The anti-war movement was all over the news before President Obama was elected. But apparently they weren’t really anti-war ... they were just anti-President Bush.

Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbus...rs-go/#ixzz1KdCfzr5q

yup.... where is that nut job Cindy Sheehan?

same place all the war coverage is.....

zzz.zz.....zzzz..z.z.....zzzz.....

how about them Hatians?

yeah

but - if you find that the media is in fact reality - the problem may be your own?
I am pretty sure those against the wars in 2003 are still against the wars. So, what is the status of the "War in Iraq"?

Answer: hypocrites

I mentioned this to my wife the other day. I told her how it was curious that any mention of the daily death tally on the evening news disappeared after Obama took over the White House. Now we even have a third war going and there is hardly any news about it.
I guess they don't want any stories that could tarnish Obama's image since he is up for re-election.

Still drinking the kool-aid? Or maybe they just have their head in the sand, but as mentioned, the news hasn't talked much about it... but they are not biased..oh no.... not the media..... sigh...

Here's a war protester my nephew found in Naw Zad, Afghanistan:

Didn't you hear? All the wars are over.
There's nothing to protest. Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama has brought peace to America and the world.

Don't you know? The bombs that Obama is dropping are bombs filled with love. Not those evil killing kind that the Republicans used. That's why the more wars Obama gets the US involved in, the greater his chances of recieving another Nobel Peace Award are. Quite simple really if you use Liberal logic.

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 04-26-2011).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I mentioned this to my wife the other day. I told her how it was curious that any mention of the daily death tally on the evening news disappeared after Obama took over the White House. Now we even have a third war going and there is hardly any news about it. .

Oh geesh, now Obama controls the media?
To hear some people tell it, Obama has more power then any other ruler on earth, ever.
One single man, souly making every desision and singley controlling every move this country makes.
Wow.

It's not that he controls the media, its that they treat him differently. I don't think Obama asked Christ Matthews to get a thrill up his leg.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Oh geesh, now Obama controls the media? To hear some people tell it, Obama has more power then any other ruler on earth, ever. One single man, souly making every desision and singley controlling every move this country makes. Wow.

Yea, he must have been well schooled by Dick Cheney.

[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 04-26-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Oh geesh, now Obama controls the media? To hear some people tell it, Obama has more power then any other ruler on earth, ever. One single man, souly making every desision and singley controlling every move this country makes.

no not obama directly, but the "left".... obama reminds me of the wizard of oz (he's the "scary apparition") "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" the real question is who is the "man" behind the curtain?

=todd=

quote Originally posted by Boondawg:

Some in the media may be disappointed by this image, as they don't get a glimpse of his "glistening pectorals".

HAHAHA!!! Obummer controlling anything??? That's a riot!

It's the people that got him elected that are controlling everything.

so - what is the status of the war in Iraq?
that may answer the Q which has so many confused

I did notice that the "THIS WEEK' Sunday NBC show stopped telling the viewers the number of war casualties each week. Maybe GE told them to stop as it created a negative image for the Obamanation. Or have there been no casualties since the annointed one took control of the war effort.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: The anti-war movement was all over the news before President Obama was elected. But apparently they weren’t really anti-war ... they were just anti-President Bush. Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbus...rs-go/#ixzz1KdCfzr5q

MIght have more to do with the fact that both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were started under Bush with seemingly no attempt to end them while Obama inherited those two wars and seems to be attempting an exit strategy.

quote Originally posted by newf: MIght have more to do with the fact that both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were started under Bush with seemingly no attempt to end them while Obama inherited those two wars and seems to be attempting an exit strategy.

You mean the exit strategy that Bush implemented with the Iraqi government before Obama was elected?

Is Paula Cole going to write another song for Obama?




Speaking of Paula Cole, she wouldn't even have to much. Just redo the lyrics to this song:




I remember taking on the war protesters in various forums and in real life discussions. They all claimed they were protesting for the troops. That every death caused them real pain and that is why we must end all of these wars. I guess it doesn't pain them anymore because they are nowhere to be found.

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 04-26-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: You mean the exit strategy that Bush implemented with the Iraqi government before Obama was elected?

Yeah that's the one, the one that was handed off.

They just missed its renaming. Once they catch up, they'll report it, sort of like their calling terrorism "Man caused disasters."
White House: Libya Fight is Not War, It's 'Kinetic Military Action'

quote By: Byron York In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war? From military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer is no. But that leaves the question: What is it? In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer. "I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone," Rhodes said. "Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end." Rhodes' words echoed a description by national security adviser Tom Donilon in a briefing with reporters two weeks ago as the administration contemplated action in Libya. "Military steps -- and they can be kinetic and non-kinetic, obviously the full range -- are not the only method by which we and the international community are pressuring Gadhafi," Donilon said.

[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 04-26-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Yeah that's the one, the one that was handed off.

Not the one the new Commander in Chief has to follow. Facts are, Nobama was against the surge. It worked. Facts are, the exit strategy is working. Facts are, Nobama was gonna close Guitanamo. It works.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Not the one the new Commander in Chief has to follow. Facts are, Nobama was against the surge. It worked. Facts are, the exit strategy is working. Facts are, Nobama was gonna close Guitanamo. It works.

Facts are Obama is ending both wars as per the Military leaders suggestions, that's what seems to be wroking, at least there seems to be an end in sight. Guitanamo? I hear there is some great new wikileaks about how well it is working.

quote Originally posted by newf: Facts are Obama is ending both wars as per the Military leaders suggestions, ...

Yes. The military leaders Commander in Chief George Bush allowed to run the war. The suggestions which were suggested when the Commander in Chief George Bush was, the Commander in Chief. The suggestions Nobama, and the other dumbocrats and media railed against when George Bush was the Commander in Chief. Hmm.
An end in sight ? Do you have some wikileaks info that we have not been privy to ?

quote Originally posted by newf: Guitanamo? I hear there is some great new wikileaks about how well it is working.

It's working. Well enough. Yes, perhaps we let a few too many go back to the battle field. What exactly are you referring to ?

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-26-2011).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Yes. The military leaders Commander in Chief George Bush allowed to run the war. The suggestions which were suggested when the Commander in Chief George Bush was, the Commander in Chief. The suggestions Nobama, and the other dumbocrats and media railed against when George Bush was the Commander in Chief. Hmm. An end in sight ? Do you have some wikileaks info that we have not been privy to ?

Yup exactly my point, it's the Commander in Chief "Dubble U" that had to make the decisions to start 2 wars with no exit strategy and left it to the current administration to sort out. Fact is both wars are a mess.

End in sight? I thought so, aren't there draw down plans for both in place?

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: I remember taking on the war protesters in various forums and in real life discussions. They all claimed they were protesting for the troops. That every death caused them real pain and that is why we must end all of these wars. I guess it doesn't pain them anymore because they are nowhere to be found.

On a related note, there was something else I noticed. Before the 2008 election, there were a LOT of Democrats and/or Progressives who participated in these discussions and they had a LOT to say about the President and Congress. Both here and on another forum I used to spend a lot of time on, THE DAY AFTER the election, the Democrats/Progressives DISAPPEARED, or at least 99% of them did. Suddenly, they had NOTHING to say. It was amazing. Evidently, now they can't be bothered to comment on bad policies coming from the Congress or White House, or even try to DEFEND their beloved Democrats, but OH BOY did they have a lot to say when it was Bush and the Republicans.

Interesting, isn't it?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: On a related note, there was something else I noticed. Before the 2008 election, there were a LOT of Democrats and/or Progressives who participated in these discussions and they had a LOT to say about the President and Congress. Both here and on another forum I used to spend a lot of time on, THE DAY AFTER the election, the Democrats/Progressives DISAPPEARED, or at least 99% of them did. Suddenly, they had NOTHING to say. It was amazing. Evidently, now they can't be bothered to comment on bad policies coming from the Congress or White House, or even try to DEFEND their beloved Democrats, but OH BOY did they have a lot to say when it was Bush and the Republicans. Interesting, isn't it?

Kind of like exactly what is going on here?

quote Originally posted by newf: Kind of like exactly what is going on here?

If you mean how all the Democrats disappeared, that's what I meant and *here* is where I meant. The other was a pilot forum, very different demographic, but same result. It was astonishing to say the least.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: If you mean how all the Democrats disappeared, that's what I meant and *here* is where I meant. The other was a pilot forum, very different demographic, but same result. It was astonishing to say the least.

I have no idea who has "disappeared" from here but I've seen my fair share of people attacked and run off of the forum for expressing views that do not conform with the general conservative viewpoint of the most rabid of posters here on PFF OT.

Why not do a search and see how many anti "left" threads there are as opposed to anti "right" ones.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-26-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: I have no idea who has "disappeared" from here but I've seen my fair share of people attacked and run off of the forum for expressing views that do not conform with the general conservative viewpoint of the most rabid of posters here on PFF OT. Why not do a search and see how many anti "left" threads there are as opposed to anti "right" ones.

And utilize the archives to see how many of the inverse were posted during the Bush years. Nothing has really changed Newf--there's always a preponderance of "anti", the only difference is who hppens to be in majority or power at any given time, and the incumbent always is on the recieving end of critcism. When/if the pendulum swings back the other way, we will again see a lot of "anti right" threads. I've already noticed an increase, beginning as soon as the new congress was sworn in.

quote Originally posted by newf: I have no idea who has "disappeared" from here but I've seen my fair share of people attacked and run off of the forum for expressing views that do not conform with the general conservative viewpoint of the most rabid of posters here on PFF OT. Why not do a search and see how many anti "left" threads there are as opposed to anti "right" ones.

Good point.

And Bear, I have to say I think newf makes an excellent example of how the Left are treated. He typically responds very reasonably, and logically, while backing up posts with sources. However, he is unnecessarily attacked AS IF he was an idiot. I understand he disagrees with us on many things, but he is anything but unintelligent. I think many people need to understand that even though someone has an opinion completely polarizing your own, it doesn't mean they don't have good reasons, or didn't do any research.

I understand this sounds like I'm just brown-nosing newf, but I don't think he's treated very well compared to how he treats others on here. I suspect that there are many other Left-leaning members who are afraid to post because they see how much a reasonable poster still gets attacked.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: And utilize the archives to see how many of the inverse were posted during the Bush years. Nothing has really changed Newf--there's always a preponderance of "anti", the only difference is who hppens to be in majority or power at any given time, and the incumbent always is on the recieving end of critcism. When/if the pendulum swings back the other way, we will again see a lot of "anti right" threads. I've already noticed an increase, beginning as soon as the new congress was sworn in.

"Anti right" threads on here?? I understand that there will be always people who want to complain or pick out the "wrong" in the people in power and I readily admit I wasn't active on OT during the Bush years so I can't say if it was the same better or worse. It just seems that OT seems to be mostly overwhelmingly conservative, which is fine, however the amount of hate and fear that gets posted without any regard to facts at times is what is bothersome to me for the most part, especially when it degrades to name calling and attacks on those with differing opinions or thoughts.

You missed a downright free-for-all. It's been the same for as long as I've been here--it just swings back and forth--back and forth.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I suspect that there are many other Left-leaning members who are afraid to post because they see how much a reasonable poster still gets attacked.

And that's the problem IMO some seem to want everyone to think and believe whatever it is they do and feel the need to hate and attack if someone doesn't. And then have the gall to claim some kind of affinity with something called "freedom". Yeah, Right on!

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Good point. And Bear, I have to say I think newf makes an excellent example of how the Left are treated. He typically responds very reasonably, and logically, while backing up posts with sources. However, he is unnecessarily attacked AS IF he was an idiot. I understand he disagrees with us on many things, but he is anything but unintelligent. I think many people need to understand that even though someone has an opinion completely polarizing your own, it doesn't mean they don't have good reasons, or didn't do any research.

Maybe you were here pre-November 2008, maybe not. I'm guessing not because you don't seem aware of the number of Democrats who participated, and the level of vitriol they had for President Bush, the Republicans in Congress and the Senate, and anyone here who is Republican and/or Conservative. The bottom line is, the alleged outnumbering of conservatives didn't seem to phase them when they could throw all kinds of s*** at us, but they can't seem to be bothered to participate now.

quote I understand this sounds like I'm just brown-nosing newf, but I don't think he's treated very well compared to how he treats others on here. I suspect that there are many other Left-leaning members who are afraid to post because they see how much a reasonable poster still gets attacked.

Newf often comes across as being a contrarian, arguing for the sake of arguing, sometimes comes across as just a s*** disturber and bordering on a troll. His arguments do not always appear to take the form of reasoned discourse.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Newf often comes across as being a contrarian, arguing for the sake of arguing, sometimes comes across as just a s*** disturber and bordering on a troll. His arguments do not always appear to take the form of reasoned discourse.

How many times do I have to state this, I wonder?

I like to challenge people on what they believe sometimes to see why it is they do. Sometimes I will point out things that seem false or untrue when people say them or ask them to back their statements up. If you consider that trolling I suggest you google what a troll is because you and many other here seem to have no idea what it means or are interpreting it wrong.

I'm sure I've been baited into arguements at times and maybe even posted when P.O.ed but my honest opinion is that when someone goes "against the conservative grain" on here they tend to get attacked. Maybe you are correct and the same thing was done to Conservatives previously but if you didn't enjoy that why would you act in the same manner?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-26-2011).]

There's a huge difference in what politicians say to each other--especially behind closed door meetings and what they say in public.
Politicians, tho emotional at times, are generally polite in negotiations, but pull out all stops in campaigns and when trying to sway the public to support any pending legislation. Virtually all campaigns are filled with outright lies, innuendo, and promises they never intend or have to keep. If you believe politicians don't attempt to convince the electorate that they are wrong and the party is right, you are very much mistaken.
And of course, they DO have to work with each other, and constituents generally do not have to work with one another. They do have some semblence of order in congress, and constituents do not have to worry about the same things.

Right after the Bush reelection, I saw some liberals exclaim how stupid the nation's voters were--not to mention the charge that the elcetion was stolen. The angry rhetoric that came from the liberal OT members regarding GWBs military service was a hot topic, charges of misconduct, coverups, and of course, that he was unfit to run the nation because of his failed businesses. It went on and on, just as it did in reverse when Bill Clinton was in office and being impeached. People were banned because of misconduct, even before the rating system. Nothing has changed really.