Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/10/09 04:50 AM, GoronMaster wrote: well during world war 2 nevil chamberlin took a trip to nazi germany announcing to hitler all he wanted was peace and had nothing against the nazis or the nazi party.

If Obama was signing treaties with Iran saying "Okay, you can invade one country, but you have to promise to stop there!" then you might have a point.

I also don't really understand why people think that negotiations would have been pointless in WW2. Obviously, Hitler wasn't going to be reasoned with, but diplomacy still made a huge difference in the outcome of the war. Hitler made an uneasy alliance with the Soviet Union that helped Germany earlier in the war. The US signed a peace treaty with Japan that allowed the Emperor to stay in power and saved millions of lives.

So really, I don't see how people can pretend that diplomacy was irrelevant to WW2.

At 6/12/09 01:24 PM, Al6200 wrote: So really, I don't see how people can pretend that diplomacy was irrelevant to WW2.

Actually, I think that one of the major flaws in the Allied policy was that of "unconditional surrender", that is, victory would not be accepted unless the enemy accepted whatever was demanded without reviewing it first.

What should have been done is negotiations should have been opened and the Allies should have been able to demand extremely harsh terms. Negotiations, though, should have been opened. This might have avoided the dropping of the bombs.

At 6/12/09 06:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 6/12/09 02:42 AM, Memorize wrote: Obama is more like George W. Bush to the second degree.

But hey, you're the one who said there's nothing wrong with George W. Bush, right, so that's not a bad thing.

Where have you been for the past year?

Granted I defended Bush when I was on these boards for a while. Until the presidential campaigns started and I went with Ron Paul.

I'm still saddened he didn't get the nomination.

At 6/12/09 10:19 AM, Tancrisism wrote:

Although supposedly there are plans to narrow it by the end of his first term...

You mean down to the deficit levels of George Bush?

How is that an accomplishment?

Especially when the deficit is going to rise back up to over $1 Trillion after his first term.

This makes him sensible, not George Bush.

Yes, because going from a 60 day withdrawl to a 16 month withdrawl to a 16 month withdrawl with an unspecied size of residual forces left on the ground to a 16 month withdrawl with an unspecified size of residual forces left based on conditions on the ground to... a 19 month withdrawl with a 50,000 residual troop size (more than 1/3 of who are currently there) to stay based on conditions on the ground.

The wonders of political talk.

I'd like to see a link suh.

By Keith Olbermann no less.

Stem cell research, abortion rights, supreme court justice choices, Guantanamo Bay, using diplomacy, admitting possible mistakes...

1) The government shouldn't be subsidizing stem cell research to begin with (which started with Bush).

2) Now the government not only uses tax payer money to pay for abortions in the United States, but now uses tax payer money to fund abortions overseas.

3) Both pick big government types on the Supreme Court.

4) Obama planned to close the base before having a plan to move them all while the congress recently pulled money out which was intended to close it. Not only that, Obama ignores another gitmo-like prison set up in Afghanistan.

And he sent 4 chinese gitmo detainees to Bermuda, a British territory, without consulting Britain.

5) What diplomacy? He's only increased strikes and attacks inside Pakistan without much input from their government.

6) Admitting possible mistakes doesn't mean much when you keep doing them.

Racist Bastard! Shut it, McCain or Obama? White or Black? Republic or Democrat? What battles HAS Obama caused? 0. War takes time to settle, and Obama's porbably trying his hardest to stop it. BUSH on the other hand.....

At 6/12/09 04:27 PM, Camoraz wrote: Racist Bastard! Shut it, McCain or Obama? White or Black? Republic or Democrat? What battles HAS Obama caused? 0. War takes time to settle, and Obama's porbably trying his hardest to stop it. BUSH on the other hand.....

Then explain to me why he went from an immediate withdrawl of forces in Iraq to a 19 month withdrawl to leaving 50,000 troops behind "based on conditions on the ground" (where have we heared this before?).

If he's so much different than Bush, then explain to me why he broke his promise to end warrantless wiretapping? Why did he not only keep and justify the warrentless wiretapping all while going a step further in saying that the government is immune to lawsuits?

If he's so unlike Bush, why did he widen attacks inside Pakistan without almost any input from the Pakistani government?

At 6/12/09 02:42 AM, Memorize wrote: He's continuing the warrantless wiretapping, only going one step further in claiming that the government is immune to any lawsuit.

That's not "one step further" that's absolutely in line with the prior administrations policy that the government gets to do whatever they want in the name of "security" and we best just shut up and let them get on with that because they are not beholden to the rules.

At 6/12/09 12:59 PM, bck00062 wrote: Obama is taking guns from our houses. HE MUST DIE!
No but seriously, hes really failing. The only reason he became president is because 98% of all the African Amricans voted for him.......and that hes good at speeches.

No. The reason Obama became president is Sarah Palin.

-----

And since we're talking about Obama's broken promises, this might give some insight.

At 6/13/09 01:02 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: No. The reason Obama became president is Sarah Palin.

Trust me, it would be worse with her.

At 6/12/09 08:43 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/12/09 02:42 AM, Memorize wrote: He's continuing the warrantless wiretapping, only going one step further in claiming that the government is immune to any lawsuit.

That's not "one step further" that's absolutely in line with the prior administrations policy that the government gets to do whatever they want in the name of "security" and we best just shut up and let them get on with that because they are not beholden to the rules.

In some ways.

But at the very least, you could sue and possibley win by the court rather than have no change whatsoever.

At 6/13/09 01:02 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

And since we're talking about Obama's broken promises, this might give some insight.

I like how it says "Promise Kept" with: Directed military to end war in Iraq.

How the hell does that work when his withdrawl is the same as Bush's? ie. We plan to be out in 2011... maybe.

Hell, this site doesn't even say "broken promise" to his withdrawl plan of 16 months. That's how horribley reliable this website is on keeping track.

At 6/13/09 01:13 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/13/09 01:02 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

And since we're talking about Obama's broken promises, this might give some insight.

I like how it says "Promise Kept" with: Directed military to end war in Iraq.

How the hell does that work when his withdrawl is the same as Bush's? ie. We plan to be out in 2011... maybe.

Hell, this site doesn't even say "broken promise" to his withdrawl plan of 16 months. That's how horribley reliable this website is on keeping track.

I understand your point. That said, "end war" and "direct military to end war" aren't the same thing; if he's actually working on bringing the war to a close with a deadline in mind, then he's still doing better than GWB. At least they're taking note of his broken promises in the first place instead of declaring him God like certain other people. (And technically he does still has ten months to change his mind. :P)

At 6/12/09 04:27 PM, Camoraz wrote: baaa baaa baa! baa baaaa baaa baa ba ba baaaa baaaa!!!

I love how every time someone criticizes obama, someone goes and spouts phrases like "RACISM!" and always seem to refer back to Bush. "BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH!!" 4 years from now, they'll still be screaming "BUSH BUSH!!!" if obama is relected.. 7 years from now... they'll probably still be blaming bush.

back to the pasture, silly sheep.

Please stop being a broken record, korriken. When you use the phrase "sheeple" in every other post, it loses it's potency. I'm not trying to be mean, condescending, etc, just come up with a new phrase or at least use "sheeple" less.

At 6/13/09 01:07 PM, Memorize wrote: But at the very least, you could sue and possibley win by the court rather than have no change whatsoever.

You couldn't stop the wire tapping that way though, as the government continued to assert it was their right to do so, with full cooperation from the courts (so I fail to see how suing would do one a lick of good). I'm not trying to rationalize it and say "well when OBAMA breaks the law...it's so much better" no way. You break the law? You are wrong. You violate the Constitution? You are wrong. Jesus Christ can rise up, get elected, do that same shit, and I would still walk up to him and say "dude, wrong". I'm just saying that what Obama is doing here is just continuing the policy that was already in place, and it's not like he's concocted some new illegal activity or really strengthened it. He basically just said "we're just gonna stay the course on this one".

We're essentially agreeing here methinks, we just have a minor quibble about whether or not Obama has actually changed the policy in some meaningful way from the one the Bush Administration operated under.

Nevil Chamberlin? Given the kinda of worship Obama's been receiving, shouldn't he be more like Wilt Chamberlin?

At 6/13/09 01:13 PM, Memorize wrote: How the hell does that work when his withdrawl is the same as Bush's? ie. We plan to be out in 2011... maybe.

Hey, it's still better than Bush's plan. I didn't hear him say anything about withdrawal dates.

At 6/14/09 02:41 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 6/13/09 01:13 PM, Memorize wrote: How the hell does that work when his withdrawl is the same as Bush's? ie. We plan to be out in 2011... maybe.

Hey, it's still better than Bush's plan. I didn't hear him say anything about withdrawal dates.

His "plan" (if you could call it that) was to be out by the end of 2011 based on conditions on the ground.

Obama's plan is to be out by mid 2011 based on conditions on the ground.

I'd hardly call either a withdrawl.

Would you prefer we invade a neighboring country and replace our forces with undertrained locals while we slowly pull out even though the enemy is still strong while leaving a fledgling democracy we established rather baselessly to fend for itself to soon? Because that's worked so well in the past. I mean, who in their right mind would make a withdrawl decision based upon conditions in the area of military occupation?

How many failed anti-Obama protests is it gonna take for you people to accept the fact that HE'S THE FUCKING PRESIDENT?

None of your bitching is going to change that, and he hasn't done anything to get impeached.

At 6/14/09 05:33 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote: None of your bitching is going to change that, and he hasn't done anything to get impeached.

neither had Bush but some people still can't let that one go.

At 6/14/09 05:45 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/14/09 05:33 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote: None of your bitching is going to change that, and he hasn't done anything to get impeached.

neither had Bush but some people still can't let that one go.

Your point being?

You basically just agreed with me. Although I hate Bush, I know damn well that nobody made a difference by attacking him.

At 6/14/09 05:51 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote:

At 6/14/09 05:45 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/14/09 05:33 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote: None of your bitching is going to change that, and he hasn't done anything to get impeached.

neither had Bush but some people still can't let that one go.

You basically just agreed with me. Although I hate Bush, I know damn well that nobody made a difference by attacking him.

I wonder if Vermont still has a warrant out for his arrest...

Okay, enough of Bush. Let's go back to Obama's policies. For instance, how is being open to talks with Iran equivalent to being "in bed" with the Iranian government? I still don't understand this sentiment.

At 6/14/09 07:07 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:
Okay, enough of Bush. Let's go back to Obama's policies. For instance, how is being open to talks with Iran equivalent to being "in bed" with the Iranian government? I still don't understand this sentiment.

That's because in the mind of whoever made this thread, using diplomacy is equivalent to appeasement. THat seems to be all the evidence he's provided.

At 6/14/09 05:51 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote: You basically just agreed with me.

bingo. just expanding on people being unable to let shit go, even if its blatantly untrue.

At 6/10/09 04:50 AM, GoronMaster wrote: well during world war 2 nevil chamberlin took a trip to nazi germany announcing to hitler all he wanted was peace and had nothing against the nazis or the nazi party.

True, not a bad thing, wanting peace.

When world war 2 was really all about standing against dictators such as ones inspired by the nazi party.

World War 2 was not about fighting dictators; thats the damn, fool-idealistic spin that you put on it so that you can somehow justify the horrible actions of mankind. It's lnot like the U.S. was fighting to save the Jews, (towards the end, perhaps). The UK, and indeed every other country involved, probably wouldn't have given two shits about Hitler's Dictatorship if it hadn't begain to affect them.

So im sure your asking what does this have with Obama he is the messiah right?

....
Wrong! geuss who belives that this not a war on islam, guess who is snuggling in bed with forien leaders and dictators, who is apologizing for americas "racism"? yep you guessed it america you very own Barrack Huessien obama
What do you mean? This isn't a war on Islam, at least it wasn't ment to be, the way you word it, you seem to want a war on Islam; which would be racism that we should apologize for.

Do some ww2 reasearch you will find I am right!

I doubt you did any yourself. You didn't give me any sort of info or occurance of Obama's similarity to Chamberlain. All you did was throw out some vague, clueless rant.

At 6/14/09 05:33 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote: How many failed anti-Obama protests is it gonna take for you people to accept the fact that HE'S THE FUCKING PRESIDENT?

None of your bitching is going to change that, and he hasn't done anything to get impeached.

Hate to break it to you, but we have freedom of speech, and can say whatever we want. Sure, our rants here don't really add up to anything in the long run, but would you prefer we spent more time talking about our favorite movies and TV shows? Also, it's nice to be back from my ban.

At 6/10/09 12:28 PM, CBP wrote: Just another anti-Obama nut, grasping at straws.

just what the hell o you think your talking about have you done any reearch about this or a re you just yappin you mouth? do us all a favor and rag your hole : )

At 6/14/09 02:41 PM, Ericho wrote:

Hey, it's still better than Bush's plan. I didn't hear him say anything about withdrawal dates.

its the same plan. how is his better? simply because he's a liberal? pfft.

That's like saying Tony is a better name than Tony because of some circumstance, when the truth of the matter is.. its the exact same name.

At 6/19/09 06:50 AM, Korriken wrote: its the same plan. how is his better? simply because he's a liberal? pfft.

That's like saying Tony is a better name than Tony because of some circumstance, when the truth of the matter is.. its the exact same name.

I don't recall Bush saying anything at all about withdrawal dates. Guess I just don't look into the news as much as I think I do.
Oh, and I liked your metaphor.