, when again the all mighty Obama said we would be out sooner?????


Could you possibly backup that HOAX?

You see, as per the Fact sources he never promised or claimed America would be out of Afghanistan sooner.


"For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three."
Barack Obama on Sunday, July 20th, 2008 in Afghanistan

Source: politifact.com...

And these were his promises on Afghanistan.


No. 134: Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
No. 164: Work to end NATO restrictions on forces in Afghanistan
No. 165: Train and equip the Afghan army
No. 166: Increase non-military aid to Afghanistan by $1 billion
No. 167: Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts

Source:www.politifact.com...

Oh and guess what!! All these promises are filed under "PROMISE KEPT, that's okay no need to be embarrassed about it now...your "political blog" you follow wouldn't have mentioned that.


If you actual beleive that he is so great, why has he endorsed the patriot act, instead of getting rid of it as he promised to do so????????

Do you mean the Patriot Act covered under Civil Liberties in Politifact? Because that are the only promises he made regarding Patriot Act. I think your "blog" wouldn't have mentioned that so let me help you;


Promises about Civil Rights on the Obameter
No. 160: Clarify legal status for defense contractor personnel - Not yet Started
No. 179: Revise the Patriot Act to increase oversight on government surveillance - Not yet Started
No. 180: Restrict warrantless wiretaps - In The Works
No. 181: Restore habeas corpus rights for "enemy combatants" - Stalled
No. 267: Strengthen federal environmental justice programs- Not yet started
No. 291: Expand the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity - In The Works
No. 295: Vigorously pursue hate crimes and civil rights abuses - Not Yet Started
No. 296: Sign the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act into law- In The Works
No. 297: Restore funding to the EEOC and the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs - Not Yet Started
No. 298: Eliminate caps on damages for discrimination cases - Not Yet Started
No. 299: Eliminate disparity in sentencing for crack and coc aine - In The Works
No. 300: Reform mandatory minimum sentences - Promise kept
No. 301: Enhance drug courts - Not Yet Started
No. 302: Create loan-forgiveness programs for law students who become public defenders - Not Yet Started
No. 303: Ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies - Not Yet Started
No. 304: Encourage videotaping of interrogations in capital cases - Not Yet Started
No. 305: Create a prison-to-work incentive program - Not Yet Started
No. 390: Safeguard the right to privacy - - Not Yet Started
No. 412: Strengthen the Age Discrimination in Employment Act - Not Yet Started
No. 509: Give the White House's Privacy and Civil Liberties Board subpoena power - Stalled

Source: www.politifact.com...

Omg!! is that right? Not even 1 "promise not kept" yet in Civil Liberties including Patriot Act!! But..but you said something about patriot act he promised...Gee!! guess the "blog" said it different right?

Edit to add:

The only thing left is for you to admit it, but that is up to you.

Ignorant is what I would suggest with no facts, please do admit it.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by December_Rain]

[edit on 26-11-2009 by December_Rain]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I don't understand what Americans' problem is with government health care. If it's so bad then please explain to me why it works just fine in every other country with a higher standard of living than us? Instead you want to keep enforcing your good for nothing system down the throats of individuals like myself in their early 20's who aren't supported by their parent's healthcare provider anymore and most likely will not be provided good healthcare until we begin our careers in our late 20's early 30's. A lot can happen in that time, I can end up in the hospital with who knows what tomorrow and I'm as good as dead because if I get cured, I'm forever a slave to the insurance company. If our healthcare system is so great then please explain to me why we're ranked 37th in the WHO's health system rankings. Who's number one? Surprise surprise, it's France, a country with universal health care. Yes people are living longer like the video said, but we're still only ranked 50th in life expectancy. So please people, explain to me exactly what you're defending about this health care system because nothing seems to add up. The problem here isn't whether Obama lied to you or Bush lied to you, it's that they ALL lied to you. They're all working for private interests and the underground government, not for you. What's so hard to understand about that. Stop placing the blame on republicans or democrats they both deserve the blame. Seriously, this site is getting ridiculous and if it continues I'll be finding somewhere else to hang out. All I see our messages with a racist overtone that seem to be supported with nothing but facts from Fox News. And seriously, what is everyone's problem with illegal immigrants. This country was and continues to be built on immigration. Oh but it was ok when you're family decided to come here but not anymore huh? You swear that at some point in your family's history, your ancestors weren't immigrants as well. And don't start with, "oh but my family came here legally" that argument doesn't work with me or anyone with a knowledge of history. Of course it was easy to come here "legally" when all you had to do was buy a boat ticket and sign in at Angel or Ellis Island. Immigration quotas weren't enacted until 1921. Illegal immigrants are here looking for a better life for themselves and their loved ones because of crummy conditions in their homeland (which I'm assuming for most of you the problem lies with Mexico) that our government and american businesses have helped create. So they come here in search of something better, with that American spirit we like to think so highly of, and instead they have to deal with racist jerks. Give up you're baseless, ignorant, ridiculous arguments, they don't work with the educated folks.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by imtired
 


The only problem with few Americans:
1) Obama is black
2) Their candidate couldn't think of the "health plan" or do something about it, in their term, so they don't want Obama to take credit and be remembered in history who brought a uniform health care for all Americans (including millions who never had health care before).
3) They are afraid of Obama because he does not work in White House with "biblical quotes" of crusades on his reports and memos and instead do meetings with educated people, show humility, and tend to work on the core of problem.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
reply to post by andrewh7
 
, swore unemployment wouldn't go over 8% now it's well over 10%. Yeah, I gotta admit obama The Destroyer's doing a bang up job.

I remember that line

We were promised. The president said we would keep unemployment under 8.5 percent (if the stimulus passed)."
Eric Cantor on Wednesday, July 8th, 2009 in a PBS interview.


It is rated as : Barely True in a Fact checking website along with the reason, perhaps you have heard of it and here is why;


The claim that the Obama administration "promised" the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent is a popular talking point among Republican critics of the stimulus.

We've heard it from House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., as well as conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, to name a few. They all called it a "promise."

They are referring to a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.

But in June, the unemployment rate was 9.5 percent.

In the past week, the administration has acknowledged its projections were wrong.

Here's what Romer herself said in a July 2 interview on Fox: "None of us had a crystal ball back in December and January. I think almost every private forecaster realized that there were other things going on in the economy. It was worse than we anticipated. What the private forecasters are saying now is that they do anticipate that the economy will start growing again in the second half of the year, and that usually, then, employment and unemployment start to respond shortly after that. So I think that is a realistic expectation."

Biden also acknowledged the discrepancies in a July 5 interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

"The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy," Biden said. "The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures in most of the blue chip indexes out there. ... And so the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited. Now, that doesn't — I'm not laying — it's now our responsibility. So the second question becomes, did the economic package we put in place, including the Recovery Act, is it the right package given the circumstances we're in? And we believe it is the right package given the circumstances we're in."

Stephanopoulos correctly noted that projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office at the time were slightly less optimistic than the administration's. In January, the CBO projected the unemployment rate would climb to 8.3 percent in 2009 and peak at 9 percent in 2010. By February, the prediction was even higher — 9 percent in 2009 without the stimulus, and 7.7 to 8.5 percent with a stimulus.

In a White House news conference on June 8, 2009, Bernstein, the co-author of the February projections, said they were off because the fourth-quarter economic numbers weren't available at the time. When they were released a short time later, they revealed the economy was in more dire shape than economists realized.

Bernstein maintained in that June news conference that the stimulus is working, and that without it, the unemployment rate would be even worse.

The debate about the numbers comes from the inherent uncertainty in economic forecasting. How can you ever prove that if the unemployment rate gets to X percent, it would or would not have gotten a point or two higher if not for the stimulus? The same holds true for Republicans who say the rising unemployment rates prove the stimulus isn't working. Again, it's difficult to empirically prove whether they're right or wrong.

We're certainly not going to try here. What we can rule on, however, is whether the Obama administration "promised" that unemployment rates would not rise above 8 percent if the stimulus were passed. We could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making such a public pledge.

What we saw from the administration in January was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers.

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

There's also a footnote that goes along with the chart that states: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."

That sure doesn't sound like a full-fledged promise to us.

We think it's a big stretch to call an economic projection a "promise." The administration never characterized it that way and included plenty of disclaimers saying the predictions had "significant margins of error" and a higher degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." And so we rule the statement by Cantor — and other Republicans who have said the same thing — Barely True

Source: www.politifact.com...



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


"The only problem with few Americans:
1) Obama is black
2) Their candidate couldn't think of the "health plan" or do something about it, in their term, so they don't want Obama to take credit and be remembered in history who brought a uniform health care for all Americans (including millions who never had health care before).
3) They are afraid of Obama because he does not work in White House with "biblical quotes" of crusades on his reports and memos and instead do meetings with educated people, show humility, and tend to work on the core of problem."

come on now .... that's a crock and you know it.... This whole left right thing is a shame both sides are mudslinging.... and that quote above is a whole lot of slop....

now I dont agree with his health care plan... is it because hes black? that's ridiculous, no i think its too much money at the wrong time.

Did I vote for McCain? ummm no.

Am I afraid of Obama because he doesn't use bible speak? err im agnostic and would rather public officials spare the god stuff.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracyrus
 


That's why I used the term "few" not all who oppose him. My apologies if I was not clear.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I can't believe I just wasted five minutes of my life watching this.

Who is Jack Webb and what is Col. Potter doing out of uniform?

Didn't these guys used to say something like "Just the facts ma'am"? The fact is that Obama hasn't done anything to change this country to the extent that the previous president did. Where is your Bush Dragnet clip with it's Reductio ad Hitlerum?



[edit on 11/26/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I'm a big fan of the speeches in Dragnet. To me the words of those writers were about the only sensible words on TV during the late 60s. It is so gratifying to see that these old criticisms of progressive thinking still resonate strongly among people.

If you are familiar with other good Dragnet speeches that would be an appropriate scolding in the current environment, please tell me about it. We made these Jack Webb videos on a cheapie $348 Walmart laptop, and it's gratifying that so many people in the progressive community think these come from some GOP or insurance company lobbying group.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 





Originally posted by ufoptics reply to post by andrewh7 so???????? Also, why are we staying in Afgan until 2017, when again the all mighty Obama said we would be out sooner?????

Could you possibly backup that HOAX? You see, as per the Fact sources he never promised or claimed America would be out of Afghanistan sooner.

"For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three." Barack Obama on Sunday, July 20th, 2008 in Afghanistan


Hey December Rain, don't mean to rain on your parade but you should take a look at this video. I believe it will back up that hoax you mentioned.




...you can take that to the bank!


And before you argue that he meant Iraq not Afghanistan, the troops are still present in large number at both locations.

Unfortunately even Lord Obama succumbed to flip-flopping on the topic when his odds at the presidency got better and better.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by vegno

Hey December Rain, don't mean to rain on your parade but you should take a look at this video. I believe it will back up that hoax you mentioned.
...you can take that to the bank!


You wish you could do that but you can't, simply cutting a video which does not even name the country he is talking about, you cite as source. Grasping for straws..perhaps! It's not even clear if he is talking about Mars, Sudan, Pakistan, North pole let Iraq and Afghanistan from that specific video you cite as source.


And before you argue that he meant Iraq not Afghanistan, the troops are still present in large number at both locations.

Unfortunately even Lord Obama succumbed to flip-flopping on the topic when his odds at the presidency got better and better.


Unfortunately, your "political blog" is far away from real world news or you would have known this already:

Iraq Marks Withdrawal of U.S. Troops From Cities

Iraqi Forces Assume Control Over Cities From US Troops

Iraqi leaders welcome U.S. troop withdrawal plan

Oh and guess what the fact checking website shows us what all (your "Lord" as you state..oh you didn't?? you were presumably implying?? like you presume the delusions!! Gee!! you need to watch yourself), promised on Iraq War:


No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq - Done
No. 126: Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq - In The Works
No. 127: Encourage political accommodation in Iraq- Not Yet Started
No. 128: Launch robust diplomatic effort with Iraq and its neighbors - - In The Works
No. 129: Form international group to help Iraq refugees Not Yet Started
No. 130: Provide at least $2 billion for services to Iraqi refugees Not Yet Started
No. 131: Present Iraq status-of-forces agreement to Congress for approval Not Yet Started
No. 132: No permanent bases in Iraq Not Yet Started
No. 161: End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war - In The Works

Source: www.politifact.com... nope , it's not some wacko political blog asking for donations, its from a Pulitzer Prize Winner website which solely checks "facts" !

You just make it too easy to debunk your HOAXES. Better luck next time, try something new and imaginative.

Obama always stated as mentioned on his campaign website:

His campaign Web site says the following: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."


and all these are his campaign promises regarding Iraq taken from different speeches


For example:

• At a Democratic debate in Hanover, N.H. on Sept. 26, 2007, the late Time Russert pressed Obama as to whether he would have all troops out by the end of his first term. "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there," Obama said. "I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."

• At a Democratic debate in Cleveland on Feb. 26, 2008, Obama said, "As soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed."

• At a debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, Obama said, "Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

• On "Meet the Press" on May 4, 2008, Russert asked Obama what he would do if advisers thought "a quick withdrawal" from Iraq would result in genocide. Obama replied, "Of course, I would factor in the possibilities of genocide, and I factored it in when I said that I would begin a phased withdrawal. What we have talked about is a very deliberate and prudent approach to the withdrawal -- one to two brigades per month. At that pace, it would take about 16 months, assuming that George Bush is not going to lower troop levels before the next president takes office. We are talking about, potentially, two years away. At that point, we will have been in Iraq seven years. If we cannot get the Iraqis to stand up in seven years, we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years."

Taken in their entirety, Obama's comments reflect a philosophy of "about 16 months" for withdrawal. He also appears to be willing to take advice from commanders on the ground that might affect the general pace, but not the overall goal of withdrawal. Yet Obama has been artful in his rhetoric. His campaign has clearly emphasized "16 months" when speaking to anti-war audiences and "about 16 months" when answering questions from withdrawal skeptics. But Obama never urged a "precipitous" withdrawal; even a bill he offered in January 2007 that set a deadline for getting out of Iraq contained an exemption for national security.

The Plouffe statement, however, stands out. Plouffe said the 16-month time frame was a "rock solid commitment." But it's the only statement we found that supports the idea of withdrawal with no allowances made for circumstances on the ground.

After the McCain campaign attacked Obama as a flip-flopper, the candidate responded with another press conference the same day.

"I intend to end this war," Obama said. "My first day in office I will bring the joint chiefs of staff in, and I will give them a new mission. And that is to end this war. Responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month. And again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months' time."

Weighing all these statements together, we find the McCain campaign is off-base in saying Obama has changed position. Obama repeatedly said facts on the ground could affect the tactical moves of an overall withdrawal. Obama's position was not an iron-clad withdrawal timeline in the first place. We find the McCain campaign's statement that Obama has reversed position to be False

Source: www.politifact.com...

Yep again the fact checking website !!



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   


It's not even clear if he is talking about Mars, Sudan, Pakistan, North pole let Iraq and Afghanistan from that specific video you cite as source.


Yes, of course! How could I forget about the military troops in Mars?! It's not like Afghanistan and Iraq are the biggest wars America is currently involved in. Please, don't insult our intelligence. I don't think you make presidential promises to bring the troops back home and then say " OH SORRY, I meant the troops in Cyprus!"

You seem to have a fixation on one website you tout over and over again. The bottom line is this:

Obama CLEARLY stated he will bring the troops back home and on top of which mentioned it will be his FIRST PRIORITY.

Did the troops fully leave Iraq or Afghanistan? No
Was it the first issue he dealt with when in office? No


Here's another video of him talking about withdrawals, (SURELY A HOAX!)



16 months...We're past the 8 months so that should mean half the troops that were originally there are home now right? Wrong.


As of August there were around 131 000 troops in Iraq.
That is not half of the troops when compared to a year before where the number of troops were around 140 000.

Face the truth, the troops in Iraq are there to stay. At the very best, Obama promises a permanent base of 50 000 soldiers to remain there. That does NOT equate to "Bringing the troops home". As for Afghanistan, well he plans on adding another 50 000 troops soon.


Also, what blog are you talking about? I don't have a blog nor did I cite a blog?

You seem so hellbent on defending Obama when it obvious that, at least on this topic, he has failed to keep his promises. From your previous posts, it seems whatever proof brought forward will be nullified by your 1 source and one-track mindset.

I'm out.



P.S Obama is not my Lord.




top topics



 
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join