Dershowitz: Obama Will Go Down In History As One Of The Worst Foreign Policy Pres...

domer76 said:
You demonstrate your willful ignorance with this post. Democrat or Republican is just a label. Their individual philosophies change over time. Your Republicans of today are not the Party of Lincoln. Democrats today are not the Party of the KKK, Jim Crow or slavery. The latter were CONSERVATIVES.
Click to expand...

The dim wit Democrat party was for slavery as a formal party institution and foundation of the dim wit Democrat party that tore the Republic apart and cost over 650,000 lives.

That is actual history not state run media propaganda on what the Hard Left Statists in the state media can project towards modern Cornservatives who are actually classical pro individual Liberty human rights limited gubment Liberals, (like most of the Founders of this Republic were). The modern Liberal/Progressives see all solutions cuming from imposed by the gubment, that is why we call 'em Statists.

domer76 said:
You're a conservative, aren't you? Carry on that tradition, asswipe. You wear the mantle well.
Click to expand...

Yuppers, a limited gubment pro individual Liberty modern Cornservative in the image of the Founders.

Yer a Marxist aren't ya?
 
OldMercsRule said:
The dim wit Democrat party was for slavery as a formal party institution and foundation of the dim wit Democrat party that tore the Republic apart and cost over 650,000 lives.

That is actual history not state run media propaganda on what the Hard Left Statists in the state media can project towards modern Cornservatives who are actually classical pro individual Liberty human rights limited gubment Liberals, (like most of the Founders of this Republic were). The modern Liberal/Progressives see all solutions cuming from imposed by the gubment, that is why we call 'em Statists.



Yuppers, a limited gubment pro individual Liberty modern Cornservative in the image of the Founders.

Yer a Marxist aren't ya?
Click to expand...

KKK, Jim Crow, pro-slavery were not progressives or liberal. They wereconservatives, more in line with today's Republican Party. You're one of those conservatives.

Marxist? lol
 
domer76 said:
KKK, Jim Crow, pro-slavery were not progressives or liberal.
Click to expand...

Sure they were the natural extension of modern Liberal/Progressive Statists who favor state enforced central gubment, (jim crow and slavery), authority at the expense of personal liberty.

domer76 said:
They wereconservatives, more in line with today's Republican Party. You're one of those conservatives.
Click to expand...

Nope they were Liberal/Progressive/Marxist/Statist/Fascists. Modern Cornservatives (like me) want limited gubment and personal Liberty jus' the opposite of the modern Left.

domer76 said:
Marxist? lol
Click to expand...

Ya post like yer a Marxist.
 
evince said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz#Politics



Israel and the Middle East[edit]
Dershowitz is a leading supporter of Israel. He self-identifies as "Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestine",[33] and said "were I an Israeli, I'd be a person of the left and voting the left".[34] At the same time, he is on record as stating that both the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people supported a genocidal war, and revere a figure, Amin al-Husseini, probably because, in Dershowitz's view, the latter actively participated in the Holocaust.[35]
Dershowitz has engaged in highly publicized debates with a number of other commentators, including Meir Kahane,[36] Noam Chomsky, and Norman Finkelstein. When former U.S. President Jimmy Carter had his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (2006) published—in which he argues that Israel's control of Palestinian land is the primary obstacle to peace—Dershowitz challenged Carter to a debate at Brandeis University. Carter declined, saying, "I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz. There is no need to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."[37] Carter did address Brandeis in January 2007, but only Brandeis students and staff were allowed to attend. Dershowitz was invited to respond on the same stage only after Carter had left.[38]
He also took part in the Doha Debates at Georgetown University in April 2009, where he spoke against the motion "this House believes it's time for the US to get tough on Israel," with Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Speakers for the motion were Avraham Burg, former Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel and former Speaker of the Knesset; and Michael Scheuer, former Chief of the CIA Bin Laden Issue Station. Dershowitz's side lost the debate, with 63 percent of the audience voting for the motion.[39]
Harvard–MIT divestment petition[edit]
Click to expand...
Desh the mistress of Wiki copypasta.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Interesting that we find this topic AFTER Secretary Kerry smacked down PM Netanyahu about the illegal settlements.
"Dershowitz: Obama Will Go Down In History As One Of The Worst Foreign Policy Pres..."
Click to expand...
It's worth distinguishing the objective from the subjective.

Subjectively we might say Bush's foreign policy was better, because Dr. Condolezza Rice is prettier than Secretary Kerry.
Fair enough.
As a subjective standard is it inferior to any other?

BUT !!

By OBJECTIVE standards there are quantifications.

How many innocent U.S. citizens did President Obama rub out?

How many Wars did President Obama lie U.S. into?

c5725774c467b13b9b8771277ae74b7774e6098.JPG
 
sear said:
Interesting that we find this topic AFTER Secretary Kerry smacked down PM Netanyahu about the illegal settlements.

It's worth distinguishing the objective from the subjective.

Subjectively we might say Bush's foreign policy was better, because Dr. Condolezza Rice is prettier than Secretary Kerry.
Fair enough.
As a subjective standard is it inferior to any other?

BUT !!

By OBJECTIVE standards there are quantifications.

How many innocent U.S. citizens did President Obama rub out?

How many Wars did President Obama lie U.S. into?

c5725774c467b13b9b8771277ae74b7774e6098.JPG
Click to expand...

And the US owned Iraq. Now they're still dead and the battles they died for are being refought. Well done, Barry.
 
domer76 said:
KKK, Jim Crow, pro-slavery were not progressives or liberal. They wereconservatives, more in line with today's Republican Party. You're one of those conservatives.

Marxist? lol
Click to expand...

The Democrats are pro-slavery. They keep blacks on the Democrat plantation to get their votes.
 
"And the US owned Iraq. Now they're still dead and the battles they died for are being refought. Well done, Barry." GQ
Click to expand...
a) Nice try, but conspicuous if nonsensical fiction.
In the initial U.S. President Bush invasion of Iraq, the stated purpose was "regime change", to remove Saddam from office.

b) The battle against ISIL wouldn't be necessary if Bush hadn't unleashed the senior ISIL military command on the Middle East.

c) The current U.S. military actions in the region are not to change the Iraqi regime, but to support it.
So it's rather more the opposite of what you suggest.

d) The Obama administration retained U.S. military troops in Iraq up until within minutes of when SOFA / international law required them to leave.

e) The SOFA conditions that obliged the Obama administration to complete the U.S. military's departure from Iraq were set in law and in fact
- DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

- BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS.

It was THEY that timed them to oblige the U.S. military occupation to end AFTER Bush's 2nd term expired.

And you blame Obama?

What choice did he have?
 
d7 #92

Doesn't mean much really.
When an intelligent Republican makes a persuasive case for the Republican position, it can persuade others.

Sadly, that's all to rare. So not so intelligent Republicans, being incapable of making a persuasive case FOR the GOP instead just concoct ludicrous fiction about "the Democrat plantation".

But d7,
don't be fooled.
Trump was charged with hiring a reported 4,000 members of his administration.
Have you noticed how many of them are White men?

Trump said he'd "drain the swamp". Have you seen who he picked for his VP?
 
sear said:
a) Nice try, but conspicuous if nonsensical fiction.
In the initial U.S. President Bush invasion of Iraq, the stated purpose was "regime change", to remove Saddam from office.

b) The battle against ISIL wouldn't be necessary if Bush hadn't unleashed the senior ISIL military command on the Middle East.

c) The current U.S. military actions in the region are not to change the Iraqi regime, but to support it.
So it's rather more the opposite of what you suggest.

d) The Obama administration retained U.S. military troops in Iraq up until within minutes of when SOFA / international law required them to leave.

e) The SOFA conditions that obliged the Obama administration to complete the U.S. military's departure from Iraq were set in law and in fact
- DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

- BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS.

It was THEY that timed them to oblige the U.S. military occupation to end AFTER Bush's 2nd term expired.

And you blame Obama?

What choice did he have?
Click to expand...

ISIS began during Billy Bob Clinton's term.

The US fought and won all the major cities in Iraq under Bush. Now the US is once again in Iraq, refighting those same battles.

Blame who you like. :)
 
Rune said:
Run man-child, run from the truth
Click to expand...
Why are you such a massive effing dildo? Is it the vast quantities of dope you smoke that makes you act like a paranoid petulant child? Do you know that George Michael also smoked huge amounts and nearly died in 2011 from pneumonia?

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
sear said:
a) Nice try, but conspicuous if nonsensical fiction.
In the initial U.S. President Bush invasion of Iraq, the stated purpose was "regime change", to remove Saddam from office.

b) The battle against ISIL wouldn't be necessary if Bush hadn't unleashed the senior ISIL military command on the Middle East.

c) The current U.S. military actions in the region are not to change the Iraqi regime, but to support it.
So it's rather more the opposite of what you suggest.

d) The Obama administration retained U.S. military troops in Iraq up until within minutes of when SOFA / international law required them to leave.

e) The SOFA conditions that obliged the Obama administration to complete the U.S. military's departure from Iraq were set in law and in fact
- DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

- BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS.

It was THEY that timed them to oblige the U.S. military occupation to end AFTER Bush's 2nd term expired.

And you blame Obama?

What choice did he have?
Click to expand...
Of course he had a choice ffs, he could have told the Iraqis to go fuck themselves. Instead he just couldn't get out quick enough and used that excuse to cut and run.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
OldMercsRule said:
The dim wit Democrat party was for slavery as a formal party institution and foundation of the dim wit Democrat party that tore the Republic apart and cost over 650,000 lives.

That is actual history not state run media propaganda on what the Hard Left Statists in the state media can project towards modern Cornservatives who are actually classical pro individual Liberty human rights limited gubment Liberals, (like most of the Founders of this Republic were). The modern Liberal/Progressives see all solutions cuming from imposed by the gubment, that is why we call 'em Statists.



Yuppers, a limited gubment pro individual Liberty modern Cornservative in the image of the Founders.

Yer a Marxist aren't ya?
Click to expand...

You're an historical ignoramus. Drop the labels, you fucking moron, and focus on the political philosophy. Your Jim Crow, Kkk and slave owner were CONSERVATIVES. You're a conservative, too, aren't you? Good company.
 
OldMercsRule said:
"Dershowitz: Obama Will Go Down In History As One Of The Worst Foreign Policy Presidents Ever


Posted By Tim Hains
On Date December 26, 2016


Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz slammed President Obama for "stabbing Israel in the back" on Monday morning's edition of 'Fox & Friends.'

"[History will see President Obama] as one of the worst foreign policy presidents ever," Dershowitz said.

"He called me into the Oval Office before the inauguration -- he said he wanted my support, and he told me he would always have Israel's back," Dershowitz said. "I didn't realize what he meant: That he would have Israel's back so he could stab them in the back."

He continued: "What he did was so nasty, he pulled a bait and switch. He told the American public this is all about the settlements deep in the West Bank. And yet, he allowed he representative to the U.N. to abstain --which is really a vote for-- a resolution that says the Jews can't pray at the Western Wall, Jews can't live in the Jewish Quarter [of Jerusalem] where they have lived for thousands of years. And he's going to say, 'Whoops! I didn't mean that!' Well read the resolution! You're a lawyer, you went to Harvard Law School."

He also said: "This will make peace much more difficult to achieve because the Palestinians will now say 'we can get a state through the UN'.""

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...the_worst_foreign_policy_presidents_ever.html

Obamaprompter is the worst foreign policy POTUS in US history.

A small arrogant nasty back stabbing man with a huge chip on his shoulder, does what he can to put his country in the ditch.

His eight years in office will be seen as a nasty shit stain on American History.
Click to expand...

Kind of hard to beat Jimmah Cahta. But he is close
 
Thing1 said:
All righties are capable of doing now is rewriting the history on Iraq.

I guess the reality of it is too much to deal w/.
Click to expand...

I don't rewrite anything. I still maintain it was the right thing to do. They fucked it up because they have allowed the military to become pussified. We needed to break them. Fuck collateral damage. You need to create as much if it as possible and break their will

I said from the beginning that we should have had a formal declaration of war. We did not because Congress has abrogated its responsibilities.

To deny Obamas failings is a rewrite of history on your part and nothing more than simplistic thinking. But I have come to expect no less from you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top