Was President Obama right?

[Bolo Boffin]

Poll question: Was President Obama right?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/

"Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."

[Ohio Joe]

1. I agree with President Obama - nt

[Bonobo]

2. You don't have a "I don't know" choice. nt

[LARED]

3. "These are opinions to be debated."

Seems to cover "I don't know"

[Bolo Boffin]

5. The thread I am arguing against didn't have an I don't know choice either.

You only chose to scold me for not including one.

[SDuderstadt]

4. I stand with President...

Obama.

[lovepg]

6. And apple pie and all things good! Jeeeesh! nt

[noise]

7. A-U-T-H-O-R-I... n/t

[peacefulrevolution]

8. please, this fairy tale is way lame

no matter what puppet is spouting the drivel. Al Queada is wholly a creation of western intelligence used to dupe fools into accepting torture, illegal wiretapping, shitting on the bill of rights etc.......come on people, its not rocket science.

[wildbilln864]

9. Thank you and welcome to the DUngeon! nt

:hi:

[peacefulrevolution]

10. perciate that bill,very glad 2 b here

we as a human species on this fragile rock hurtling through space sometimes need to

dis "able danger"

[Why Syzygy]

15. Well, yeah ..

and I might feel a whole lot better about "defeating" them if we hadn't printed their textbooks!

[Ohio Joe]

16. Al Queada is a fairy tale... and President Obama a puppet...

I see... an interesting.... opinion you have there. A shame it does not mesh with reality.

[spooked911]

26. all recent US presidents are more-or-less puppets--

it's silly to deny it.

Also, al Qaeda is clearly more propaganda than reality.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Oh, for christ's sake, Spooked....

this "al qaeda is a myth" meme is absurd.

[spooked911]

32. I SAID "al Qaeda is clearly more propaganda than reality."

got a problem with that?

I didn't say "al Qaeda" was a myth.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Were the Embassy bombings "propaganda", Spooked?

There's a big difference between realizing that the Bush administration used the threat of terror to advance their cause, but it's quite another to falsely claim the CIA created al Qaeda and to pretend al Qaeda didn't pull off 9/11. When you use terms like al CIA-duh, it just makes you look like some refugee from a failed anti NWO protest, Spooked. I found it particularly funny when you argued we don't need the CIA and we could get all the the intelligence we need through "open source: you're such a hoot, Spooked.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. G-E-N-E-T-I-C-F-A-L... n/t

[whatchamacallit]

11. Presidents are people

fallible. I don't have to pledge allegiance to Obama's views, just cuz he has a (D) after his name. These guilt trip "do you dare challenge our glorious leader?" posts are fer-shit.

[greyl]

12. In turn, if you agree with 1 statement Obama makes,

that doesn't make you a shill for the Democratic administration.
Get it?

[jakeXT]

14. Why did you choose this older speech ? "This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity."

As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight and we won't defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a -- this is fundamental to the defense of our people.

And going forward, we will constantly adapt to new tactics to stay ahead of the enemy and give our troops the tools and equipment they need to succeed. And at every step of the way, we will assess our efforts to defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and to help the Afghan and Pakistani people build the future that they seek.

Now, even as we lead and equip our troops for the missions of today, we have a third responsibility to fulfill. We must prepare our forces for the missions of tomorrow.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-Veterans-of-Foreign-Wars-convention/

[eomer]

17. These are opinions to be debated. n/t

[defendandprotect]

18. Americans need to understand that our CIA created Taliban/Al Qaeda . . .

-- we're created the Islamic fundy movement -- we supplied most of the fanatical

religious books --

We also supported Taliban/Al Qaeda with $124 million -- including tens of millions

in month before 9/11!!!

hmmm... now, what could be going on there????

Is it new for our government to use religious fanatics to co-opt other nations . . . ?

How many Americans know that WE/US/CIA went into Afghanistan 6 months before the

Russians came in in order to "bait them into Afghanistan . . . in hopes of giving them

a Vietnam-type experience." ????????????????????????????

It's all fake --

[peacefulrevolution]

19. well said D&P, 1979 was the year

the "War on Terror" was dreamed up. They knew then the experiment in phony socialism created with illuminati money in 1917 was already on its last legs.

They are many chess moves ahead of most of us. They knew their pretend boogey man Communism that they had created to scare the ignorant and justify rapacious capitalism all over the globe would collapse soon. Even sooner w/ their own little vietnam.

How would they continue to instill fear and subservient obedience with no existential, dasterdly enemy?

Voila! A completely bogus "War on Terror". An invisible enemy(oohhh, scairy) very easy to perpetuate(bomb enough mosques, eventuslly they will hate you...throw in an occassional roadside bomb, torture some innocent sheepherders, let blackwater goons freely rape pillage and just go on a genocidal crusade....piece of cake...

But, we are on to them

[peacefulrevolution]

20. for all the facts about exactly who was involved

in these decisions, please read "War on Truth" by Nafeez Ahmed

To call it a must read is the epitome of understatement.

[SDuderstadt]

21. Okay...

I'm bowing out of any conversation is which someone actualy cites the "Illuminati". Apparently, there is no end to the lengths some members will go to, to embrace goofy conspiracy theories and embarrass DU further.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

23. I hereby nominate this as the most incoherent "truther" post of the year...

there are others that are close, but this one takes the cake.

[peacefulrevolution]

24. i nominate that post

as national geographic post of the day

are you going for employee of the month?

how many straw men can one tv show create

and then, PRESTO, knock down....

wow! i have just completely changed my mind!

19 arabs, 19 arabs, 19 arabs, 19 arabs

how could i have been so foolish, thanks NatlGeog.

oohhhh....now they are onto the Pentagon.....i'm sure i was all wrong about this

they will probably even show all the confiscated video

[SDuderstadt]

25. Why don't you point out one of these...

strawmen? Be specific.

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. National Geographic

Sponsor of the Fascist BushObama machine along with Popular Mechanics the NIST of course.

Because a bunch of laymen using the interweb is a lot more credible than the folks who study these things for a living. Oh thats right we have to impinge their ethics and morality first.

[sabbat hunter]

29. Who exactly are

the Illuminati, in your opinion?

are you saying there is a small cabal that controls the world?

[spooked911]

27. I disagree with President Obama...

unless you define "al Qaeda" as "al-CIA-duh".

It's not like presidents never lie or spread propaganda.

[SDuderstadt]

31. You know, Spooked...

when you spout little "trutherisms" like "al-CIA-duh" it makes you look like a refugee from a failed anti-NWO rally.

[spooked911]

33. you know, SDuder...

when you constantly mock me and refuse to question the OCT when the evidence is so overwhelming against it, it makes you look like a YOU-KNOW-WHAT.

[SDuderstadt]

35. Dude...

question what about the "OCT"? I've said before, calling it the "OCT" is just a rhetorical device "truthers" use to dishonestly give the impression that information about 9/11 only comes from the "government". It's the ultimate strawman. It's also your dishonest, backhanded way of trying to cast anyone who doesn't buy your bullshit as some sort of Bush supporter.

It's pretty clear that the former Bush administration is not being truthful about their attempts to prevent 9/11 and their actions after 9/11 were simply wrong in many cases. However, that hardly proves "9/11 was an inside job" and it most certainly doesn't prove that there were no planes involved in the attacks nor that the Towers were "nuked". I don't mock you, Spooked. I hold you in contempt for your fucking goofy claims.

Again I ask... is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy, that even YOU won't embrace it, Spooked? I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing liberalism in general and DU in particular with your bullshit.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

38. I'll put my open-mindedness and liberalism up againt yours anyday...

dude.

I am constantly amazed at people who seem to believe that open-mindedness requires people to give things with zero evidence equal weight with things that do.

[Realityhack]

37. IIRC he rejects DEWs. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

39. Except, he doesn't reject DEW's on their face....

he rejects DEW's in favor of mini-nukes and takes exception to DEW's as "disnformation" designed to disguise the real issue of mini-nukes. It's just substituting one brand of goofy for another.

[peacefulrevolution]

40. Okay, dude, i accept your open mindedness challenge

What is your opinion of:

1. Telepathy
2. Atlantis
3. UFO's
4. Re-incarnation

please, lets just have your honest opinions, i'm not trying to start a flame war, really just curious, and not just Dude.....anyone.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Oh, jesus....

are you a "woo", too?

Alright. In answer to your question: not much. Now, before you go where I think you're going to go with this, perhaps we should agree on some parameters for open-mindedness. I suggest this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

In more specific answer to your question, I don't think much of those 4 subjects you mentioned because of the lack of evidence for them. If you want to assert differently, I will accept any of them when they can be shown to exist under controlled conditions. Mind you, I'm not saying anyone of them is not true, I am merely saying I have seen no concrete evidence of any of therm so, accordingly, I don't believe any of them, but that belief is provisional. If I ever do see conclusive evidence of them, I'll gladly change my mind.

Now, if you want to argue that I am not open-minded, I think we'll disagree on what open-minded actually means.

BTW, I want to add slightly to the consideration of UFO's. In fact, I am certain over my lifetime, I have seen an unidentified flying object or two. All that means is that I didn't know what the fuck it was. That doesn't mean I believe we've been visited by aliens although, in the caae of W and Cheney, I'd argue we came close to it. Beyond that, if a civilization from another planet has developed the advanced technology to visit Earth, why in the world do they wind up abducting the stupidest fucking people on our planet?

Now, my turn. What is your opinion of:

1. The Illuminati?
2. The PTB?
3. Santa Claus?
4. The Tooth Fairy?
5. The Easter Bunny?

[peacefulrevolution]

42. thank you for a mostly snark free response

some books to put on your list:

Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences In a Quantum Reality, by Dean Radin

The Akashic Experience: Science and the Cosmic Memory Field, by Ervin Laszlo

Journey of Souls: Case Studies of Life Between Lives, by Micheal Newton, Ph.D.

Need To Know: UFO's, the Militaryn and Intelligence, by Timothy Good.

Are they "evidence"? Well, the Newton one on reincarnation is just stories of what people supposedly told him while under hypnosis. Every word in it may be untrue, I have no way of verifying, but most rings true according to my previous research.

The UFO one deals exclusively with pilots, air force and navy folks. Quotes are attributed to named people. Cases from military folk all over the world. People from in planes and radar stations....hundreds upon hundreds of cases.

These are just four books on my night table at present. I think I win the open mind contest. If you really want to blow your mind wide the fuck open, google "the philadelphia experiment".... other dimensional travel of a big ass boat(destroyer i think) Bermuda triangle shit.

So, could cheney's DNA actually be somewhat reptillian?? we may have one we can agree on.

Of course you did not mention Atlantis.....way down, below the ocean.....

[SDuderstadt]

43. Did you watch the video I provided?

No, you don't win the open-mindedness contest. Asking for proof of something isn't closemindedness,,dude. In fact,, claiming that anyone who doesn't buy ''woo'' bullshit isn't open-minded is just one more ''woo'' post hoc rationalization. I demonstrated openmindedness by making it clear that I was not saying any of those things are not true, but reserving belief for things that can be demonstrated under controlled conditions to be true.

For you to claim that you ''won the openmindedness contest'' actually demontrates precisely how flawed your reasoning is.

[peacefulrevolution]

44. AAhhh, that old bugaboo, proof

One man's proof is anothers bat shit crazy. Are hundreds of eyewitness navy personnel sworn affidavit testimony of seeing a craft of unearthly design perform unearthly manuevers proof??

Quantum physics is demolishing old paradigms. Two things can influence each other from huge distances faster than light. It aint your fathers time space reality any more.

Open minds do not use the word "woo". They are not afraid of new things. They are not afraid to be completely wrong or completely amazed.

Atlantis was very real. How do you think the Egyptian civilization sprang ahead so fast in science, astronomy. How to explain huge similarities in language, customs, creation myths between indigenous people in the Americas and Mesopatameia/Egypt.,

Truth is coming soon to a mind near you. No, the earth is not flat. No, the sun does not revolve around us.

To find "proof" you must look for it with an open mind. Just like why NIST did not find any proof of thermite/thermate.

[SDuderstadt]

45. What convoluted bullshit...

How in the world is proof a bugaboo? As far as your first point, proof of what? That they saw something they couldn't identify? You're essentially claiming 1 + 2 = 4 here.

I'm quite aware of quantum physics. You're the first "woo" I've ever enountered who claims it somehow proves telepathy.

I am not afraid of new things, That's just more "woo" bullshit. "If you reject my goofy claims, you're afraid of new things".

So, let me get this straight. The accomplishments of Egyptian civilization somehow proves the existence of Atlantis? There's no other possible explanation? Jesus.

Yeah, I know the earth is not flat and the sun does not revolve around us. In fact, the rejection of the previous beliefs was accomplished by science, not woo.

Perhaps the dumbest statement is, "To find "proof" you must look for it with an open mind". Then you cite the NIST rejection of the "thermite" hypothesis. They rejected it for a good reason. Perhaps if YOU had an open mind, you could understand the science behind their conclusion.

You know, this reminds me of the time when James Randi tripped up Uri Geller on the Johnny Carson Show. Geller, of course, was going to do his "spoon-bending" illusion. The only problem is that Geller refused to admit it was an illusion, so Randi thwarted the illusion by replacing the spoon that Geller had pre-bent with one that wasn't pre-bent on live TV. Of course, this threw Geller for a loop. When they returned from a commercial break, an obviously amused Carson explained that Geller claimed he was unable to perform the trick because "there was too much negative energy there" or some such bullshit.

Do you know what repeatable means? Do you know what observable means? Do you know what falsifiable means? Do you realize that trying to downplay the need for proof as a "bugaboo" is classic woo nonsense? Do you understand that liberalism embraces science? Where's yours? Hint: magical thinking isn't science.

[peacefulrevolution]

46. I was trying to inject a small amount of humor

with the use of the word "bugaboo" and how proof for one is unrepeatable and falsifiable for others.

Since you are familiar with the extreme paradigm shift underway in quantum physics you understand what nonlocal entanglement refers to. Many experiments on remote viewing(which rhe CIA and NSA had programs using)telepathy, precognition etc. have been done with strict scientific protocol, double blinds etc., with results far surpassing what would be expected by chance. Have they all been independently repeatable? No. Does this then render them worthless? What it does imply to the many courageous scientists not afraid of followers of the old religion going "woo-woo, burn em at the stake" is that when dealing with consciousness, as complete paradigms crumble and are in the process of being replaced other long accepted strictures of methodology may also need revising.

Obviously you have not read the many fine books by scientests who do believe the new discoveries(especially entanglement) suggest a workable explanation for observable psi laboratory results.

If you do your own searching, read some of the literature, and THEN reject my "goofy" claims you will have gained a measure of credibility.

It is impossible to find something you refuse to look for.

Same with the thousands of reports by military and civilian pilots/radar operators who describe in detail their sometimes hours long sightings of UFO's. It is not covered by the MSM. It gives many a gut reaction of "woo-woo" because they have been conditioned like Pavlov's Dog to reject. The book I cited above goes into detail about how the governments of the world have decided the masses should not be given access to this information and how they cooperate to keep it hidden.

Dude, I know I am not going to change your mind here, now. But you have been suprisingly civil and borderline polite. Thank you. I too was a sceptic. I suggest you and whoever else might read this peruse some of the new info out there, even if just to be able to refute it from a more informed position

[SDuderstadt]

47. Dude...

This is getting sillier by the moment:

Many experiments on remote viewing(which rhe CIA and NSA had programs using)telepathy, precognition etc. have been done with strict scientific protocol, double blinds etc., with results far surpassing what would be expected by chance. Have they all been independently repeatable? No. Does this then render them worthless? What it does imply to the many courageous scientists not afraid of followers of the old religion going "woo-woo, burn em at the stake" is that when dealing with consciousness, as complete paradigms crumble and are in the process of being replaced other long accepted strictures of methodology may also need revising.

More generalized, mumbo-jumbo woo bullshit from you. If these experiments were reliable, then why don't you provide specific information? If the "results" were not duplicable, then what does that tell you? And ridiculing "woo" bullshit hardly amounts to a "burn'em at the stake" mentality.

It is impossible to find something you refuse to look for.

Another typical "woo" attempt to shift the burden of proof. I'm not looking for proof of a claim that I didn't make, dude. It's YOUR claim and, thus, YOUR burden of proof. Referring me a bunch of books and saying "it's in there", does not constitute meaningful proof. Why is it that not a single person who claims to have psychic powers has ever been able to demonstrate those powers under controlled conditions?

Same with the thousands of reports by military and civilian pilots/radar operators who describe in detail their sometimes hours long sightings of UFO's. It is not covered by the MSM. It gives many a gut reaction of "woo-woo" because they have been conditioned like Pavlov's Dog to reject. The book I cited above goes into detail about how the governments of the world have decided the masses should not be given access to this information and how they cooperate to keep it hidden.

Now you're really going off the deep end. This is also typical "woo" bullshit. Just claim that the reason you can't supply specific proof is because "It is not covered by the MSM. It gives many a gut reaction of "woo-woo" because they have been conditioned like Pavlov's Dog to reject. The book I cited above goes into detail about how the governments of the world have decided the masses should not be given access to this information and how they cooperate to keep it hidden". Let me translate: "The claims I'm making are so dubious, the only place they're published are in questionable publications that shun things like fact-checking. Anyone who has the temerity to ask for actual proof of my claim is a knee-jerk reactionary who is trying to keep this information suppressed. Ditto the governments of the world. Now, disprove my claims or they must be true!".

Dude, you're not fooling anyone.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

49. "you're a dumbass"

And you lose the debate, so you start calling names. Actually, that also works the other way around.

Dude, have you ever heard of the logical fallacy called "false certainty"? Do you honestly think because you read something in book, that makes it true? If you use that logic, that means JFK was assassinated by at least 69 different shooters.

You can cite as many books as you want. And you can believe anything that you want. You can even believe that only you and a handful of others can see the truth. All of that means exactly zero when you're trying to convince others of something. As I said before, I am not saying any of those things are false. I'm saying I want to see some kind of evidence before I believe them.

Do you just believe anything you read? Wouldn't that mean you're most likely to believe the last thing you read? Ann Coulter's books are heavily endnoted/footnoted. Does that mean what she says is true? Did you look for corroboration of these quotes from military intelligence officers? How do you know those people even exist? Because the author told you so? Even if they exist, how do you know the author quoted them properly? How do you know the author is credible? How do you know he isn't a crackpot? How do you know that you didn't get duped? Do you realize that what you're essentially arguing is "they don't know precisely what they saw, so it must have been a spaceship from another planet."?

Did you WATCH that video I provided? Do you understand that openmindedness without asking for evidence can fill your mind with crap? Do you know how to properly evaluate a claim or vet evidence? Is there anything so goofy even YOU won't embrace it?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[peacefulrevolution]

51. i didn't call you a little girl.... i said ur actions were like

those of a little girl.....so, moderators, please cut me some slack here

[SDuderstadt]

53. So, if I didn't call you a "jack-ass" directly but...

just said your actions were "like that of a jackass", I didn't really call you a name? Dude. you need to look up the meaning of a "distinction without a difference". You know you've violated the rules, so you appeal to the moderators in the forum itself. LOLOLOL. You're such a hoot.

[greyl]

54. It's a sexist comment, at least.

Sexism isn't one of the Noble Truths.

[SDuderstadt]

55. It's what I've come to expect from some (not all)...

"truthers".

[SDuderstadt]

52. Timothy Good...

Well, it turns out that your "source"'s qualification as a UFO expert comes from his...being a professional violinist. Hmmm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Good

Here's a link to the quotes page of Good's website:

http://www.timothygood.co.uk/statements.htm

Notice anything about the "quotes"? Yep, you guessed it. Where is the sourcing for the quotes? Notice the age of most of the "quotes"? Notice the vague, non-specific nature of most of the quotes? Sound like quote-mining to you? It does to me.

And this (again from his Wikipedia entry):

Timothy Good is probably best known among ufologist's for his ground breaking book "Above Top Secret" Which is an eye opening look at the structure of sensitive top secret info that is kept under wraps in various Governments around the world. According to ufologist Timothy Good (in his books Alien Liaison and Alien Contact), after Jackie Gleason's death his wife reported that one day in 1973 Gleason had come home extremely shaken. He confided to her that because of Gleason's interest in UFOs, U.S. President Richard Nixon, who was a friend of his, had arranged for him to view bodies of extraterrestrials at Homestead Air Force Base, Florida, under conditions of extreme secrecy. Gleason had found the experience very troubling.

And where did Good get this? Well, he actually got this from a publication called "Modern Drunkard Magazine", in an article about Gleason called "The Great Drunk:Lushing with Jackie Gleason, Pt. 2". Excuse me if I don't take this all that seriously. Of course,

Gleason’s second wife, Beverly McKittrick, claimed Jackie was given an even grander affirmation by President Richard Nixon, Jackie’s frequent golfing partner. According to her, Nixon ditched his Secret Service entourage, picked up Jackie and drove him to a heavily guarded compound at the Homestead Air Force Base in Florida. There he showed Jackie the wreckage of a crashed alien spaceship and the frozen bodies of dead extraterrestrials. Beverly claimed the event heavily traumatized Jackie—he couldn’t sleep for weeks and had to double his usual intake of alcohol just to get back to normal.

http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/issues/03-05/03_05_great_drunk.htm

Now, am I saying that all this Gleason tale is secondhand and fueled by alcohol? Actually,, no. I'm relatively sure that part of the story was fuled by Gleason's fascination with UFO's and the paranormal:

Interest in the paranormal
Gleason was a voracious reader of books on the paranormal, including The Urantia Book, parapsychology and UFOs.<4><5><6><7><8> He even had a house built in the shape of a UFO which he named "The Mothership".<8> During the 1950s, he was a semi-regular guest on the paranormal-themed overnight radio show hosted by John Nebel, and wrote the introduction to Donald Bain's biography of Nebel.<9> According to Gleason's second wife, Beverly McKittrick, he told her that U.S. President Richard Nixon took him on a secret visit to Homestead Air Force Base. There, Gleason allegedly saw an alien spaceship and dead extraterrestrials.<8> After his death, his large book collection was donated to the library of the University of Miami.<7>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Gleason

And, of course, we can't corroborate this because:

1. Nixon is dead
2. Gleason is dead and
3. As far as I know, McKittrick is dead.


As far as your claim that some of the ships were "absurdly huge, like a 1/4 mile long", do you really expect us to believe that military personnel saw ships a quarter of a mile long, yet no one civilian saw anything similar? Exactly how far away do you think a ship that long could be seen?

I think you need to come back down to Earth, dude. I have included my pic, so you know whom you're debating with.

[jakeXT]

56. Obama in his NY Daily News Op-Ed

...

No one can guarantee that there will never be another attack; but what I can guarantee - what I can promise - is that we will do everything within our power to reduce the likelihood of an attack, and that I will not hesitate to do what it takes to defend America.

That is why we are providing the necessary resources and strategies to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 and who have found safe haven in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of our enemies, including increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps.

...
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/09/11/2009-09-11_obamas_message_on_911.html

[LARED]

57. He's starting ot sound like those

PNAC'er.

[szatmar666]

58. lame attempt at propaganda

we all know what happened to the last president who openly took on these thugs.

[Bolo Boffin]

59. So the thread I was parodying with this one is a lame attempt at propaganda, then? n/t

[szatmar666]

60. Van Jones lost his job

Obama would probably lose his life. what else do you want me to say?! It's sad to see adults so deeply identifying with the interests of the ruling & abusing class that they are blind to simple facts of life in their own country. It's called "Stockholm Syndrome". I lived in 3 countries, I am fluent in all 3 languages and see people deluded by propaganda all the time everywhere in the world. It's sad in eastern europe but it's even worse in a country where you have all the means to develop a flexible inquisitive intellect.

[Echo In Light]

61. On general principle I tend to distrust anyone who seeks to stop/limit debating controversial issues