Navy SEAL hands Obama his arse

[GH2001]

I'm curious, did you watch the videos?

Do you really think that Obama has "Spiked the football" after an actual "Mission Accomplished" much more flagrantly than Bush did, in retrospect, humorously early into the War on Terrorism by landing an aircraft carrier for a televised address?

The difference I see is that Bush was a war hawk and was for all of that.

Obama seemed to be opposed to all of it - until it benefited him. Now that it has, he is using it to his advantage politically - ALL of the very things he opposed (War on Terror, Interrogation techniques, being in Afgh.). He just comes off looking like a typical politician and hypocrite.

[Tarheel]

I'm curious, did you watch the videos?

Do you really think that Obama has "Spiked the football" after an actual "Mission Accomplished" much more flagrantly than Bush did, in retrospect, humorously early into the War on Terrorism by landing a plane onto an aircraft carrier for a televised address?

No.  I have a job where I don't have the time to watch videos at work.

Perhaps I will later but I prefer getting actual news and serious, thought-provoking commentary from someone besides a left-wing comedian on Comedy Central.  (No. I don't watch FoxNews exclusively either despite what you might want to believe.)

Quite frankly I don't care if he spikes the football or not but I hope he gets more brazen about it along with his orcs; if you actually read MY post on this topic you'd know that instead of making political assumptions about my positions and trying to turn the argument around to be a disparagement on Bush...of course it's all Bush's fault anyway.

So, are you going to grit your teeth when you vote for Obama this Fall?

[dallaswareagle]

I'm curious, did you watch the videos?

Do you really think that Obama has "Spiked the football" after an actual "Mission Accomplished" much more flagrantly than Bush did, in retrospect, humorously early into the War on Terrorism by landing a plane onto an aircraft carrier for a televised address?

What Bush did was stupid too. But he did the event (IMO) to honor the military in a military way. Was it a photo op, yup, but it was with the military. Obama’s was and is for himself.

[AUChizad]

No.  I have a job where I don't have the time to watch videos at work.

Quite frankly I don't care if he spikes the football or not but I hope he gets more brazen about it along with his orcs; if you actually read MY post on this topic you'd know that instead of making political assumptions about my positions and trying to turn the argument around to be a disparagement on Bush...of course it's all Bush's fault anyway.

Not trying to start a war, I was just curious if you (or others in this thread) actually watched the videos.

No one's blaming Bush, but it's pretty ridiculous to say Obama is over-the-top out-of-control brazen about the whole thing just based on that commercial when you consider how Bush was about not-so Mission Accomplished. If you're going to act like Obama is going way beyond what is acceptable for other presidents to do in a similar situation, there's no one better to compare it to than the last president who (prematurely) declared victory in essentially the same war. There's no comparison, in my opinion.

And I agree with you that I think it's a good thing that he's being brazen about it and would like to see more of that hawkishness. Too many people pay this lip service, and then when he actually does it says he's being disingenuous, petty, or over-the-top.

Perhaps I will later but I prefer getting actual news and serious, thought-provoking commentary from someone besides a left-wing comedian on Comedy Central.  (No. I don't watch FoxNews exclusively either despite what you might want to believe.)

You prefer to get your news from right wing blogs like radiopatriot that print articles that makes Snopes weep. That's way better.

And I don't get (all of) my news from the Daily Show. But I can appreciate satire and wit. And it's funny. Also I can process things I don't necessarily agree with without bursting a blood vessel (despite perceptions of me here), although, admittedly, I tend to agree with Stewart about 75% of the time or more. Bill Maher, on the other hand, I agree with less than 20% of the time, but I still enjoy watching his show.

But that's neither here nor there.

So, are you going to grit your teeth when you vote for Obama this Fall?

Maybe. Not sure yet. I'll probably grit my teeth when I throw my vote away on Gary Johnson if you want the truth.

[Townhallsavoy]

Why does it have to go back to Bush?

Obama campaigned as the anti-Bush.  Jon Stewart's segment was hilarious.  Always is.  But as for legitimate discussion of politics?  It's puerile.  It's the same shit we always see.  One politician does something and it's ridiculed by another.  The "another" politician does something similar and it's suddenly okay. Why is it suddenly okay?  Because the first politician did it. 

This is why the "lesser of two evils" style of campaigning and voting is going to ruin everything.

[Tarheel]

Not trying to start a war, I was just curious if you (or others in this thread) actually watched the videos.


No one's blaming Bush, but it's pretty ridiculous to say Obama is over-the-top out-of-control brazen about the whole thing just based on that commercial when you consider how Bush was about not-so Mission Accomplished. If you're going to act like Obama is going way beyond what is acceptable for other presidents to do in a similar situation, there's no one better to compare it to than the last president who (prematurely) declared victory in essentially the same war. There's no comparison, in my opinion.

And I agree with you that I think it's a good thing that he's being brazen about it and would like to see more of that hawkishness. Too many people pay this lip service, and then when he actually does it says he's being disingenuous, petty, or over-the-top.
You prefer to get your news from right wing blogs like radiopatriot that print articles that makes Snopes weep. That's way better.

And I don't get (all of) my news from the Daily Show. But I can appreciate satire and wit. And it's funny. Also I can process things I don't necessarily agree with without bursting a blood vessel (despite perceptions of me here), although, admittedly, I tend to agree with Stewart about 75% of the time or more. Bill Maher, on the other hand, I agree with less than 20% of the time, but I still enjoy watching his show.

But that's neither here nor there.
Maybe. Not sure yet. I'll probably grit my teeth when I throw my vote away on Gary Johnson if you want the truth.

Chizad, I am not trying to start a war either.  I appreciate a good, thought-provoking discussion without hyper-partisan manure.  (And I'm not implying that the latter is where you were going either.)  At the end of the day I prefer clarity over agreement.

Anyway, I appreciate what you are saying about the hyper-partisan criticism of The Pharaoh on this particular matter.  As I wrote in my first post in this thread, The ONE is not the first leader ever to politically exploit a military operation.  It's nothing new and he along with his administration looks just as foolish as Bush 43 ended up looking in the eyes of some in the "Mission Accomplished" speech (which I will not defend here).  If I've been hyper-partisan in my criticism of The Pharaoh in this thread please tell me how.


I admit to detesting Jon Stewart but will give the videos a look later tonight.


I was just picking at you about The Daily Show; I know that a lot of youth (no offense) like him but I can't stand his show or The Colbert Report.  I do watch Bill Maher (surprised?) and I watch MSNBC along with CurrentTV and a new channel called RT which makes MSNBC and CurrentTV look downright conservative.  I also watch FoxNews and CNN.

Yes, I do read a lot of right-wing blogs and news compilers but I also read the Huffington Post and a few other left of center publications that seem credible to me.  By the way I prefer FactCheck.org to Snopes but, regrettably, there was nothing there that I could find on the original Navy Seal commentary.


I was and still am teasing you about voting for The ONE.

[Tarheel]

Why does it have to go back to Bush?

Obama campaigned as the anti-Bush.  Jon Stewart's segment was hilarious.  Always is.  But as for legitimate discussion of politics?  It's puerile.  It's the same shit we always see.  One politician does something and it's ridiculed by another.  The "another" politician does something similar and it's suddenly okay. Why is it suddenly okay?  Because the first politician did it. 

This is why the "lesser of two evils" style of campaigning and voting is going to ruin everything.

Because it's all Bush's fault.  Just ask anyone in The Pharaoh's campaign.


This campaign method has been going on for a long, long time.  You've got to learn to see through the smoke-screens of rhetoric designed to foment the 'faithful' on each side and look at the real issues and how the candidates stand on them along with their experience and background...keeping in mind that every politician lies.

[GH2001]

Maybe. Not sure yet. I'll probably grit my teeth when I throw my vote away on Gary Johnson if you want the truth.

With the status quo of the last 3.5 years and nothing getting better? At least I will say Romney has a good track record of success financially and knows how to balance a budget. I figured some of his moderate views would swing you to his side. I know you are not a leftist so I'm just not sure why you would even consider more of this guy. Gary Johnson is def better than the ONE, but it is essentially taking away some of the Romney vote thus giving Obama another vote by subtraction from the other side. You might want to look more into Johnson - anyone who opposes a tariff of any kind, ever - is touched in the head.

[AUChizad]

With the status quo of the last 3.5 years and nothing getting better? At least I will say Romney has a good track record of success financially and knows how to balance a budget. I figured some of his moderate views would swing you to his side. I know you are not a leftist so I'm just not sure why you would even consider more of this guy. Gary Johnson is def better than the ONE, but it is essentially taking away some of the Romney vote thus giving Obama another vote by subtraction from the other side. You might want to look more into Johnson - anyone who opposes a tariff of any kind, ever - is touched in the head.

Blasphemy, I know, but I don't believe as many here do, that Obama is nearly the Marxist crazy-extreme leftist he is painted to be. There's a whole other thread somewhere in here discussing that. One of the few extreme left things he actually did while in office, the Health Care Bill, A) probably will never come to fruition, and B) Romney implemented pretty much the exact same thing in Massachusetts. So then Romney must be a Marxist too.  Of the "Final Four", I certainly liked Romney the most. Well, I wanted to like Ron Paul the most, but he was a bit too "touched" as well when it got down to it. Johnson has zero chance of winning the election. I just would like to see the Libertarian party in the discussion. Last election I voted for Bob Barr, hoping to at least see that 1-5% show up on the screen on election night (it didn't). Jon  Huntsman was my guy if it were up to me.

[GH2001]

Blasphemy, I know, but I don't believe as many here do, that Obama is nearly the Marxist crazy-extreme leftist he is painted to be. There's a whole other thread somewhere in here discussing that. One of the few extreme left things he actually did while in office, the Health Care Bill, A) probably will never come to fruition, and B) Romney implemented pretty much the exact same thing in Massachusetts. So then Romney must be a Marxist too.  Of the "Final Four", I certainly liked Romney the most. Well, I wanted to like Ron Paul the most, but he was a bit too "touched" as well when it got down to it. Johnson has zero chance of winning the election. I just would like to see the Libertarian party in the discussion. Last election I voted for Bob Barr, hoping to at least see that 1-5% show up on the screen on election night (it didn't). Jon  Huntsman was my guy if it were up to me.

I actually liked Huntsman. He seemed to be the most polished.

The thing about Romney in Mass. is that it was voted on and done at the State Level. While I don't like that either, it is quite a bit different. Again, I don't agree with him on everything but I think economically, he understands supply side economics and will let people do their thing and businesses grow. I just have zero faith in Obama at this point.

[Townhallsavoy]

I actually liked Huntsman. He seemed to be the most polished.

The thing about Romney in Mass. is that it was voted on and done at the State Level. While I don't like that either, it is quite a bit different. Again, I don't agree with him on everything but I think economically, he understands supply side economics and will let people do their thing and businesses grow. I just have zero faith in Obama at this point.

Exactly.  One thing Romney has been doing lately is pushing state rights.  Obama is blatantly against the right of the state and would love - as he has admitted - to increase the power of the executive branch. 

[CCTAU]

The great ONE will never be seen as the Marxist that he is by the me generation. He is telling them everything they want to hear.

[GH2001]

Exactly.  One thing Romney has been doing lately is pushing state rights.  Obama is blatantly against the right of the state and would love - as he has admitted - to increase the power of the executive branch.

And he IS a big gov't federalist. There is no debating that. I know Chad was saying we don't know that he is this practicing Marxist, and that is true - but he does follow of ton of Big Government Marxist/Alinsky philosophy. One big example is the social engineering of shifting money from some to others in an involuntary manner. He has even said (to Joe the Plummer) that we "have to spread the wealth". I do not like this kind of talk. It is downright scary.

I will post this again:

Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.— Ayn Rand

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave.
- Ayn Rand

[Tarheel]

And he IS a big gov't federalist. There is no debating that. I know Chad was saying we don't know that he is this practicing Marxist, and that is true - but he does follow of ton of Big Government Marxist/Alinsky philosophy. One big example is the social engineering of shifting money from some to others in an involuntary manner. He has even said (to Joe the Plummer) that we "have to spread the wealth". I do not like this kind of talk. It is downright scary.

I will post this again:

Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.— Ayn Rand

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave.
- Ayn Rand

Excellent, excellent quotes!

Well said.