GOP success?

Truth Detector said:
Hitler's justification the occupation of the Sudetenland:

"Our foreign policy is not determined by weltanschaaung (a way of life). Our aim is the preservation of the German people. We are not interested in the suppression of other people, nor to having other people among us. Let them be happy in their way and let us be happy in ours. This limits our foreign policy; but the aims of foreign policy are neither unlimited nor erratic. "They are not dependent on chance. We have decided to preserve the German people. We shall protect it and save it. "

Putins justification occupation of the Crimea:

"Russia retains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population,"

Sound similar? ;)

Ukraine mobilizes army after Putin's 'declaration of war'
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...s-declaration-of-war/articleshow/31324256.cms
Click to expand...

CLEARLY Hitler took "Survival of the Fittest" to a Human scale...........Do you see any of that today?
 
Truth Detector said:
And "think progress" allows buffoons like you to parrot repugnant and stupid leftist talking points. Yay you!

Dumbass.

:thisisgettinggood:
Click to expand...


Your opinion means nothing, since it is a matter of fact and history that Think Progress can and does validate it's satements with links to the original facts of the source. Wikipedia allows dopes like you to "edit" without verification of ALL your source information.

You can BS and blow smoke all you want, but you can't escape the facts, my cud chewing friend. Laugh clown, laugh!
 
NOVA said:
Lets dumb it down even more for you.....short and to the point.

In a stream of diplomatic cables,embassy security officers warned their superiors at the State Department of a worsening threat from Islamic extremists, and requested that the teams of military personnel and State Department security guards who were already on duty be kept in service.
The requests WERE DENIED.....true, it was the EMBASSY in Tripoli, NOT Benghazi CONSULATE...and THAT IS THE POINT where incompetence comes to light...
Its the State Dept.'s responsibility to allocate security where its obviously needed, and because of their incompetence, they ignored the Consulate AND cut security at the Embassy...which also came under attack.

State gets a budget and its their responsibility allocate funds where THEY see fit....Republicans had nothing to say about where each dollar was spent....
and as I posted before, they spent a lot of their budget on bullshit art, dinnerware, and charging stations for elect. cars....

THE BOTTOM LINE REMAINS:

Under oath, Ms. Lamb testified that budget considerations played no part in considering additional security.

Incidently, putting the blame on the dead, don't help your cause.
Click to expand...


All you're doing is repeating the SOS while trying to enforce your ideals as to what should be...as opposed as to what is! But as I further demonstrated earlier, you can't even deal with being proved wrong:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?61382-GOP-success&p=1458541#post1458541

It's called COMPREHENSIVE reading, you simpleton. Something you're obviously incapable of or unwilling to do. So be it. Unless you've got something other than accusations and parroting, I'm done going round in circles with your ignorance.
 
NOVA said:
And to clarify....

In their debate, Mr. Biden responded to Mr. Ryan’s attacks by accusing him and his fellow Republicans of cutting the administration’s request for embassy security and construction. House Republicans this year voted to cut back the administration’s request, but still approved more than was spent last year.

State can move assets to any place they see fit to spend more money....its their call, not the Congress and certainly not the Republicans.
Click to expand...


You stupe, they DENIED the increase for embassy security last year. Approving that now is the same thing. If you've got proof to the contrary, then show it. If not, STFU!
 
The way the Republicans acted when President Obama wanted to do something about the use of chemical weapons by Assad in Syria sent a clear message to Putin about Obama's ability to do anything about Russia invading Ukraine.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Your opinion means nothing, since it is a matter of fact and history that Think Progress can and does validate it's satements with links to the original facts of the source. Wikipedia allows dopes like you to "edit" without verification of ALL your source information.

You can BS and blow smoke all you want, but you can't escape the facts, my cud chewing friend. Laugh clown, laugh!
Click to expand...

:thisisgettinggood:
 
Jarod said:
The way the Republicans acted when President Obama wanted to do something about the use of chemical weapons by Assad in Syria sent a clear message to Putin about Obama's ability to do anything about Russia invading Ukraine.
Click to expand...

REALLY Counselor; how did Republicans act? Do share with the class your version of how they acted. Then we can correct the fallacy you wallow in in your leftist hyper partisan fantasyland.

Were these the actions you were talking about Counselor?

House Leaders Express Their Support for Syria Strike

WASHINGTON — President Obama won the support on Tuesday of Republican and Democratic leaders in the House for an attack on Syria, giving him a foundation to win broader approval for military action from a Congress that still harbors deep reservations.

Speaker John A. Boehner, who with other Congressional leaders met Mr. Obama in the Oval Office, said afterward that he would “support the president’s call to action,” an endorsement quickly echoed by the House majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia.

On Tuesday evening, Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agreed on the wording of a resolution that would give Mr. Obama the authority to carry out a strike against Syria, for a period of 60 days, with one 30-day extension. A committee vote on the measure could come as early as Wednesday.

On Tuesday evening, Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agreed on the wording of a resolution that would give Mr. Obama the authority to carry out a strike against Syria, for a period of 60 days, with one 30-day extension. A committee vote on the measure could come as early as Wednesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/u...resses-case-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Or perhaps this was:

Republicans call for Syria action
PUBLISHED: 29 Apr 2013 08:44:29 | UPDATED: 29 Apr 2013 08:45:34

Republican lawmakers have stepped up calls for US action against Syria in the face of growing evidence it used chemical weapons against its population in a bitter civil war.

But wide differences remain over what should be done and whether President Barack Obama is correct in proceeding cautiously before declaring the regime of President Bashar al-Assad has crossed a game-changing "red line".

"I think the options aren't huge, but some action needs to be taken," said Representative Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

http://www.afr.com/p/world/republicans_call_for_syria_action_amzDZVZYMQibDkwQ SaFW6M

Or do you feel it is a show of strength to draw a redline, then walk it back even blaming Republicans for that redline?

Barackus Obamanous (the imperial President) denying he set redline and blamed Congress:

 
The original Barackus Obamanous rhetoric (notice Republicans behind his back twisting his arm):

Published on Aug 21, 2012
The US President warns Bashar al-Assad that the use of chemical or biological weapons in Syria is a "red line" that should not be crossed.


Assad is still in charge, and he is still killing thousands as the rest of the world sits on its collective hands doing....absolutely nothing.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You stupe, they DENIED the increase for embassy security last year. Approving that now is the same thing. If you've got proof to the contrary, then show it. If not, STFU!
Click to expand...

LMAO; still parroting that tired stupid old disproved meme are we? I cannot say I am surprised. It doesn't occur to dimwits like you that all Barackus Obamanous (the Imperial President) had to do was pull OUT the staff just as all our allies did realizing that they could not properly protect them; Cost= minimal.
 
“My opinion has not waivered, and if President Obama’s proposal for the use of military force in Syria comes to the House of Representatives for a vote, I will vote no and urge my colleagues to do the same.” Diane Black (R) Tenn
 
“Unless I am presented with some new evidence or compelling argument that convinces me that action is in our national security interest, I simply cannot support the use of our American military in Syria as requested by the President.” Ken Calvert (R) Calif
 
"I will vote 'no' because of too much uncertainty about what comes next.” - Larmar Alexander
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top