PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
odd.....the Northern army was made up of conservatives just like me.....I wonder who the bad guys were, then.....
Dershowitz: Obama Will Go Down In History As One Of The Worst Foreign Policy Pres...
- Thread starter OldMercsRule
- Start date
odd.....the Northern army was made up of conservatives just like me.....I wonder who the bad guys were, then.....
OldMercsRule
Verified User
Not "subjective" at all: Einstein.
The move undercuts our primary ally in the ME, just as allowing Iran to build nukes and providing funds to pursue terrorism undercuts Israel and our Persian gulf allies.
Those observations are OBJECTIVE observations about historical events by an arrogant, petty, failed POTUS who spent tax dollars to try to unseat Netanyahu, (interfering in Israeli politics), yet the state run media had zero problems with these total fails.
If you think my spot on observations are "subjective" why not give your "objective" analysis as to why Israel is happy with the actions of yer petulant failed shit stain of a POTUS?
The Democrat party of the last 80 years is nothing more than one of socialism, enabling freeloaders, and one willing to give to leeches what those leeches won't earn for themselves. Unless someone is 90 or older, they don't remember a Democrat party doing being anything put the pieces of shit they are today.
christiefan915
Catalyst
OldMercsRule
Verified User
So ya think yer ace POTUS has been good fer the political party of slavery, kkk, jim crow, treason, felony, sovereign bankruptcy and TARD? (The dim wit Democrat party).
"What is 'principled' in a small bitter failed TARD infected President undercutting America's primary ME ally?" OR #121
"Undercutting"?
That's your subjective assessment." s
"You want another subjective assessment?
Here's one for you.
Not "subjective" at all: Einstein." OR
"The move undercuts our primary ally in the ME" OR
I deduce you refer to Israel.
Yet Netanyahu has publicly, deliberately demonstrated contempt and disdain for President Obama. That's foolish for the Israeli leader, considering what a vital lifeline the U.S. is to Israel.
Where do you think Israel gets its military aircraft?
"just as allowing Iran to build nukes and providing funds to pursue terrorism undercuts Israel and our Persian gulf allies." OR
Absolutely!
"allowing Iran to build nukes and providing funds to pursue terrorism undercuts Israel and our Persian gulf allies" would have been a terrible thing!
Thank goodness President Obama has done precisely the opposite, in coalition with:
- Britain
- France
- Germany
- China
- Russia
Portray Obama as the naïve buffoon all you wish.
For that to be true in this regard, then the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and their foreign service entourages would have to be equally naïve, equally deficient.
So you would have us believe it's not YOU that is out of step, it's the rest of the world?
While you're feeding your unicorn, be sure and tell the Easter Bunny we said hello.
"Those observations are OBJECTIVE observations about historical events by an arrogant, petty, failed POTUS who spent tax dollars to try to unseat Netanyahu, (interfering in Israeli politics), yet the state run media had zero problems with these total fails.
If you think my spot on observations are "subjective" why not give your "objective" analysis as to why Israel is happy with the actions of yer petulant failed ... POTUS?" OR #142
Perhaps if I put this in words so simple even you can understand them, it may cause a spark of enlightenment.
FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS DRIVE DRUNK
Let's grant Netanyahu benefit of doubt, and assume he wants what is best for Israel.
But how do we define "what is best for Israel"?
a) to be at peace with its neighbors? Or
b) to be at perpetual war & antagonism with its neighbors?
President Carter engineered a peace, a cessation of hostilities between Israel & Egypt.
Both leaders Sadat, & Begin paid with their lives.
And yet the cessation of hostilities endures; and Israelis often vacation in Egypt as a result.
Netanyahu going full bore with expansionist settlements might seem to the spectacularly ignorant to advance Israeli interests.
How do you think the Palestinians feel about it?
I don't deny it may be counter-intuitive to the dismally ignorant.
But the fact is, bringing peace to Israel is the more Israel-friendly policy.
And it may just be that Obama has done better at that than Netanyahu.
"Undercutting"?
That's your subjective assessment." s
"You want another subjective assessment?
Here's one for you.
Not "subjective" at all: Einstein." OR
"The move undercuts our primary ally in the ME" OR
I deduce you refer to Israel.
Yet Netanyahu has publicly, deliberately demonstrated contempt and disdain for President Obama. That's foolish for the Israeli leader, considering what a vital lifeline the U.S. is to Israel.
Where do you think Israel gets its military aircraft?
"just as allowing Iran to build nukes and providing funds to pursue terrorism undercuts Israel and our Persian gulf allies." OR
Absolutely!
"allowing Iran to build nukes and providing funds to pursue terrorism undercuts Israel and our Persian gulf allies" would have been a terrible thing!
Thank goodness President Obama has done precisely the opposite, in coalition with:
- Britain
- France
- Germany
- China
- Russia
Portray Obama as the naïve buffoon all you wish.
For that to be true in this regard, then the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and their foreign service entourages would have to be equally naïve, equally deficient.
So you would have us believe it's not YOU that is out of step, it's the rest of the world?
While you're feeding your unicorn, be sure and tell the Easter Bunny we said hello.
"Those observations are OBJECTIVE observations about historical events by an arrogant, petty, failed POTUS who spent tax dollars to try to unseat Netanyahu, (interfering in Israeli politics), yet the state run media had zero problems with these total fails.
If you think my spot on observations are "subjective" why not give your "objective" analysis as to why Israel is happy with the actions of yer petulant failed ... POTUS?" OR #142
Perhaps if I put this in words so simple even you can understand them, it may cause a spark of enlightenment.
FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS DRIVE DRUNK
Let's grant Netanyahu benefit of doubt, and assume he wants what is best for Israel.
But how do we define "what is best for Israel"?
a) to be at peace with its neighbors? Or
b) to be at perpetual war & antagonism with its neighbors?
President Carter engineered a peace, a cessation of hostilities between Israel & Egypt.
Both leaders Sadat, & Begin paid with their lives.
And yet the cessation of hostilities endures; and Israelis often vacation in Egypt as a result.
Netanyahu going full bore with expansionist settlements might seem to the spectacularly ignorant to advance Israeli interests.
How do you think the Palestinians feel about it?
I don't deny it may be counter-intuitive to the dismally ignorant.
But the fact is, bringing peace to Israel is the more Israel-friendly policy.
And it may just be that Obama has done better at that than Netanyahu.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Ineffectual is a better word for Obama than coward.
"Ineffectual is a better word for Obama than coward." DO #148
And judicious may be a more accurate description of President Obama than "ineffectual".
Obama-bashers have painted themselves into a corner.
They simultaneously condemn Obama for his accomplishments like reportedly cutting the unemployment rate in half, & bringing healthcare to millions (ACA).
- AND -
They also condemn Obama for not accomplishing.
Either one of those two criticisms might hypothetically be believed. But both together?
How could we not recognize that as absurd? Self-contradictory?
And judicious may be a more accurate description of President Obama than "ineffectual".
Obama-bashers have painted themselves into a corner.
They simultaneously condemn Obama for his accomplishments like reportedly cutting the unemployment rate in half, & bringing healthcare to millions (ACA).
- AND -
They also condemn Obama for not accomplishing.
Either one of those two criticisms might hypothetically be believed. But both together?
How could we not recognize that as absurd? Self-contradictory?
OldMercsRule
Verified User
"What is 'principled' in a small bitter failed TARD infected President undercutting America's primary ME ally?" OR #121
"Undercutting"?
That's your subjective assessment." s
"You want another subjective assessment?
Here's one for you.
Not "subjective" at all: Einstein." OR
"The move undercuts our primary ally in the ME" OR
I deduce you refer to Israel.
Yet Netanyahu has publicly, deliberately demonstrated contempt and disdain for President Obama. That's foolish for the Israeli leader, considering what a vital lifeline the U.S. is to Israel.
Where do you think Israel gets its military aircraft?
"just as allowing Iran to build nukes and providing funds to pursue terrorism undercuts Israel and our Persian gulf allies." OR
Absolutely!
"allowing Iran to build nukes and providing funds to pursue terrorism undercuts Israel and our Persian gulf allies" would have been a terrible thing!
Thank goodness President Obama has done precisely the opposite, in coalition with:
- Britain
- France
- Germany
- China
- Russia
Portray Obama as the naïve buffoon all you wish.
For that to be true in this regard, then the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and their foreign service entourages would have to be equally naïve, equally deficient.
So you would have us believe it's not YOU that is out of step, it's the rest of the world?
While you're feeding your unicorn, be sure and tell the Easter Bunny we said hello.
"Those observations are OBJECTIVE observations about historical events by an arrogant, petty, failed POTUS who spent tax dollars to try to unseat Netanyahu, (interfering in Israeli politics), yet the state run media had zero problems with these total fails.
If you think my spot on observations are "subjective" why not give your "objective" analysis as to why Israel is happy with the actions of yer petulant failed ... POTUS?" OR #142
Perhaps if I put this in words so simple even you can understand them, it may cause a spark of enlightenment.
FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS DRIVE DRUNK
Let's grant Netanyahu benefit of doubt, and assume he wants what is best for Israel.
But how do we define "what is best for Israel"?
a) to be at peace with its neighbors? Or
b) to be at perpetual war & antagonism with its neighbors?
President Carter engineered a peace, a cessation of hostilities between Israel & Egypt.
Both leaders Sadat, & Begin paid with their lives.
And yet the cessation of hostilities endures; and Israelis often vacation in Egypt as a result.
Netanyahu going full bore with expansionist settlements might seem to the spectacularly ignorant to advance Israeli interests.
How do you think the Palestinians feel about it?
I don't deny it may be counter-intuitive to the dismally ignorant.
But the fact is, bringing peace to Israel is the more Israel-friendly policy.
And it may just be that Obama has done better at that than Netanyahu.
Obviously you think Obamaprompter, (Britian/France/Germany/China/Russia), knows what is best fer both Israel and American interests.
That's why it is such a good deal fer the whole world that Iran is now authorized to pursue nuclear weapons, and was provided with lots of financial resources by Obamaprompter to do just that and pursue terrorism as well.
BTW 'Palestinians' are Jordanian Arabs, and the KGB and Arafat made up the term fer useful idiots like you.
Israel's leadership felt "undercut" by Obamaprompter's petulant vote at the UN, butt: you feeeeeeel the all knowing all seeing most competent Obamaprompter always knows what is best fer Israel regardless of how they assess their own national interests.
Obviously you see world events very differently then I do, and further discussion isn't gonna change either of our views.
Carry on... pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft... excuse me, (I had some extra green house gas onboard)... burp...
"Obviously you think Obamaprompter, (Britian/France/Germany/China/Russia), knows what is best fer both Israel and American interests." OR #150
"Obviously"?!
- piffle -
The fact is my perspective is vastly better informed, wiser, more well studied than that.
When unallied parties DISagree, crime victim and crime suspect for obvious example, it can be a matter for the courts.
BUT !!
When unallied parties DO agree, that constitutes for practical purposes an ideological consensus.
It's no trivial issue, such as what shade of chartreuse will be worn to the banquet.
Instead the issue is Iran obtaining nuclear weapons that could immediately spark a Middle East nuclear arms race. That's an extremely bad idea among cultures where suicidal / homicidal / genocidal divine imprimatur is so prolific.
It is one of the most important issues confronting the world today.
And Secretary Kerry under President Obama's leadership brought both allies and non-allies together in unanimity to delay or prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
I've got a tip for you OR #150:
If you're ever tempted to post the two words "you think", it makes sense to actually consider the position you accuse.
And when you're responding to me, don't use it at all.
You may think I don't know much.
BUT !!
I'm the world's leading authority on my own opinion. There is no body better equipped to state MY positions than me. To my knowledge, you haven't gotten it right once.
"Obviously"?!
- piffle -
The fact is my perspective is vastly better informed, wiser, more well studied than that.
When unallied parties DISagree, crime victim and crime suspect for obvious example, it can be a matter for the courts.
BUT !!
When unallied parties DO agree, that constitutes for practical purposes an ideological consensus.
It's no trivial issue, such as what shade of chartreuse will be worn to the banquet.
Instead the issue is Iran obtaining nuclear weapons that could immediately spark a Middle East nuclear arms race. That's an extremely bad idea among cultures where suicidal / homicidal / genocidal divine imprimatur is so prolific.
It is one of the most important issues confronting the world today.
And Secretary Kerry under President Obama's leadership brought both allies and non-allies together in unanimity to delay or prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
I've got a tip for you OR #150:
If you're ever tempted to post the two words "you think", it makes sense to actually consider the position you accuse.
And when you're responding to me, don't use it at all.
You may think I don't know much.
BUT !!
I'm the world's leading authority on my own opinion. There is no body better equipped to state MY positions than me. To my knowledge, you haven't gotten it right once.