Is Obama already planning his re-election ?

ironsides

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
SirJosephPorter: Being a conservative black with his educational credentials gives him every right to offer an intellegent decision about Obama. What exactly did he say that I posted that was wrong?


JLM: That was just referencing one of SirJosephPorter's patent reply's.

 
ironsides

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
JLM said:
I find the results so far very surprising, but then again where would Bush have stood in the same poll after 70 days in office?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, Bush probably would have been the same, but this is about Obama, I found the results were surprising also.
 
EagleSmack

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
SirFrancis2004 said:
So as I agree with you that SJP is pompous does that require me to remove him from my friend list ? It still does not mean he is wrong..

Speaking of pompous, I never hear you reply to my fact based links about the US pulling out of Iraq ? hummmmmmmmmm
Click to expand...

Fact based list you say?

First off Obama promised to pull out one brigade per month upon taking office. He said this leading up to the Democrat Primaries. After he secured the Democrat ticket he reversed his promise and said there would not be a timetable. He also said that he will leave 50,000 US troops in Iraq indefinitely.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
darkbeaver

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007


Abstract We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
Keywords: JScanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
 
darkbeaver

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Election? In the states? When was the last one? His majesty just got into the offal office. Nobody on the planet wants to endure the freakish theatre of another thirty months of trash talking spin mutants stuffing human heads with ****. Why not just buy it again.
 
SirJosephPorter

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
ironsides said:
Not as accurate as the ones you use. hmmmmm
Click to expand...

Not accurate at all, ironsides. I would put zero credibility in any on line poll. The sample is self selecting, the poll is vulnerable to spamming by a small but determined group and its reliability is nonexistent.

On line polls are just a curiosity, nothing more.
 
Francis2004

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
EagleSmack said:
Well Francis had a fact based list so... you know... hmmm... well its a list... and it's fact based...so he has to pull troops out now...

Doesn't he?
Click to expand...

As factual as can be.. Do you have any other credible sources or information or are you calling your own President a liar ?

President Obama told congressional leaders Thursday he's planning to pull all combat troops out of Iraq by August 2010, according to three congressional officials.
President Obama says he plans to keep up to 50,000 support troops in Iraq after combat troops leave in 2010.

President Obama says he plans to keep up to 50,000 support troops in Iraq after combat troops leave in 2010.

Under this scenario, all combat troops will be withdrawn within 19 months of Obama's January inauguration, three months longer than his promise on the campaign trail.

In a meeting at the White House Thursday evening, Obama also told lawmakers that he plans to keep a range of 35,000 to 50,000 support troops on the ground in Iraq after combat troops are out, the officials said.

All U.S. troops have to be out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year.
Click to expand...
 
EagleSmack

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Reality on the Ground

Despite Obama's announcement of a plan to withdraw U.S. soldiers from Iraq, troops are likely to remain in the country for years.


John Barry
Newsweek Web Exclusive

"We campaign in poetry, but we govern in prose," Mario Cuomo once said. The governor of New York for a decade and, in his day, a possible contender for the presidency elegantly captured the rueful task of all legislators, a task that is now facing President Barack Obama.

Obama's decision, to be announced Friday, to withdraw 90,000 of the 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by August 2010, is a classic example of the gulf between campaigning and governing.

Obama campaigned on the notion that Iraq was the bad war, and Afghanistan the good war. His opposition to the Iraq war, and his pledge to withdraw U.S. troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his election gave him a critical edge among the Democratic faithful over Hillary Clinton.

But now the occupation of Iraq, however bungled, gives promise of success. The country is a tumultuous democracy, one still threatened by internal conflicts, but by most accounts set on a political course that will make it unique in the Arab world. At the same time, Afghanistan looms as a sinkhole for American efforts, lacking the government, social structure, history or economy that it needs for a successful outcome, however many more troops Obama is persuaded to send beyond the extra 17,000 he has agreed to.

So Obama's decision to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by next year reflects another truth of American governance: midterm elections matter. If, by November 2010, Obama can say that all American combat brigades are out of Iraq, he can claim a pledge fulfilled. It would have taken 19 rather than 16 months, but it would be a political triumph nonetheless.

Except that it won't be entirely living up to the president's campaign promise. Combat brigades will be out of Iraq, but all U.S. troops are unlikely to be. In reality, what Obama has decided will largely replicate the plan B that his predecessor was offered in fall 2006. Plan A was what became known as "the surge": send in more troops, with the new mission of making space for Iraqi politicians to get their act together. Plan B was to pull out most U.S. forces but to keep a reserve in the country, at bases outside Iraq's cities, to intervene in emergencies, with others embedded as "advisers" in Iraqi units they were training (in reality, commanding in combat). Obama's Friday announcement is expected to indicate that a force of 35,000 to 50,000 forces will stay behind, probably at least until December 2011.

Bush, courageously, chose plan A. Like his father, who late in the run-up to the first Gulf War in 1991 doubled the number of troops he sent, W doubled his bet. It has worked well enough to give his successor the political luxury of opting now for something very closely resembling plan B.

Obama's "withdrawal" plan will leave perhaps 50,000 troops in Iraq. Some, now to be termed "advisory training brigades," will be embedded with Iraqi frontline units. Others, to be known as "advisory assistance brigades," will be hunkered out of sight in desert bases but ready to intervene in a crisis. And U.S. air power will still be in Iraq, poised to provide critical reconnaissance and on runway alert to give close air support to beleaguered Iraqi units.

This is an eminently sensible decision by the new president, as is his reported further agreement that withdrawals won't start in earnest until after the crucial Iraqi parliamentary elections this December, which will be a defining test of whether democracy has taken root in Iraq. The provincial elections last month succeeded beyond expectations, but highly charged issues face the infant state: Kurds versus Arabs in the cities of the north and the growing influence of Shia in the south, all while the precipitous collapse of oil prices deprives Baghdad of cash to rebuild the country.

The December elections aren't a sure thing, which is why the continuing presence of U.S. troops is essential. A U.S. military presence is, and will be for some years to come, the ultimate guarantor that the factions within this new state have to settle their political differences by argument and compromise rather than firepower. (Not to mention that they're Iraq's buttress against Iranian efforts to sway Iraqi politics through its support of militia forces.) The more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq to date constitute an ultimate investment in the peaceful future of the place, after all.

Still, Obama's reported decision won't appease his fellow Democrats. Nancy Pelosi, majority leader in the House, is already condemning it. "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000 [troops]," she has said. "I would think a third of that, maybe 20,000; a little bit more than a third, 15,000 to 20,000." General Pelosi seeks to run Iraq from her tactical headquarters on Capitol Hill. President Obama, meanwhile, is making the transition from campaigning to governing.
Click to expand...

There you go. He said he would pull out the troops within 16 months. If he doesn't do that than it WILL be considered a lie. The 16 months have not passed by as of yet but when it does and we still have 50,000 troops in Iraq he will have lied.

The notion of it being 50,000 support troops only is a twist in words. Support troops are cooks, admin, supply, communications, etc. I assure you that there will be armor, artillery, and infantry among those 50,000 and those are combat troops. If they are embedded in frontline Iraqi troops there will still be deaths hence the war will still be going on.
 
ironsides

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
SirJosephPorter said:
As to the poll, it is an on line poll. It is a curiosity, nothing more. I wouldn't attach any significance to it.
Click to expand...

What kind of polls do you like, ones where pollsters call individuals ask them the questions then manipulate the answers to what ever they want. The MSNBC poll at least shows us what those who online think. Average online Joe. That is pretty accurate.


In the past, you have inundated us with opinions based upon poll data that you collected and swore by. MSNBC if I am not mistaken was one of your sources.
 
SirJosephPorter

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
ironsides said:
What kind of polls do you like, ones where pollsters call individuals ask them the questions then manipulate the answers to what ever they want. The MSNBC poll at least shows us what those who online think. Average online Joe. That is pretty accurate.


In the past, you have inundated us with opinions based upon poll data that you collected and swore by. MSNBC if I am not mistaken was one of your sources.
Click to expand...


EagleSmack, the kind of polls I trust are the ones carried out by independent, reputable polling organizations such as Gallop, where a random sample is selected in a scientific, statistical manner.

Such scientifically conducted polls represent an accurate snapshot in time. If Gallop poll shows me the same result as the online poll, I will believe it, in that it will be a snapshot in time of what people think about Obama.

But on line poll? Come on, it is a joke, a curiosity nothing more. It says that the bloggers who responded to MSNBC poll feel that way, nothing more (always assuming that there was no systematic spamming by a small group to skew the results). It tells us nothing about the sentiment of the country at the present time.
 
EagleSmack

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
SirJosephPorter said:
EagleSmack, the kind of polls I trust are the ones carried out by independent, reputable polling organizations such as Gallop, where a random sample is selected in a scientific, statistical manner.

Such scientifically conducted polls represent an accurate snapshot in time. If Gallop poll shows me the same result as the online poll, I will believe it, in that it will be a snapshot in time of what people think about Obama.

But on line poll? Come on, it is a joke, a curiosity nothing more. It says that the bloggers who responded to MSNBC poll feel that way, nothing more (always assuming that there was no systematic spamming by a small group to skew the results). It tells us nothing about the sentiment of the country at the present time.
Click to expand...

Hey... Joe...

I understand that I am in your thoughts daily and I appreciate it... but once again... I did not write anything about any poll. It was one of the other guys.

That's twice at least.
 
ironsides

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
"Such scientifically conducted polls represent an accurate snapshot in time. If Gallop poll shows me the same result as the online poll, I will believe it, in that it will be a snapshot in time of what people think about Obama."

What poll's are scientific? Sounds like something out of the "King and I". Who or what were those 1500 or so people Gallop polled? Does anybody even know of anyone who took a Gallop poll? (I am just asking, because I do not.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom