Obama To Be President for Next 8 to 10 Years

1. ...."President Sarkozi or others I expect to be dealing with over the next 8-10 years”

   I am all for a long range plan but this is just ridiculous!

   Apparently he must be thinking that he is going to either be in the Senate or be President for the next 8-10 years but apparently
   he is not taking into account what happened to the last Senator that lost a Presidential election.

   What was his name, and what exactly has he done in the last 4 years?

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 0742 hrs




2. Having worked a flight-line, base access points, and escourting congressmen around our base, I am surprised that none of them asked me if I thought they had enough foreign policy experience to be President…

   That seems like a rather atypical question to ask. What officer or commander would be stupid enough to answer that question by saying, “Barak baby, I just don’t think you got it going on right now.”?

   Maybe in 8 or 10 years…

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 0803 hrs




3. ...."President Sarkozi or others I expect to be dealing with over the next 8-10 years”

   But first he has to campaign in the “57” states

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 0823 hrs




4. I wonder how the Obama apologists will defend this? 
   When off the teleprompter, Obama is not very smart.  If this was Bush or Cheney, the liberal media would be all over it, saying they want to destroy the constitution or they want longer terms and how stupid they are.  But since is Obama, they give him a pass.

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 0857 hrs




5. Clearly, if Obama is not President for the next 10 years it would only be because this nation is racist, which would motivate Michelle Obama to once again not be proud of her country.

   Posted by Fraley on July 21, 2008 at 0926 hrs




6. "the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like president Karzaii, Prime Minister Malaki, or President Sarkozi”

   I guess a substantive discussion with General Patraeus wasn’t one of his objectives…

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 0939 hrs




7. Front page of today’s NY Times--Obama meeting with General Petraeus…

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1057 hrs




8. Front page of today’s NY Times--Obama meeting with General Petraeus…

   I didn’t say he wasn’t meeting with him. 

   I think its telling that when asked the question, meeting with General Petraeus wasn’t one of the first things that popped into his mind when he was listing his objectives.

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1232 hrs




9. I didn’t say he wasn’t meeting with him.

   I guess a substantive discussion with General Patraeus wasn’t one of his objectives…

   Are we speaking English here or Parsi?

   Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1352 hrs




10. Are we speaking English here or Parsi?

    You’re not speaking English, sorry.  You cut off half his post when you quoted him.  You know the part where he quoted Obama as saying “the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like president Karzaii, Prime Minister Malaki, or President Sarkozi”.

    God, you lefties are so infantile.

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1423 hrs




11. I cut off half his post, well excuse me.

    Owen’s “source”, http://en.sevenload.com/users/michellem,

    cut off 9+ minutes of the interview

    You might want to listen to the whole thing

    http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtm l?id=4275935n

    You also might want to pay special attention to the question he was asked?

    Here xxp’s 2 comments in there entirety;
    

    “the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like president Karzaii, Prime Minister Malaki, or President Sarkozi”

    I guess a substantive discussion with General Patraeus wasn’t one of his objectives…

    Front page of today’s NY Times--Obama meeting with General Petraeus…

    I didn’t say he wasn’t meeting with him.

    I think its telling that when asked the question, meeting with General Petraeus wasn’t one of the first things that popped into his mind when he was listing his objectives.

    If you don’t think that is parsing what he said so be it.

    I do.

    And with your usual level of intelligent debate, you don’t do your homework and resort to your usual schoolyard bully BS.

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1510 hrs




12. If you don’t think that is parsing what he said so be it.

    Absolutely not, and he even clarified it for the “denser” people around here.  I know you’re not one of those, so you know that last sentence of his last post wasn’t lost on you.  So I’m unclear where your confusion is coming from, why you asked if he was speaking English.

    >And with your usual level of intelligent debate, you don’t do your homework and resort to your usual schoolyard bully BS.

    Oh booo hooo, I called a spade a spade, and you go grabbing for heartstrings.  My homework?  We weren’t talking about Owen’s source, we were talking about your infantile talk here and now.  Stay on the topic.  I know that’s impossible, you can’t troll a political blog without being a complete ass, but you could at least be mature enough to respect other people’s viewpoints.  That’s my dream.

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1523 hrs




13. "Parsi” - parse- get it.

    Do you know what parse means?

    The subject of the post is what Obama said while being interviewed in Afghanistan, right.

    Both Owen’s source and xxp parsed the context of the interview and for that matter totally ignored the question which had nothing to do with Patraeus.

    OK now you can go out and beat your dog.

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1541 hrs




14. 4 years, but it feels like 10?

    Posted by HeatherRadish on July 21, 2008 at 1556 hrs




15. pjr:

    Golden rule of humor.

    If you feel a need to explain it, ITS NOT FUNNY!

    Your welcome.
    

    OK now you can go out and beat your dog.

    I personally think would be funnier!

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1601 hrs




16. xxp parsed the context of the interview and for that matter totally ignored the question which had nothing to do with Patraeus.

    Obama was asked a question about his “trip” and the perception that he lacked foreign policy experience and the capability to lead from day one.

    He responds by talking about the objective of “his trip”

    I understand that Obama was planning to meet with Petraeus.  This was even reported before he left.

    But its interesting that when asked about “his trip” his stated objectives were what they were.

    pjr, I’m certain that Obama had dinner and took a shit while he was on his trip too.  But of course he didn’t mention that as part of his objective.  Because that wasn’t the point of his trip.

    So while Obama did indeed meet with Petraeus, the fact that when he stated the objective of his trip was “to have substantive discussions with people like president Karzaii, Prime Minister Malaki, or President Sarkozi”

    I think the omission of “meeting General Petraeus and getting a first hand look at what is happening on the ground” is very telling.

    You may not think so.

    Its my opinion and my analyzation of the situation.  Obviously as Obama’s resident cheerleader you disagree. 

    Fair enough. I expected nothing less.

    Posted by on July 21, 2008 at 1605 hrs




17. Fifty-seven states, potentially serving 8-10 years as president ... close enough!

    

    The drive bys are too busy with their collective Obagasm right now to notice the difference.

    Posted by hsgbdmama on July 21, 2008 at 1935 hrs