Finally. Good riddance to Obamacare.

[Curious George]

Yes I do, and I hope Trump will stop it all.

Which conflict did Obama involve Australia, which conflict did Obama start? Which conflict should have Obama withdrawn from that involved Australians?

 

[psychoslice]

Which conflict did Obama involve Australia, which conflict did Obama start? Which conflict should have Obama withdrawn from that involved Australians?

U.S. military forces have been at war for all eight years of Obama’s tenure, the first two-term president with that distinction. He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

Yet the U.S. faces more threats in more places than at any time since the Cold War, according to U.S. intelligence. For the first time in decades, there is at least the potential of an armed clash with America’s largest adversaries, Russia and China.

Obama slashed the number of U.S. troops in war zones from 150,000 to 14,000, and stopped the flow of American soldiers coming home in body bags. He also used diplomacy, not war, to defuse a tense nuclear standoff with Iran.

But he vastly expanded the role of elite commando units and the use of new technology, including armed drones and cyber weapons.

“The whole concept of war has changed under Obama,” said Jon Alterman, Middle East specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonprofit think tank in Washington.

Obama “got the country out of ‘war,’ at least as we used to see it,” Alterman said. “We’re now wrapped up in all these different conflicts, at a low level and with no end in sight.”

And of course Australia is hoodwinked into helping any wars that are caused by the Americans decisions, they just can't help trying to be the Savior of the world when they are the devil himself.
President Obama, who hoped to sow peace, instead led the nation in war

 

[Curious George]

U.S. military forces have been at war for all eight years of Obama’s tenure, the first two-term president with that distinction. He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

Yet the U.S. faces more threats in more places than at any time since the Cold War, according to U.S. intelligence. For the first time in decades, there is at least the potential of an armed clash with America’s largest adversaries, Russia and China.

Obama slashed the number of U.S. troops in war zones from 150,000 to 14,000, and stopped the flow of American soldiers coming home in body bags. He also used diplomacy, not war, to defuse a tense nuclear standoff with Iran.

But he vastly expanded the role of elite commando units and the use of new technology, including armed drones and cyber weapons.

“The whole concept of war has changed under Obama,” said Jon Alterman, Middle East specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonprofit think tank in Washington.

Obama “got the country out of ‘war,’ at least as we used to see it,” Alterman said. “We’re now wrapped up in all these different conflicts, at a low level and with no end in sight.”

And of course Australia is hoodwinked into helping any wars that are caused by the Americans decisions, they just can't help trying to be the Savior of the world when they are the devil himself.
President Obama, who hoped to sow peace, instead led the nation in war

So, Obama actually reduced the involvement and didn't initiate the conflict, and even avoided further conflict but somehow you blame him for Australian involvement? Is that what you are saying?

 

[psychoslice]

So, Obama actually reduced the involvement and didn't initiate the conflict, and even avoided further conflict but somehow you blame him for Australian involvement? Is that what you are saying?

Well of course we are involved, you should know that ?.

 

[Curious George]

Well of course we are involved, you should know that ?.

I understand that au is limited in their involvement, but I am asking you why you blame Obama for their involvement. You have pointed to no culpability on the part of Obama. In fact, had Obama not been at the helm then we would have expected a higher level of involvement. So, I would like to know why you blame Obama?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes and whatever the side is who knows, really who knows.

That's what we have science for. That's what we have investigations for. Reality is not subjective. Interpretations will vary, but we have too many facts being challenged, too much objective evidence being dismissed in my place for "my side." This whole idea of "what is reality? what is truth? what are facts?" is utter bull**** because we do know, objectively and factually, many things. And we have terribly consequences of this as evidenced by insisting non-science religious mythos be taught as science fact, and horrible consequences wherever we see religious-based discrimination and bullying being preserved as a "right," and where we find Freudian mumbo-jumbo and junk-science promoting dangerous and unethical "treatments" that consistently turn out bad. We know this because of facts. Because we have done research. We see evolution in process all the time and we have the fossil record to prove evolution is a fact, but yet it goes on being challenged as "just a theory." We have a solid history of what happens when a majority oppresses a minority, but yet many selfishly throw and tantrum and claim their rights trump all and throw out studies that are flawed, inadequate, and of a highly self-contained/circulating nature where outsider disciplines and even outsiders are not welcomed. So many times, there simply is no "whatever the side is who knows," but rather people who can't put together a valid and logical argument for-or-against their position so they ignore fact and try to reduce everything to opinion.

 

[psychoslice]

I understand that au is limited in their involvement, but I am asking you why you blame Obama for their involvement. You have pointed to no culpability on the part of Obama. In fact, had Obama not been at the helm then we would have expected a higher level of involvement. So, I would like to know why you blame Obama?

He is a warmonger, that simple, he promised peace but didn't deliver, if you want to know his history then do your research, its not hard to find.

 

[psychoslice]

That's what we have science for. That's what we have investigations for. Reality is not subjective. Interpretations will vary, but we have too many facts being challenged, too much objective evidence being dismissed in my place for "my side." This whole idea of "what is reality? what is truth? what are facts?" is utter bull**** because we do know, objectively and factually, many things. And we have terribly consequences of this as evidenced by insisting non-science religious mythos be taught as science fact, and horrible consequences wherever we see religious-based discrimination and bullying being preserved as a "right," and where we find Freudian mumbo-jumbo and junk-science promoting dangerous and unethical "treatments" that consistently turn out bad. We know this because of facts. Because we have done research. We see evolution in process all the time and we have the fossil record to prove evolution is a fact, but yet it goes on being challenged as "just a theory." We have a solid history of what happens when a majority oppresses a minority, but yet many selfishly throw and tantrum and claim their rights trump all and throw out studies that are flawed, inadequate, and of a highly self-contained/circulating nature where outsider disciplines and even outsiders are not welcomed. So many times, there simply is no "whatever the side is who knows," but rather people who can't put together a valid and logical argument for-or-against their position so they ignore fact and try to reduce everything to opinion.

Thats interesting, but when you think about it, who truly has the facts, I am talking more on politics.

 

[Curious George]

He is a warmonger, that simple, he promised peace but didn't deliver, if you want to know his history then do your research, its not hard to find.

So, nothing then? No connection other than he didn't cease and desist all wars immediately? It seems as though this thing you have for Obama is rather unsubstantiated.

The most important can see is that you are upset that he ran on a campaign promise to end the war in Iraq, which at that time was synonymous with the war in the middle east, and then only reduced the war. But, from your comments you seem to blame him. I was just curious if there was any substance to your rhetoric. If not, that is fine. Carry on as you will.

Cheers.

 

[Curious George]

He is a warmonger, that simple, he promised peace but didn't deliver, if you want to know his history then do your research, its not hard to find.

So, nothing then? No connection other than he didn't cease and desist all wars immediately? It seems as though this thing you have for Obama is rather unsubstantiated.

The most important can see is that you are upset that he ran on a campaign promise to end the war in Iraq, which at that time was synonymous with the war in the middle east, and then only reduced the war. But, from your comments you seem to blame him. I was just curious if there was any substance to your rhetoric. If not, that is fine. Carry on as you will.

Cheers.

 

[psychoslice]

So, nothing then? No connection other than he didn't cease and desist all wars immediately? It seems as though this thing you have for Obama is rather unsubstantiated.

The most important can see is that you are upset that he ran on a campaign promise to end the war in Iraq, which at that time was synonymous with the war in the middle east, and then only reduced the war. But, from your comments you seem to blame him. I was just curious if there was any substance to your rhetoric. If not, that is fine. Carry on as you will.

Cheers.

And you carry on with your head your head in the sand as well.

 

[Curious George]

And you carry on with your head your head in the sand as well.

LOL, I am not so sure my head is in the sand. I would suggest there are plenty of reasons to call Obama a bad president. It is simply that "involving Australia in unnecessary conflict" is not one of them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thats interesting, but when you think about it, who truly has the facts, I am talking more on politics.

Even with politics, we have facts. We can, for example, trace paper trails back to some donors. We have voting records and statements. Yes, politicians do carefully choose their words and play highly complexed lingual gymnastics to keep from outright lying and highlighting the better while downplaying the worse, and they just flat out lie, but, really, it's gotten so bad that I've seen the White House itself falling under the accusation of being a politically biased source.

 

[psychoslice]

LOL, I am not so sure my head is in the sand. I would suggest there are plenty of reasons to call Obama a bad president. It is simply that "involving Australia in unnecessary conflict" is not one of them.

Well that maybe true, but its the way we see it here, anyhow I am glad that he is finished.

 

[psychoslice]

Even with politics, we have facts. We can, for example, trace paper trails back to some donors. We have voting records and statements. Yes, politicians do carefully choose their words and play highly complexed lingual gymnastics to keep from outright lying and highlighting the better while downplaying the worse, and they just flat out lie, but, really, it's gotten so bad that I've seen the White House itself falling under the accusation of being a politically biased source.

I think you are right if your someone who can red between the lines and does his homework, but most are hoodwinked, I think you would agree with that ?.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
I do believe FDR highlighted a very basic point, something that even the wealthiest of the ancient Greeks acknowledged, and that is you can only prosper as much or as little as your culture and state allow. We can let the wealthy continue to build vast riches and wealth that exceed entire nations combined, or we can elevate society as a whole. Let a few live relatively problem free, or let work on easing the problems of society. And, in the end, ultimately the wealthier the poor the better off the rich will be as there is more money to buy goods and services, more disposable income, and more economic demand.

Have you considered the alarm is over the fact that for several years now Republicans have went about 'repeal and replace," but really haven't gave us any ideas about what they want to replace it with? With a few adjustments I'd be all on board for adopting Indiana's HIP as a national plan. It's good insurance, covers more than the ACA minimum, but because it is very Socialist in nature (and first used by Mitch Daniels, who is so known for privatization he is known as "the Blade") I doubt people go for it because it does involve the state managing--not people's healthcare--people's health insurance and asking for an income-based monthly payment. But it covers far more than what any private insurance I've had has covered, and far more quickly and without all the BS of legal wording games and trying to dodge coverage anyways.

Not any better or worse than, "You have to pass it to see what's in it."

I'm curious too all the same what It would entail as well. It's probably good not to disclose too early until details get worked out.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not any better or worse than, "You have to pass it to see what's in it."

Except the ACA wasn't "have to it to see what's in it." We knew enough to have a pretty good idea of how it would function.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Except the ACA wasn't "have to it to see what's in it." We knew enough to have a pretty good idea of how it would function.

So much for good ideas. ;0)

 

[Shad]

So, Obama actually reduced the involvement and didn't initiate the conflict, and even avoided further conflict but somehow you blame him for Australian involvement? Is that what you are saying?

An analogy would be he is treating the symptoms rather than the disease. The conflicts are not resolved just minimized for the external factions as is their risk; Western powers, Russia, China and nations which support terrorism. It does nothing to help those that live in the environment either. It a facade of stability than disappears with a gun shot.

 

[Curious George]

An analogy would be he is treating the symptoms rather than the disease. The conflicts are not resolved just minimized for the external factions as is their risk; Western powers, Russia, China and nations which support terrorism. It does nothing to help those that live in the environment either. It a facade of stability than disappears with a gun shot.

Okay, what would you have Obama do (or have had Obama done)? The back and forth, to which you are replying, is a charge that Obama is to blame for the Australian involvement in conflict abroad. Is this a charge you wish to levy as well?