Dither? Yes, I think so.
ob- + ambulate. From Latin obambulare.
obambulate (third-person singular simple present obambulates, present participle obambulating, simple past and past participle obambulated)
1. (intransitive) To wander aimlessly
Lol! You have to wonder if that's where his name originates.
You would rather have Mutt, Palin and Bachmann engaged in perpetual war? Trust me, the neocon theme is world domination in the face of nuclear power that can destroy us. Even Pat Buchanan said that the neocons were the "war party'. And he said that their provocation of Russia, something that Reagan didn't even do, was FOLLY.
These are madmen and madwomen. If you love your children and grandchildren, you should never vote Republican.
I am an independent, and I have serious issues with Democrats, but if you listen to a Republican debate it is mostly about war.
If dithering means less war, I am for it. If Israel had guts, she would make peace with the Palestinians and diffuse tensions in a part of the world we may leave one day.
According to thesaurus.com the opposite of "reluctant" is anxious, eager, enthusiastic.
Do you think the decision to send our loved ones out to kill and to be killed, forever scarring them and others, should not be made reluctantly? Or, would you prefer our president be anxious, eager, and enthusiastic about it?
I should clarify. Obama is reluctant to own the fact that he has and must commit soldiers to war.
He changes the word war to kinetic action in an attempt to obfuscate his activities as commander in chief. He doesn't want to upset the left whom he counts on for votes.
It's silly, but there you go. Magical thinking. Change the word change reality.
Obambulation instead of a direct approach.
Why don't you go fight AnnCee? You talk but you don't fight. You sound just like the Republican Chickenhawks, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, who never spent a day in war.
You want death? Just do it personally and don't involve the rest of us who don't want war.
The only war worth fighting is one of the defense of ourselves and of defenseless people. The wars for oil war war crimes.
Yes,PP, I do believe that. Why do you think liberals are always inventing words and stifling free speech under the guise of political correctness?
Gosh, bgmall, that's a little personal and combative don't you think?
Not at all, AnnCee. So many people want war without understanding the motives or implications. If you want death leave the rest of us out.
like Obamulate? What a joke. The hypocrisy is in this very post. Classic.
You just stated that you are for only wars dealing with oil, thus America going into other people's lands, and killing them to take the resources we want for ourselves. Yeah. Nice human being. You have laid your cards out at least. You are one of "those" people who still think that slaughtering indigenous people for gold is A-OKAY.
Oh speaking of oil, your Obama just got back from Brazil where he coughed up $2 million of America's money to Petrobas for oil well drilling in the ocean. He wants Brazil to be energy independent. He had wanted to give a thousand times more in August 2009. I guess LadyLove created enough chatter on this board to stop him.
Meanwhile back in the USA. . . not so much.
It's nice when the aid goes to something positive, rather than killing and maiming.
Yeah pay back to Soros for supporting Obama's campaign and a down payment for continued support in 2012!
What people don't understand is how this cycling of money works....
What is "sent" to Petrobas is quickly transferred to companies like Halliburton.... I doubt the money ever technically leaves the United States....until it hits private bank accounts...
Who here has read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"?
Yeah yeah...no points, no arguments, just a 10 yr old girl pointing a finger. Great. What a contribution. Let me guess..you are going to cut and paste and article from a right wing wackjob opinion blog as a resource? What a joke.
Brazil IS energy independent, right now. Do you read absolutely ANYTHING before posting? Brazil only runs about half of its energy off of oil. It uses natural gas to run almost everything, including cars. Now Brazil discovered an oil lane that is untapped and the size of Saudi Arabia in the ocean. Obama got us in the door for future cheap oil from Brazil. We cannot be energy independent, because we DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH OIL! If we allowed ALL drilling, everywhere in the nation, we would max out at 1 year's worth of oil. Period.
Now Ann, you ignore the argument that you made and I responded to, and tried to deflect. You have been shown to not know a bit about this topic in the slightest, so I ask you...do you have any concern for actual facts? Do you research ANYTHING before writing on here? Do you want to address the claim that you are an imperialist who thinks it is okay to slaughter people for their resources as I stated?
I am very glad he is a "reluctant" war president. We had eight years of Little Bush "praying to God" for answers as to what to do in the Middle East. In his book, W states that he was certain God pointed him in the right direction.
Whether he's reluctant or not doesn't change what he's done which is to prosecute another war. His problem is he's too delibrative and not decisive enough and when he finally does decide he's wrong! If he was going to go into Libya he should have went right away while the rebels had the upper hand and he should have taken Kadaffy out right from the start. Having waited as long as he did changed the metric but of course after opening his mouth saying Kadaffy had to go what choice did he have? Obama has proven to be a rank amatuer an indecisive and confused leader that appears weak. Maybe he should just let Hillary take over the foreign stuff since she's been doing most of the talking and seems stronger and more decisive.
You would rather have a Republican neocon who is quick to war and mad, psychologically? Even Pat Buchanan called the neocons the "war party". Real conservatives are slow to war and fiscally conservative. Neocons are neither. They aren't real conservatives.
posted by the propagandist - LALO, you just stated that he thinks and plans too much, and doesn't make enough rash decisions...that he went in only offering air support for a limited time, with a clear objective and unilateral support, but you claim it was wrong....wrong because you believe he should have gone in alone, with ground forces, creating an ACTUAL war, with the goal of removing a country's leader AGAIN. Yeah...I wouldn't let you walk my dog. That is how much your decision process makes sense. Oh wait...you aren't actually posting an opinion. You are propagandist...in which case, hey good job spouting nothing and distorting logic. You have achieved being a lunatic.
Blah.... blah.... blah... you're incapable of creating your own thoughts... you're a hufpo parrot if anyone is getting paid for propaganda it would have to be you because nothing you say makes sense and you lack any argument to support your rebuttals. You're just an insulting loudmouth with no substance in your contributions... your insults aren't even entertaining... you are a bore!
His name certainly suits him. Is it strange or ironic?
a prefix meaning “toward,” “to,” “on,” “over,” “against,” orig. occurring in loanwords from Latin, but now used also, with the sense of “reversely,” “inversely,” to form Neo-Latin and English scientific terms: object; obligate; oblanceolate.
Read more: Ob: meaning and definitions — Infoplease.com http://dictionary.infoplease.com/ob#ixzz1HjDPTodw
The word is so good because it describes so accurately Obama's behavior. He does a thing but he attempts to undo it with his words.
We're going to war but we're coming home. If that's not obambulation I don't know what is.
Yes, he should have cut off the pipeline war in Afghanistan immediately. But McCain would be fighting another 20 years. Neocons want continual war. They are not true conservatives.
It has been a week and our air support is over. Where is your war?
Pointing out negativity isn't productive on an individual basis, and is actually counterproductive in the overall.
Pointing out any positivity would be productive on an individual basis and productive in the overall.
If you are trying to wake people up to a specific realization, then your actions need to be different than that which you rail against.
It's known politicians are untrustworthy and lack integrity. This is common knowledge among the citizenship. You point out which side is flawed, while the other side points out what is wrong with the other side.
Pointing fingers gets no one anywhere in the overall perspective of society. Thus, counterproductive.
Finding a solution forward is the problem?
Oh, so now you want to lay the invention of euphemisms for war onto liberals?
And the proper term is "kinetic military activity."
Speaking of euphemisms....
"I'm not a lawyer. My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture. … I don't know if it is correct to say what you just said, that torture has taken place, or that there's been a conviction for torture. And therefore I'm not going to address the torture word." -- Ann Cee's honorable man, Donald Rumsfeld.
I agree, war IS hell, which is probably why those who engage in it invent innocuous sounding terms for horrific acts. It's not a liberal invention, Ann, and you know it. Why do you trivialize our very real problems by playing these childish games?
Oh dang! I wish I'd come across this much much sooner.
The number one consideration for this president is the political impact on his career.
He always needs time to figure out how best to do something without seeming to do it.
The American left is anti-war even when war is declared on the United States as has been done by Islamic terrorists. It's always difficult for the president to prosecute wars. I doubt even bad bad Bush the evil enjoyed having to respond to violence with violence. But for Obama it is even more difficult because there is no way on earth he can convince the left he is doing the right thing.
That's why he must pretend it is not war and call it different names. For a different constituency he must pretend the terrorists who declared jihad against us are not Muslims.
For some constituents he must bad mouth Wall Street. For some constituents he must deliver billions in bail out funds to stick in their piggy banks.
It's quite a balancing act he's trying to pull off. Ain't working.
The war on terror was contrived. They took some weak people, facilitated 911 and made them into a big enemy. The guy who tried terrorism on his own couldn't even get his car to blow up at Times Square. No, without US help, 911 would have been impossible for these guys to pull off.
Here is George Bush's OJ moment of conscience about 911. View it and weep for our nation AnnCee. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeoeGb47olU
So, it's Soros vs Koch, eh?
If so, Soros is going to need a LOT of help to catch up!!
by Ralph Schwartz 3 years ago
Obama could try to appoint Merrick Garland to the SC without Senate confirmation. Thoughts?As President Barack Obama’s efforts to pressure Senate Republicans to confirm Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court fail, liberal White House allies are floating a trial balloon of installing...
by Yves 3 years ago
Would a Trump Presidency Be an Embarrassment for the United States and the Republican Party?Trump has been a Democrat most of his life. He brags that he can buy politicians, having given millions to Hillary's campaign and well as her Foundation. He scammed thousands of people out of millions of...
by Harvey Stelman 10 years ago
With everything in America on a downward spiral, why on earth is President Obama using a shovel to help us. Please read <snipped - do not start threads for the sole purpose of promotion or posting links>I'm ready to answer all Obama supporters. I live near Chicago and I'm familiar with his...
by crankalicious 7 years ago
Why can't the Republicans find a decent candidate to challenge Obama?I'm likely to vote for Obama anyway, but none of the potential Republican candidates even seems viable. It's interesting given Republican hatred of Obama that a decent candidate isn't out there. Newt Gingrich? Seriously? I think...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that...
by Holle Abee 9 years ago
I think it was great that the POTUS payed a surprise visit to troops in Afghanistan. I'm sure these men and women often feel that they perform a thankless job, and a special thanks from the prez had to be a morale-booster.
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|