Neither, thanks, I was really smart!
How do you have a world without war with sociopaths running countries?
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
- Status
Neither, thanks, I was really smart!
Obama can't do anything right PERIOD; well he did get one thing right. He authorized the military to take out Osama Bin Laden violating another nation’s sovereignty.
But again, when leftist dullards whine about criticism about Obama, they ignore their own incredible hypocrisy when they criticized Bush for eight years for purely partisan political purposes.
But then, one has to ask, since when did low information leftist dullards ever care about facts, the truth or reality?
You couldn't be really smart if you were handed the brains to fill that empty skull of yours.
My skull must be fuller than yours, I didn't vote for Bush TWICE, lol
Do you live in a closet? Obama should never have engaged in his ineffectual hawk like rhetoric drawing a red line he didn't first have support for. How hard is this?
It was painful to watch this inept buffoon of a President saunter up to the podium unrehearsed to bluster tough about Syria.
But alas, not only could Obama NOT support his red line rhetoric, but then he walked away from it by claiming it was everyone else's fault. How dense, uninformed, stupid, retarded and partisan does one have to be to continue to support this moron?
It is the epitome of irony when the dullard left and Libertarians spent every waking moment blaming Bush for everything wrong in the world when Bush was a true leader; something Obama will never achieve in his pathetic community organizer life.
Published on Aug 21, 2012
President Obama made a surprise appearance during Jay Carney's White House briefing. Speaking to a packed press room, he raised a smile as he traded banter with them before launching into the serious issue of Syria and chemical weapons.
He confirmed that the US has said Assad needs to step down.
Obama then tackled the issue of humanitarian aid to Syrians, and those who are fleeing the country to escape the Assad regime ,severely straining the resources of nearby host countries.
And the President ended the briefing on a serious note, by saying that should the US and United Nations be aware of any chemical weapons then they would react accordingly to the threat.
On the same day that Obama made this statement in the US, the Russian Minister and Syrian ally, SERGEI LAVROV speaking at a news conference in Helsinki, said Moscow would not approve any political transition that was forced on Syria. Stating that only the United Nations Security Council alone, can authorise the use of force against Syria, and not just the US.
You cannot be this dense and think that your rhetoric is not recorded for all to see and hear. But here is Obama lying and walking back his mornic rhetoric claiming it is everyone else who set the red line.
The man is a moronic partisan hack of the most extreme kind. Anyone who continues to support this idiot are buffoonish lackeys licking this ass clowns boot.
Last edited:
tekkychick
New member
First some conservatives bitched because he wasn't going to congress; then they bitched because he was going to congress; then they bitched because a non-military solution was found.
Those who can't see anything good no matter what he does are haters.
Those who may disagree with the policy but say something like "glad he's going to congress" or even "it's great that we may have a diplomatic solution" (even if no credit is given to Obama) may not be haters.
But those that blast every action regardless are haters.
tekkychick
New member
THought I'd requote this since I don't think anyone has answered this.
Amusing; a forum thread troll who seldom addresses thread topics engaging in childish trolling thinks they have intelligence. No my dear, you are an empty headed ass hat who trolls threads with juvenile banter in a desperate effort to remove any doubt what an incredible dumbass you truly are.
Now run along and let the adults in the room debate the thread topic; something you are incapable of due to your incredible lack of intelligence.
The idea that the US should mind its own business and has no business concerning itself with whether despots use chemical weapons on their people is really the only one that makes any sense. I understand that one, even if I disagree with it. But that's not where the criticism has been focused, really, your's included. Instead it's been focused on the manner in which Obama has sought to achieve the goals of his policy.
I bolded the part that illustrates why you are one of the forums most prolific liars; but then, this is a common trait with brain dead leftists who cannot support their ideological lunacy and instead are forced to lie about to remain blissfully ignorant.
This comment is the epitome of irony coming from Bush hating Libtards who spent eight years impugning GWB: Those who can't see anything good no matter what he does are haters. How ironic the people who spent so much time, and still do, blaming Bush and impugning his good character now whine like little asshats when their guy gets criticized.
From one of the biggest asshats in the Democrat Party herself:
It's confirmed; you're an idiot.
cawacko
Well-known member
First off I'm glad we are negotiating a diplomatic settlement and I hope it sticks. For me personally I don't want the U.S. to bomb or go into Syria. After Obama made his red line comment though I changed my belief that if the President draws a line he has to stick with him for his, and our country's, credibility and therefore I would support it. I did not care for Obama later saying 'I didn't draw the line the world did'. That backtracking looked week in my opinion. Say it if he meant it otherwise don't say it.
My recollection is before Britain voted they would take no action Obama didn't speak about needing to go to Congress. Imo, he was ready to act without Congress if Britain gave its approval. Once Britain said no he changed course and said 'while I don't need to go to Congress to take action, I will.' It just came across as not strong leadership to me.
I don't think Obama wanted to go into (bomb) Syria at all and it showed in his handling of this whole mess. Once he made his 'red line' comment he stuck his neck out too far too back away. Congress gave him a potential out if they would vote down any military activity. And I believe he luckily backed into this proposal with Kerry and Putin. I hope it works out for the best but I don't think it shows the U.S. in a position of strength.
I know it's easy to sit back and complain about someone's actions after the fact especially when you don't offer any suggestions of your own. I make no claims to being a foreign policy expert and that if I were in charge we should have done a,b and c and we wouldn't be in this mess if we had. But I believe myself knowledgable enough to have an idea about leadership and how others view our actions that this has been handled poorly.
I am well aware I am not Obama's number one supporter so feel free to discount what I say as you please. But while I disagree with many of his policies I do not hate the man nor do I root for bad outcomes to happen in foreign affairs to the U.S. to score 'political points'.
My two second thoughts now please excuse me while I go back to my Lane Kiffin hating.
It was answered here: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...paths-running-countries&p=1317227#post1317227
But you're too big of a clueless dumbass to have comprehended it.
Truth Deflector; "Bush was a true leader"
What a moron.
Coming from the forums chief dullard and retard; I'll consider your insult a badge of honor.
Now run along ass hat; stop wasting the forums bandwidth trying to drag down the IQ of every thread to your lowlife level.
BRAVO! Great post!
I'm just going to go ahead and vigorously disagree with you on both counts here. And frankly, I don't understand why (1) if you disagree with the red line comment in the first instance (2) you similarly disagree with what you viewed as backing down from it; and (3) if you think Obama should have gone to Congress (4) you think it was wrong for him to have gone to Congress; and (5) if you don't want the US to bomb syria (6) you think that the current situation, where the United States may achieve its desired ends without bombing Syria, is the product of weak leadership where "stong leadership," as you've framed it, surely would not have led to the same place.
This view of "strong leadership" as being equivalent to sticking to stupid, wrong shit even though it's stupid and wrong is just baffling to me, particularly here, where "weak leadership" might lead to a better outcome.
cawacko
Well-known member
I was ok with the red line comment if that's what he truly felt. Like I said my preference would be to not get involved but once Obama laid out that marker and it was crossed (I guess that could technically still be waiting to be determined) then I back(ed) him going in. I didn't care for him walking away from that comment with his the world drew the line remark.
I'm aware President's take military action without Congress. I don't believe I said anything prior about him having to go to Congress. To me if he was going to take action then just do it. Partisans will bitch because that's what partisans do. They'll complain no matter what you (any President, but specifically now Obama) do. The backtracking looked weak to me.
I realize nothing is simple in events like this. Obama can't just snap his fingers and produce a desirable outcome in a moments notice. I want a good result here but I also realize how we handle this event will play a roll in determining future actions both by ourselves and by others. Hence my desire for the U.S. to not look like it got pushed around and weak.
But that's the thing. I don't understand why the US looks like it got pushed around and weak by not taking military action when it looks like a better outcome than military action could have achieved may be attainable.
Also, too, I have to disagree on the idea that he backed down from the red line thing. It seems to me that the whole "the world drew the red line" was just an matter of framing the issue to garner support internationally and from Congress.
You don't understand shit pile? You don't want to understand because it's so easy to understand that even the most stupid American should be able to understand.
In reality your country needs to have it's wars and so there will always be some American propagandist trying to say those who should be pushing for war are weak. Now do you understand?
Weren't you born yet when Bush2 led your country to war on false pretences?
- Status