Disagree all you like, DU, but I sincerely hope no further Bush/Obama Photoshop posts are made.

[NYC_SKP]

This is disgusting, worse than any other thing I can think of right now.

That is all.

:patriot:

[firedupdem]

1. It truly is and I alerted 3 times on the last one. I don't want to see

that shit on this site. There are all sorts of garbage sites with plenty photo shopped pics. That mess shouldn't be here. Enough!

[NYC_SKP]

14. It's unbecoming a community established for civil discussion, embarrasing really.

What a mess. :cry:

[PBS Poll-435]

2. I Rec'd,

But it went away. Now who would go and do a thing like that?

[NYC_SKP]

12. .

Nasty times here lately, friend, nasty times.

:hug:

[LakeSamish706]

3. Link please! n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

4. I am sure you can find it with ease

Edited: No need to advertise that garbage

[NYC_SKP]

9. I can't. It's a horrible thing and worthy of serious consequences for being posted here.

Heartbreaking.

[vaberella]

5. I'm not surprised of that thread...I'm sure a few on this site support the action. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

15. What makes you think that?

Could it be the 47 threads and hundreds of reply posts making that accusation? :)

Like I've said, I have a LOT of apologizing to the Freepers to do. I thought the Democratic party had the monopoly on rational thought ....... but newwwww. Was I WRONG! lol

[Fire1]

46. True that. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

6. I agree. They serve no purpose. nt

[Bjorn Against]

7. I can think of one thing that is a lot worse, escalating the war Bush began.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. I'm thinking of the maimed burnt children, the crying mothers and the famlies that

will never be whole again.

Obama used imagery quite effectively in his campaign, like the famous painting he made into a poster.

So I'm confident that the anti-war movement in this country will make use of imagery to attempt to stop this madness. Of that we can be sure.

[Cha]

20. The grownups are in charge now it's

going to get wrapped.

[Bjorn Against]

22. You don't wrap up a war by sending tens of thousands of more troops in

Telling us that he is going to START bringing troops home in 18 months does not make me feel any better especially when he does not even give us any clue as to how many years it will be before they are all out. Sending thousands of more troops in and not even starting to reduce the number for eighteen months is not an exit strategy.

[Cha]

23. I'm wishing them the best.

[arcadian]

44. You gonna be meeting them at Dover with those wishes?

[NYC Liberal]

28. Obama is ending both wars that Bush began.

Bush never established a clear timetable and refused to implement an exit strategy, both of which Obama has now done.

[NYC_SKP]

30. That's right, NYC Liberal.

No thinking person can deny that.

[NYC Liberal]

35. Nope, they can't! Obama is ending the wars

but that kills the endless war meme. Maybe it's cognitive dissonance :shrug:

[Bjorn Against]

31. Sending more troops in is not an exit strategy

And saying you are going to START to pull troops out in 18 months is not a timeline for when this war will end. If he doesn't even start the withdrawal until 2011 who knows how long we will be there.

[NYC Liberal]

34. You can only say it's not an exit strategy

if you didn't pay attention to what Obama said or to the actual plan. Fact is, both wars are ending and while a lot of people may not like that (either because they like war or their meme of endless war is being shot to hell), that's what is happening, that's reality.

[Bjorn Against]

40. Sending 30,000 more troops in means the war is ending?

Seriously that makes no sense at all, you don't end a war by escalating it.

[spoony]

47. It's remarkable isn't it?

It's like a mechanic saying he's fixing your car as he takes a sledgehammer to the engine. Maybe he'll get it done eventually but he sure as hell isn't going about it in any logical way!

[donco6]

8. If that's the worst thing you can think of -

I've got a bucket load of dead Afghan civilians to show you.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/6/afghan

http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/dozens-of-civilians-killed-in-afghanistan-air-raid-report/

[NYC_SKP]

11. Thanks, but no thanks.

It's really a different point.

This is either a community for civil discussion, or it's a free for all monkey shit throwing hate fest.

Lately, it seems to be more of the latter.

[jefferson_dem]

18. Do you HEART the Taliban?

Do you recommend American women be shrouded in burkas also?



And let's not get started on the sickening violence inflicted by the Taliban.

Point is, all sides can play the simple-minded, emotional reductionism game. It's misleading and pointless.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[jefferson_dem]

37. Are you really that easy...?

:)

[frylock]

50. yep..

are you really so fucking stupid?!

now hurry up and alert!

[jefferson_dem]

52. I didn't alert on your other insult.

You really are a piece of work though.

Peace and Love this Holiday Season... :hi:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

39. The progressive meme that we are in Afghanistan to free the country from the oppressive Taliban

isn't even a meme Obama is using anymore. I will at least give him that, he never mentioned it in his speech. I commend Obama for telling the American people that we are there for our own interest and not some do gooder mission of saving the Afghans from their oppressive rulers. Glenn Greenwald puts it better than I can. I suggest you read his blog about it.

The commendably missing element from Obama's speech
By Glenn Greenwald


Comparing video clips of George Bush's 2002 West Point speech on Afghanistan with the one Barack Obama delivered last night, Rachel Maddow argues that Obama has now embraced the fundamentals of the dreaded "Bush Doctrine": namely, we will fight wars even in countries that are not posing any threat to us in order to prevent some future threat that may (or may not) emerge. Rachel makes a persuasive albeit not conclusive case: like most Obama decisions, last night he incorporated enough of every side and paid homage to conflicting principles such that it's impossible to identify what he really believes ("civilian trials are a fundamental American value and now we'll deny them to many detainees" is quite similar to: "Afghanistan is in our absolute vital interest and we'll start leaving in 18 months"). He's convinced his admirers that this is a form of noble "pragmatism" but, far more often, it appears to be a mishmash of political calculations bereft of principle and plagued by numerous internal contradictions that make it impossible to understand, let alone defend. Everyone gets to read into it whatever they want to see.

While Obama's speech last night largely comported to what his aides spent days anonymously previewing, there was one (pleasantly) unexpected aspect: he commendably dispensed with the propagandistic pretext that we are fighting in Afghanistan in order to deliver freedom and democracy to that country and to improve the plight of Afghan women. Many Democrats (the self-proclaimed "liberal hawks") love to support American wars on the self-righteous ground that we're going to drop enough Freedom Bombs to liberate millions and invade other countries in order to re-make other peoples' cultures for their own good. In order to maximize support for his escalation, Obama -- like Bush so often did -- could easily have relied on that appeal to our national narcissism and exploited justifiable disgust for the Taliban in order to manipulate "liberal hawks" into supporting this war on human rights grounds. During the build-up to the speech, it was predicted by several influential Obama advisers that he would do exactly that. Indeed, when announcing his prior Afghanistan escalation in March, Obama played up the humanitarian rationale for this war.

But there was almost none of that in last night's speech. As Ben Smith correctly notes, Obama did not even mention -- let alone hype -- the issue of women's rights in Afghanistan. There were no grandiose claims that the justness of the war derives from our desire to defeat evil, tyrannical extremists and replace them with more humane and democratic leaders. To the contrary, he was commendably blunt that our true goal is not to improve the lives of Afghan citizens but rather: "Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda." There were no promises to guarantee freedom and human rights to the Afghan people. To the contrary, he explicitly rejected a mission of broad nation-building "because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests"; he said he "refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests"; and even vowed to incorporate the convertible factions of the Taliban into the government.

Not only did he refrain from those manipulative appeals, he made explicitly clear that we are in Afghanistan to serve our own interests (as he perceives them), not to build a better nation for Afghans. Nation-building, he said, goes "beyond ... what we need to achieve to secure our interests" and "go beyond our responsibility." We're there to serve our interests and do nothing else. That should throw cold water on all on the preening fantasies of all but the blindest and most naive "liberal war supporters" that we're there to help the Afghan people.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

So now can we dispense with that dishonest meme since Obama already has?

[jefferson_dem]

53. Thanks for the link.

I rarely agree with Greenwald nowadays but that is a thoughtful essay.

To clarify: I was not making the "Taliban are evil-doers" humanitarian argument on behalf of war. I was merely pointing how emotional "heart tugs" can easily be employed by all sides of the Af-War debate.

So I will agree. We should dispense with the humanitarian argument and also the dogmatic "pacifist" argument that it's all about the horror of dead Afghan civilians.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

56. We agree totally n/t

[Hansel]

60. So who do you think they are fighting against?

Obama is trying to give Afghanistan back to its people. He made that very clear. If he's trying to give it back and has to fight someone to do so, who do you think he is bringing in 30,000 more troops to fight against so they have some space to train the Afghanis? Elves?

He doesn't need to bring up the Taliban, it is implicit in his statements about training Afghan security forces to protect their country. Maybe you should spend a little time listening to Michael Ware who spends most of his time there and moves among both the tribes of Afghanistan and the Taliban. He is quite clear that the Taliban is the problem and is getting more powerful by the day. And that they are funded by anti-American elements in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

They are oppressive in that they are killing everyone who doesn't go along with them. This isn't about women's rights and burqas and changing cultures. This is about killing and dictatorial religious extremism and oppression, and the threat of these morons gaining more power and getting into power in Pakistan where they have nuclear bombs.

If this clown missed this point in Obama's speech he wasn't listening hard enough. This isn't about burqas. Obama is not their to democratize the country. You are missing a huge point if you think that they are sending in 30,000 troops to hunt down 100 Al Qaeda operatives. A total of 100,000 American troops and untold NATO troops is not about 100 people. No matter how scary they are. He is there to disrupt a symbiotic relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, because yes Virginia, the Taliban is the threat.

Ben Smith is not exactly the most brilliant political analyst on the face of the earth. He's from Politico, which is basically a right wing rag, and not someone I would be proud to quote.

[donco6]

41. Tell that to the dead civilians.

Oh, wait, you can't - cuz they're DEAD!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. And if somebody's going to be an inbred freeper troll like that other guy...

can't they at least put a little bit of effort into their photoshops? I mean damn.

[Clio the Leo]

13. I'm going to have to look at my Obamajesus picture a LONG time....

.... to make up for THAT mental picture. :)

[NYC_SKP]

17. I want to thank the moderators for removing the thread entirely. n/t

[Cha]

19. Good! And thanks for this OP to point

it out. As I said in another post ..there was a similiar one in GD that got deleted earlier today.

[jefferson_dem]

21. This place has gone way too nutty for my taste the past couple days.

I'm happy to see the mods stepping in.

[frylock]

26. no fucking shit?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x34789#34865

[jefferson_dem]

36. You prove my point.

n/t

[frylock]

49. please do explain

[frylock]

24. worse than the thought of 30,000 more troops deployed and billions wasted in afghanistan?

just wow.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. 'Waste' is a matter of opinion

[donco6]

42. Well, no -

Waste is the product of inputs exceeding outputs. How are the Afghani outputs exceeding what we've contributed?

[avaistheone1]

27. Wrong. Behaving like Bush is the worst thing. That is a reality.

A photoshop picture is not.

Much of what Obama is doing is like Bush. PERIOD. Not everything.
And when he behaves in a Bush-like manner he deserves to be called on it.

Believe me it is painful for me to call him Bush-like when President Obama messes up, but what even worse is to have to live with these terrible policies and know what that means to our futures. That sickens me. So I am not going to shut up.

It is what it is.

[NYC_SKP]

29. Worse than any other thing to post, is what I'd hoped was implied.

Of course there are far worse things.

I was referring to things members would come up with to post.

And I think the stitches were most disturbing, denoting surgery.

My mom has scars, old school scars, all over her body, and these looked like that, Frankenstein scars.

So yes, in the context of the shit that idiots post on threads, this is among the worst things.

:patriot:

[Cha]

32. Just because you say it's so does not make it a fact.

And, tough shite for you..because your photoshopping isn't going to fly here no matter how much you whine about it.

[donco6]

43. Good.

The comparison is valid and there's nothing wrong with pointing it out.

[impik]

33. Disgusting. Bunch of idiots.

[arcadian]

45. Obama has more in common with Bush than he'll ever have with any of us.

And that includes everybody on this board who fawns all over him.

[jefferson_dem]

55. Well...

They both are members of the exclusive "44" club...and I think they both like to play golf.

[Hansel]

61. Oh for goodness sake, can the hyperbole. nt

[arcadian]

65. Oh for goodness sakes, can the folksy responses.

:eyes:

[Fire1]

48. K&R. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

51. "worse than any other thing I can think of right now"

Really?

Wanna list of about 1000 things I can thing of right now than someone slapping together a couple images of some presidents who pushed American Imperialism around the globe with the might of hundreds of thousands of troops, that will result in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians over the lifetime of these senseless wars?

The audacity of some. If someone wants to make a photoshop, so be it. As long as it's not grotesque, highly insensitive, or implying of harm - then who gives a rats ass.

[NYC_SKP]

58. Yes, as things to post on THIS discussion board, yes.

Two faces stitched together like a football, like frankenstein, denoting bodily mutilation of Obama.

Yeah, there are worse things to post.

Sure.

Yeah.

[freddie mertz]

54. Like Jon Stewart did to devastating effect last night?

He nailed it right on the head.

Using clips, of course.

So did Will Pitt.

Using WORDs, of course.

Just because you do not want to hear or know about the parallels, does not make them any more untrue or invalid.

We have the tape.

[Hansel]

62. Devastating? It was a stretch at best. And lame. nt

[freddie mertz]

70. I thought it was dead on target.

And however much you may want to deny it, a lot of other people see it that way too.

Enough to be a potential problem for this president.

[mopinko]

57. as far as i can tell, it is against the rules.

they should be alerted on, and i think the mods will delete them. not to speak for them, just my humble interpretation of the rules. would like to think that those posting same would be considered for a pizza dinner.

[NYC_SKP]

59. It was, thankfully, locked AND deleted. n/t

[last_texas_dem]

63. Seriously?

>>>>This is disgusting, worse than any other thing I can think of right now.>>>>

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

64. When I saw that photoshop I was reminded how Bush got into the White House

there are way too many stupid people in our Country

[SwampG8r]

66. dang

i dont even log in to comment much these days but when i do there is always some wierd stuff going down
we have met the enemy and he is us

[NYC_SKP]

67. Hey!

How's it hangin' SwampG8r?

This place is a trainwreck lately, but still some great posters (or I'd go away).

The president is now as evil as Boosh, to listen to some of the commentary.

How's the wife, the boat, the local critters?

:pals:

[SwampG8r]

68. all is normal

wife ok boat ok critters increasing
i now have a big possum that likes my yard
bold as a lion too he fears no one
you been ok?

[NYC_SKP]

69. pretty good, thanks.

both parents beginning to need a lot of care, especially dad.

I'm becoming an expert on Warfarin, dementia, meds, but they're worth it.

Ginny stays with them almost all the time now, I think she's the biggest improvement in their quality of life in a long time.

Stay well, good friend.