pakidan101 said:
I know where this is going, good sir, and I find it apprehensive, and quite frankly childish yet intellectually done. Instead of ranting like a baby of how Obama is a bad president, he doesn't deserve to hold the highest office, etc., we are instead going to look on his stand on gay marriage (particularly the one made when the debates were going on) and compare it with a beauty pageant contestant and ask why is she being blamed for being prejudice and not the President.
The first thing, of course, is why should I care? We have a financial meltdown to take care, housing mortgage upheaval, medical care to fix, two wars being fought, and even pirates to deal with and you want to argue on why no one is talking about Obama on gay marriage? That alone tells me that you are nitpicking here.
And the second thing is, knowing your history on Obama and what you just said, I already know that you don't really care about the topic of gay marriage, just why he isn't being blamed for his stance on it. It just seems to be that you created another thread about how the media just adores Obama and never finds fault in him, but the mighty you have finally figured out a flaw!
Congratulations good sir! You figured out that Obama is human after all and not the second coming! I apologize for my heavy and obtuse usage of sarcasm here, but don't you think it is quite obvious? Since when did a President not say something in order to become elected, despite it being questionable? This is why I stopped believing in politicians until they provide something that I can count on. Believe me, using Obama's stance on gay marriage and the lack of media attention in order to show that Obama has either power over the media, the "liberal" media lack of attentiveness over "key issues" regarding this new administration, or any other possible hoax stories is as terrible and laughable as the government planning the 9/11 attacks; whether true or not it is true, it doesn't help your case right now.
Oh and about your last line on "Obama has chosen to keep the war going, and put more troops in Iraq. Every death there falls on his shoulders. The time for blaming the past is over," is that your final answer? I mean, really? So you would rather have him remove ALL troops from Iraq at once in order to abide by his promise to end the war, despite being a reckless move by Obama and thus creating more enemies than at the start of the war, just so when it crashes and fails as it should, you can say he is a bad President? "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."
I hate this war just as much as anybody else...maybe even more. I hate the fact that my Muslim brothers and sisters are dying, all for a cause that proved to be naught. But if the U.S. decides to up and leave Iraq to its own, like they did with Afghanistan against the Soviets, then we will have a bigger threat in the long run, just like Al Qaeda...
Sry for the rant. |
Why so angry? I just asked a question.
As for the war, it’s the UN’s responsibility to handle these sorts of things, not ours. I have no problem with the president pulling out with a coordinated effort of UN troops moving in.
Also, if you knew it was not a good idea to leave, I hope you didn’t vote for a man who either bold face lied to you about leaving day one, or was too stupid to know better. Hillary (and every other person running for office), had a much better plan.
