PDA

View Full Version : Poll - 36% feel Obama Will Not Be Effective As CIC



red states rule
07-21-2008, 02:53 PM
As the messiah goes on his "Save The World" tiur - a new NY Times poll throws some cold water on his multi media photo op


Poll Shows Americans Afraid of Obama as Commander-in-Chief
Townhall ^ | July 18, 2008 | Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:24:07 PM by 2ndDivisionVet

On the night of January 20, 2009, a new commander-in-chief will leave the inaugural podium, parade, and festivities for the Oval Office. A national security staff ready with the latest “threat briefing” will join him there. On his desk, they will place a thick binder of reports, each focusing on real or emerging threats to our national security. In the quiet of the Oval Office -- in the presence of these stern-faced, deadly serious briefers and advisers -- Barack H. Obama, should he be the next president, will come face-to-face with reality.

Americans are afraid of this scenario, Barack H. Obama as commander-in-chief. The New York Times and CBS News released a poll this week; in it, Americans answered detailed questions about this possibility.

The poll’s answers shocked the strategists at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago. An intensive international travel schedule for Obama and a refocus of the campaign’s message on defense and foreign policy speaks to this fear.

The poll says Americans consider him lacking in the abilities necessary to run the armed services. Conversely, the polls show John McCain blows Obama out of the water as a good commander-in-chief. Forty-six percent of respondents thought McCain would very likely “be effective” as commander-in-chief, as opposed to only 24 percent saying the same of Obama. In fact, 36 percent think it is “not likely” Obama will be effective in the position.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2047337/posts

Kathianne
07-21-2008, 02:57 PM
Borrowing a page from MFM, I heard some conversation on talk radio Saturday. A female, no name, but a Barack supporter, agreed that his lack of experience would be an invitation, that would be accepted, by governments around the world influenced by terrorists, to test him, ala JFK.

red states rule
07-21-2008, 03:01 PM
Borrowing a page from MFM, I heard some conversation on talk radio Saturday. A female, no name, but a Barack supporter, agreed that his lack of experience would be an invitation, that would be accepted, by governments around the world influenced by terrorists, to test him, ala JFK.

Yea, the terrorists are so scared of the messiah - they are holding their side laughing

retiredman
07-21-2008, 03:04 PM
Borrowing a page from MFM, I heard some conversation on talk radio Saturday. A female, no name, but a Barack supporter, agreed that his lack of experience would be an invitation, that would be accepted, by governments around the world influenced by terrorists, to test him, ala JFK.

JFK seemed to pass the test, didn't he? Khrushchev was the one who blinked.

nonetheless, I would imagine that RSR is hoping for a similar end to an Obama presidency.

red states rule
07-21-2008, 03:05 PM
JFK seemed to pass the test, didn't he? Khrushchev was the one who blinked.

nonetheless, I would imagine that RSR is hoping for a similar end to an Obama presidency.

and you are comparing JFK to this clod - your messiah?

That is like comparing steak to hamburger

retiredman
07-21-2008, 03:09 PM
and you are comparing JFK to this clod - your messiah?

That is like comparing steak to hamburger


I didn't make the comparison, moron. Kathianne brought it up.

Kathianne
07-21-2008, 03:10 PM
JFK seemed to pass the test, didn't he? Khrushchev was the one who blinked.

nonetheless, I would imagine that RSR is hoping for a similar end to an Obama presidency.

Why am I not surprised that you would be happy to see the world brought to the brink of destruction, just to say your guy 'won?' JFK's piss poor policies nearly destroyed the earth, you think that a good thing?

red states rule
07-21-2008, 03:13 PM
Why am I not surprised that you would be happy to see the world brought to the brink of destruction, just to say your guy 'won?' JFK's piss poor policies nearly destroyed the earth, you think that a good thing?

The terrorist have their post Obama election plan in the works

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg113/NamesAshHousewares/nukebonestell.jpg

April15
07-21-2008, 03:13 PM
You forget that the USA is in a divisive position these days as to not be a unified country. That is the stated goal of Osama. We are falling apart because the uniter failed to unite. This presumed FEAR of terrorists will be around as long as you fear. I am not afraid and would like for those who are, to not take my freedoms to save me.
Obama will be just fine as Commander in Chief. He will listen to his advisers and not change reports to fit his agenda as has Bush.

retiredman
07-21-2008, 03:25 PM
Why am I not surprised that you would be happy to see the world brought to the brink of destruction, just to say your guy 'won?' JFK's piss poor policies nearly destroyed the earth, you think that a good thing?


do I think standing up to the soviet union and making them take ICBM's out of Cuba was a good thing? damned right I do. I can't believe that you don't!

Kathianne
07-21-2008, 03:29 PM
do I think standing up to the soviet union and making them take ICBM's out of Cuba was a good thing? damned right I do. I can't believe that you don't!

That it was never a necessary crisis, I find it wrong. That you applaud the wrong by that administration speaks volumes for the present.

red states rule
07-21-2008, 03:49 PM
You forget that the USA is in a divisive position these days as to not be a unified country. That is the stated goal of Osama. We are falling apart because the uniter failed to unite. This presumed FEAR of terrorists will be around as long as you fear. I am not afraid and would like for those who are, to not take my freedoms to save me.
Obama will be just fine as Commander in Chief. He will listen to his advisers and not change reports to fit his agenda as has Bush.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/KG3/BFH_panamerica_game.jpg

retiredman
07-21-2008, 04:11 PM
That it was never a necessary crisis, I find it wrong. That you applaud the wrong by that administration speaks volumes for the present.

Intercontinental ballistic missiles on launchers 90 miles from our coastline was not a crisis? do tell.

theHawk
07-21-2008, 04:31 PM
JFK seemed to pass the test, didn't he? Khrushchev was the one who blinked.

nonetheless, I would imagine that RSR is hoping for a similar end to an Obama presidency.

JFK was one of the worst CNCs there ever was. His abysmal foreign policy lead to the Bay of Pigs disaster, American intervention into the Vietnam war, and of course we were put on the brink of nuclear annihiliation.

retiredman
07-21-2008, 05:10 PM
JFK was one of the worst CNCs there ever was. His abysmal foreign policy lead to the Bay of Pigs disaster, American intervention into the Vietnam war, and of course we were put on the brink of nuclear annihiliation.

Yeah...we name aircraft carriers after lousy CinCs!

the Bay of Pigs was an Ike idea that JFK went along with. He regretted that. American intervention in Vietnam was also an Ike deal. It was LBJ and McNamara (and Tonkin Gulf) that truly screwed the pooch about Vietnam...not JFK. And again... if you don't think it was a wise idea to stand up to the Soviet Union when they had ICBM's on launchers 90 miles away from us, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

red states rule
07-21-2008, 05:15 PM
Yeah...we name aircraft carriers after lousy CinCs!

the Bay of Pigs was an Ike idea that JFK went along with. He regretted that. American intervention in Vietnam was also an Ike deal. It was LBJ and McNamara (and Tonkin Gulf) that truly screwed the pooch about Vietnam...not JFK. And again... if you don't think it was a wise idea to stand up to the Soviet Union when they had ICBM's on launchers 90 miles away from us, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Well they named one after Ted Kennedy and his proudest moment

http://texasholdemblogger.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uss-ted-kennedy.jpg

avatar4321
07-21-2008, 05:31 PM
You forget that the USA is in a divisive position these days as to not be a unified country. That is the stated goal of Osama. We are falling apart because the uniter failed to unite. This presumed FEAR of terrorists will be around as long as you fear. I am not afraid and would like for those who are, to not take my freedoms to save me.
Obama will be just fine as Commander in Chief. He will listen to his advisers and not change reports to fit his agenda as has Bush.

Why do you seem to think that you are somehow not responsible for not uniting behind the United States?

Its always someone elses fault. But then Im not falling for the hype that the United States has ever been United in the fact that everyone has always agreed.

You may not be afraid, but you will be. You will be.

avatar4321
07-21-2008, 05:35 PM
Yeah...we name aircraft carriers after lousy CinCs!

the Bay of Pigs was an Ike idea that JFK went along with. He regretted that. American intervention in Vietnam was also an Ike deal. It was LBJ and McNamara (and Tonkin Gulf) that truly screwed the pooch about Vietnam...not JFK. And again... if you don't think it was a wise idea to stand up to the Soviet Union when they had ICBM's on launchers 90 miles away from us, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

1)Aircraft carriers get named after Presidents regardless of whether they are good or lousy.

2)Passing the Bay of Pigs off on Ike is disingenuous. The plan may have been generated during Ike's administration, but there is no evidence that Ike would have left it as it was when Kennedy went through with it, or if he would have gone through with it at all. Kennedy was President. He has the responsibility to go over the plan and to support the follow through. He was the one who authorized it as it was without looking it over. It's his responsibility and no one elses.

retiredman
07-21-2008, 05:37 PM
1)Aircraft carriers get named after Presidents regardless of whether they are good or lousy.

2)Passing the Bay of Pigs off on Ike is disingenuous. The plan may have been generated during Ike's administration, but there is no evidence that Ike would have left it as it was when Kennedy went through with it, or if he would have gone through with it at all. Kennedy was President. He has the responsibility to go over the plan and to support the follow through. He was the one who authorized it as it was without looking it over. It's his responsibility and no one elses. I would like a link to your first claim. Name the carrier.

and I agree that the Bay of Pigs happened on JFK's watch, and said that he regretted trusting the Ike administration spooks who hatched the plan.

Yurt
07-21-2008, 05:57 PM
do you think george h.w. bush was a good or lousy president? or gerald ford?

Gaffer
07-21-2008, 06:06 PM
The missiles in cuba were not ICBM's, they were medium range missiles capable of striking the southern portion of the US.

Kennedy was handed his ass by kruschev in their first meeting which led kruschev to believe he could get away with the missiles in cuba.

The Bay of Pigs falls directly on kennedy's shoulders, he refused to give them the air support that was critical to the invasions success. The initial plan that Ike approved provided air units to help in the assault. kennedy nixed the air support.

If you put the worst of kennedy with the worst of carter you get obamanation.

red states rule
07-21-2008, 06:10 PM
The missiles in cuba were not ICBM's, they were medium range missiles capable of striking the southern portion of the US.

Kennedy was handed his ass by kruschev in their first meeting which led kruschev to believe he could get away with the missiles in cuba.

The Bay of Pigs falls directly on kennedy's shoulders, he refused to give them the air support that was critical to the invasions success. The initial plan that Ike approved provided air units to help in the assault. kennedy nixed the air support.

If you put the worst of kennedy with the worst of carter you get obamanation.

Tried to rep you - so I have to owe you

Great post Gaffer

April15
07-21-2008, 06:13 PM
Why do you seem to think that you are somehow not responsible for not uniting behind the United States?

Its always someone elses fault. But then Im not falling for the hype that the United States has ever been United in the fact that everyone has always agreed.

You may not be afraid, but you will be. You will be.
The part of the USA I am behind is not the one you are behind. The USA I am behind is not afraid of it's shadow like the current administration seems to be. The USA I am with has ethics and principles that mean something not like the unethical administration we have now that arbitrarily changes CDC reports or NOAA reports because they don't like the implications the reports have towards policies of the administration.

As to being in agreement the nation has been often in a just about unanimous agreement many times through out history, as lately as 9/11. But that unanimity was wasted by our beloved president for god only knows what reason.

And I am afraid of our government more than any terrorist. I will speak up until they come for me, I just hope you learn to speak up before they come for you!

stephanie
07-21-2008, 06:21 PM
And I am afraid of our government more than any terrorist. I will speak up until they come for me, I just hope you learn to speak up before they come for you!

Then you feel the same way about the Democrats in Goverment....?

Gaffer
07-21-2008, 06:54 PM
The part of the USA I am behind is not the one you are behind. The USA I am behind is not afraid of it's shadow like the current administration seems to be. The USA I am with has ethics and principles that mean something not like the unethical administration we have now that arbitrarily changes CDC reports or NOAA reports because they don't like the implications the reports have towards policies of the administration.

As to being in agreement the nation has been often in a just about unanimous agreement many times through out history, as lately as 9/11. But that unanimity was wasted by our beloved president for god only knows what reason.

And I am afraid of our government more than any terrorist. I will speak up until they come for me, I just hope you learn to speak up before they come for you!

It will be a democrat government that comes for you.

retiredman
07-21-2008, 07:19 PM
do you think george h.w. bush was a good or lousy president? or gerald ford?

neither of them were lousy presidents in my estimation.

retiredman
07-21-2008, 07:24 PM
The missiles in cuba were not ICBM's, they were medium range missiles capable of striking the southern portion of the US.



an SS-4 can fly 2100km...from Havana to Chicago.... I would suggest that Chicago is not exactly in the southern portion of the US.

Yurt
07-21-2008, 07:46 PM
an SS-4 can fly 2100km...from Havana to Chicago.... I would suggest that Chicago is not exactly in the southern portion of the US.

i understood that it was not for sure SS-4s were there. also, that is not an ICBM, in order to be an ICBM the missile has a greater range than what you have stated is an ICBM.

Yurt
07-21-2008, 07:48 PM
neither of them were lousy presidents in my estimation.

so it is about opinion, thus, lousy or not, for some consider both lousy, some aircraft carriers get named after presidents

retiredman
07-21-2008, 07:51 PM
i understood that it was not for sure SS-4s were there. also, that is not an ICBM, in order to be an ICBM the missile has a greater range than what you have stated is an ICBM.

I am sorry. Let me RETRACT that, counselor.... they were medium range ballistic missiles. Did that distinction make them OK to be in Cuba pointed at our metropolitan areas, from your perspective?

But wait...you weren't even ALIVE then, were you?:lol:

Yurt
07-21-2008, 07:54 PM
I am sorry. Let me RETRACT that, counselor.... they were medium range ballistic missiles. Did that distinction make them OK to be in Cuba pointed at our metropolitan areas, from your perspective?

But wait...you weren't even ALIVE then, were you?:lol:

wait, when i retracted something i was still a liar, hmmmmm

April15
07-21-2008, 07:55 PM
It will be a democrat government that comes for you.Stefanie and you just don't get it. It will be the conservatives/fascists.

retiredman
07-21-2008, 07:56 PM
wait, when i retracted something i was still a liar, hmmmmm

what lie, little man?

Yurt
07-21-2008, 07:59 PM
what lie, little man?

the false lie you accused me of when i thought lieberman won the majority dem vote and when you pointed out i was wrong i immediately recanted, you continued calling me a liar....

hmmmmm

don't you hate it when stuff comes back and kicks you in the ass :laugh2:

retiredman
07-21-2008, 08:05 PM
the false lie you accused me of when i thought lieberman won the majority dem vote and when you pointed out i was wrong i immediately recanted, you continued calling me a liar....

hmmmmm

don't you hate it when stuff comes back and kicks you in the ass :laugh2:

the fact that you recanted your lie does not make the initial statement any less false.

and that hardly kicks me in the ass...

you need a hobby, it would seem.

Yurt
07-21-2008, 08:07 PM
the fact that you recanted your lie does not make the initial statement any less false.

and that hardly kicks me in the ass...

you need a hobby, it would seem.

:lol: so you lied about the ICBMs? still calling me a liar for the same thing you just did...

as i said, boring

retiredman
07-21-2008, 08:10 PM
:lol: so you lied about the ICBMs? still calling me a liar for the same thing you just did...

as i said, boring


I misspoke about ICBM's. I should have used the acronym MRBM instead.

I am sure that you misspoke about Joe Lieberman, but you did so with such wicked gleefulness, I just felt compelled to rub your snotty little nose in it for a while. I'm sorry.

Gaffer
07-21-2008, 08:10 PM
ICBM = inter-continental ballistic missile. That means it travels through the edge of space to any point in the world. SS-4's were medium range. They were mobile, like scuds.

I was in high school at the time and there were a lot of scared and worried people during that time. While everyone knew there was a confrontation going on, most didn't realize how close we really came. Following that confrontation the hotline was establish to prevent any more such confrontations.

Gaffer
07-21-2008, 08:11 PM
Stefanie and you just don't get it. It will be the conservatives/fascists.

You don't even know what a fascist is.

Yurt
07-21-2008, 08:12 PM
I misspoke about ICBM's. I should have used the acronym MRBM instead.

I am sure that you misspoke about Joe Lieberman, but you did so with such wicked gleefulness, I just felt compelled to rub your snotty little nose in it for a while. I'm sorry.

good lord, so you lied about me lying....LOL....

anyways, now that we cleared up another false lie mfm tried to get me on...

i don't obama has the leadership skills, he can't even go to hawaii or alaska because his staff would not permit him.

retiredman
07-21-2008, 08:13 PM
ICBM = inter-continental ballistic missile. That means it travels through the edge of space to any point in the world. SS-4's were medium range. They were mobile, like scuds.

I was in high school at the time and there were a lot of scared and worried people during that time. While everyone knew there was a confrontation going on, most didn't realize how close we really came. Following that confrontation the hotline was establish to prevent any more such confrontations.


and again... do you think that having SS-4's (2100km range) 90 miles away from the United States is something that JFK should have allowed to remain in place?

retiredman
07-21-2008, 08:15 PM
good lord, so you lied about me lying....LOL....

anyways, now that we cleared up another false lie mfm tried to get me on...

i don't obama has the leadership skills, he can't even go to hawaii or alaska because his staff would not permit him.


Oh...I think it had all the earmarks of a lie to begin with, but you quickly retracted it once you realized you had pulled something out of your ass that you could not substantiate.

Yurt
07-21-2008, 08:18 PM
Oh...I think it had all the earmarks of a lie to begin with, but you quickly retracted it once you realized you had pulled something out of your ass that you could not substantiate.

uh, i could have googled in 5 secs as you did:poke:

anyways, now that we have again cleared up that you know i did not lie...but said i did repeatedly (a lie)

but enough, the truth is now known....

obama does not have the skills to be CIC

retiredman
07-21-2008, 08:20 PM
uh, i could have googled in 5 secs as you did

then why didn't you before you stuck your foot in your mouth, counselor?

obama does not have the skills to be CIC


he has more skills than the current CinC...so I must beg to differ

Gaffer
07-21-2008, 08:21 PM
I am sorry. Let me RETRACT that, counselor.... they were medium range ballistic missiles. Did that distinction make them OK to be in Cuba pointed at our metropolitan areas, from your perspective?

But wait...you weren't even ALIVE then, were you?:lol:

You were wrong about the type of missiles they were. By your definition that makes you a liar.

The type of missiles is irrelevant. I'm doing what you always do and nitpick your statements. Redirecting the conversation. Do you like it?

I'll wait.

retiredman
07-21-2008, 08:23 PM
You were wrong about the type of missiles they were. By your definition that makes you a liar.

The type of missiles is irrelevant. I'm doing what you always do and nitpick your statements. Redirecting the conversation. Do you like it?

I'll wait.

wait for what? did you answer my question about whether you would have preferred that Kennedy back down and allow SS-4's in Cuba?

Yurt
07-21-2008, 08:49 PM
You were wrong about the type of missiles they were. By your definition that makes you a liar.

The type of missiles is irrelevant. I'm doing what you always do and nitpick your statements. Redirecting the conversation. Do you like it?

I'll wait.

http://www.netcasinolinks.com/files/2008/01/bingo.gif

Gaffer
07-21-2008, 09:46 PM
wait for what? did you answer my question about whether you would have preferred that Kennedy back down and allow SS-4's in Cuba?

No I didn't answer your question, I got side tracked. It's not really a relevant question as it happened 45 years ago, we all know how it ended. And I'm pretty sure you know what my answer would be.

The only stupid question is one you already know the answer too.

retiredman
07-21-2008, 10:21 PM
No I didn't answer your question, I got side tracked. It's not really a relevant question as it happened 45 years ago, we all know how it ended. And I'm pretty sure you know what my answer would be.

The only stupid question is one you already know the answer too.

I didn't know what your answer would be. I know what a rational man's answer would be, but that is not a certainty with you, from my perspective.

red states rule
07-22-2008, 03:40 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3239/2693842354_f2d74c022e_m.jpg