Obama's Last Stand

PostmodernProphet said:
well no....whether you like it or not the Democrats have created the precedent......it is now 51 whenever the head of the senate decides it needs to be 51.....
Click to expand...

Well, yes it is still 60, unless the filibuster is deemed to be unconstitutional. How often do you think THAT will occur? Probably near zero.

I know you're reveling in this. Be careful what you wish for. The pendulum will swing back some day.
 
blackascoal said:
Clown-speak .. purely partisan bullshit.

I stopped talking about it when I recognized the American people didn't care .. while you kept talking about it everyday as if anyone was paying attention. You were posting to yourself. You didn't tell me anything I didn't know, you never have. I 'accepted' nothing you had to say about Clinton .. and I told you that you were obsessed by her. Obama was the president, the buck stops at his desk, not his Secretary of State. What you claim is bullshit.

What was said and what wasn't makes no difference now. As I said .. my bad .. for ever believing that you were anything but a fucking bobblehead.
Click to expand...
Glad you can finally see past an old friendship.
Credit to you for giving him a chance but he has proven himself to be NOTHING but a useful idiot. Almost like the bitch is paid to post his apologetic crap.
 
anatta said:
I bet you paid attention when ISIS infested Libya? No? did you see it coming? no.
Did you mention the fact we bombed it yet again? no. I had over 10k views on DCJ #1 and the same on DCJ #2
SOMEBODY was paying attention -but it's not why i did it.

I made the thread in 2014 when I saw it the civil war coming - if you lost interest on that -it's on you -don't bitch about it to me.
Now you're fucking lying.Maybe you are pychological blocking to give you the benefit of a doubt.

DCJ is long gone so I can't show you again - but i clearly remember you wiggling around not trying to blame Clinton
until i showed you various articles that backed up the claim - i can show you more now -do you want to dance around that too?
Maybe you don't even understand the stalemate at the WH NSC - here is the NYTimes words not mine.
Maybe it's not too late for you to get a clue since you are STILL in denial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=1
Hillary Clinton,‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall
The president was wary. The secretary of state was persuasive.

But the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven.
Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line.
++
take your hatred elsewhere - i got no time.
Click to expand...
You fool.
BAC gave you a lot more chances than you deserved.
He was polite to you until very recently.
 
blackascoal said:
I repeat, you've never told me anything I didn't already know .. including anything to do with ISIS .. which I called an American invention no differently than Al Queda when the US allowed Libyan arsenals to get raided .. sending shoulder-fired missiles right into their hands. You were led to Libya BY ME .. not the other way around.

Just because I didn't keep endlessly taking about it didn't mean that I didn't know what was going on.

If there were 10,000 hits .. 9500 of then were you. No one paid any attention to that then .. nor are they paying any attention now. Outside of Benghazi, the American people don't care.

Don't worry about it dude .. just go sally forth as right-wing bobblehead.

I'll be around to slap you with the truth and your ignorance when Trump falls apart.
Click to expand...
you don't know a damn thing about Libya. You don't know a damn thing about Clinton's role in Libya.
Either that or you excuse it because you're become a shrill partisan Democrat.
You don't understand any of the dynamics there - like I said i seriously know if you knew Obama bombed them YET AGAIN -
you never even commented on it if you did.why not? That's rather significant!

You showed me Libya the first time, and we were a pretty good partner on that - but you had no interest when it fell apart.
That's when the obvious NATO screw up became the festering hell hole that to this day shelters ISIS,and feeds AQIM.

Don't tell me about your conceptions about "inventing ISIS" when you don't understand why they were in Libya,
and where they've metastasized to now. Libya is key to Africa - it borders on Eqypt it connects AQIM to ISIS in Syria /Iraq.
Libyan weapons feed Boko. but you know all this right?? You just never mention it..uh huh.

Since when is the standard "the America people don't care?" they never cared the first time we bombed Libya -so what?
You should have cared because you backed a piece of filth corrupt warmonger in Hillary -and you have the balls to go after my politics?
And you knew better even if the American people didn't care. Pathetic.

Oh and you can quit crowing about "showing me Libya" - but you're dead wrong that i followed Libya because of hate of Clinton.
Hate is your dept. own it. I hated Clinton afterwards for what she did.
The rest of your trash about "9500 hits were you" is your frothing without merit.. it's a fucking stupid thing to say.
 
anatta said:
you don't know a damn thing about Libya. You don't know a damn thing about Clinton's role in Libya.
Either that or you excuse it because you're become a shrill partisan Democrat.
You don't understand any of the dynamics there - like I said i seriously know if you knew Obama bombed them YET AGAIN -
you never even commented on it if you did.why not? That's rather significant!

You showed me Libya the first time, and we were a pretty good partner on that - but you had no interest when it fell apart.
That's when the obvious NATO screw up became the festering hell hole that to this day shelters ISIS,and feeds AQIM.

Don't tell me about your conceptions about "inventing ISIS" when you don't understand why they were in Libya,
and where they've metastasized to now. Libya is key to Africa - it borders on Eqypt it connects AQIM to ISIS in Syria /Iraq.
Libyan weapons feed Boko. but you know all this right?? You just never mention it..uh huh.

Since when is the standard "the America people don't care?" they never cared the first time we bombed Libya -so what?
You should have cared because you backed a piece of filth corrupt warmonger in Hillary -and you have the balls to go after my politics?
And you knew better even if the American people didn't care. Pathetic.

Oh and you can quit crowing about "showing me Libya" - but you're dead wrong that i followed Libya because of hate of Clinton.
Hate is your dept. own it. I hated Clinton afterwards for what she did.
The rest of your trash about "9500 hits were you" is your frothing without merit.. it's a fucking stupid thing to say.
Click to expand...
Denial isn't a river in Egypt
 
anatta said:
you don't know a damn thing about Libya. You don't know a damn thing about Clinton's role in Libya.
Either that or you excuse it because you're become a shrill partisan Democrat.
You don't understand any of the dynamics there - like I said i seriously know if you knew Obama bombed them YET AGAIN -
you never even commented on it if you did.why not? That's rather significant!

You showed me Libya the first time, and we were a pretty good partner on that - but you had no interest when it fell apart.
That's when the obvious NATO screw up became the festering hell hole that to this day shelters ISIS,and feeds AQIM.

Don't tell me about your conceptions about "inventing ISIS" when you don't understand why they were in Libya,
and where they've metastasized to now. Libya is key to Africa - it borders on Eqypt it connects AQIM to ISIS in Syria /Iraq.
Libyan weapons feed Boko. but you know all this right?? You just never mention it..uh huh.

Since when is the standard "the America people don't care?" they never cared the first time we bombed Libya -so what?
You should have cared because you backed a piece of filth corrupt warmonger in Hillary -and you have the balls to go after my politics?
And you knew better even if the American people didn't care. Pathetic.

Oh and you can quit crowing about "showing me Libya" - but you're dead wrong that i followed Libya because of hate of Clinton.
Hate is your dept. own it. I hated Clinton afterwards for what she did.
The rest of your trash about "9500 hits were you" is your frothing without merit.. it's a fucking stupid thing to say.
Click to expand...

I think you've been played. You people shouldn't have focused on Clinton, you should have focused on Obama. You allowed yourselves to be sidetracked way too easily.
 
GMAFB with the Fox News garbage. That Gingrich...a disgraced former House Speaker who was thrown out BY HIS OWN PEOPLE after costing the taxpayers MILLIONS with a failed walk out against Clinton...is seen as the wise old man of conservatives is pathetic!

A typical right wing ploy of stringing together HALF THE TRUTH with a collection of supposition and conjecture. Problem is, neither FOX or the right wing rabble in Congress can legally and logically prove that anything Obama has done is unconstitutional or illegal....a battle cry they've maintained since 2008 if the man so much as sneezed!

Well, you got your Trump and his "art of the deal" approach to government. Let's see how that meshes with the teababber/neocon idealism of deregulation and corporate protectionism. And when it all goes to hell, they'll just blame Obama.
 
Guille said:
I think you've been played. You people shouldn't have focused on Clinton, you should have focused on Obama. You allowed yourselves to be sidetracked way too easily.
Click to expand...
really? have you done any research to say that? did you read the NYTimes article I posted-did you read what Gates said?
Have you done anything else? there are all kinds of articles out there. try this: Salon. not a RW rag.

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/eve...illary_clinton_led_nato_bombing_of_libya_was/
Even critics understate how catastrophically bad the Hillary Clinton-led NATO bombing of Libya was
Clinton played a uniquely hands-on role in the war.

Sec. Clinton pressured a wary President Obama to join France and the U.K. in the war, the Times reported. Vice President Biden, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, among others, opposed the war effort.
Numerous government officials recalled that her hawkish enthusiasm was decisive in the “51-49 decision.” (Gates)..

Hillary has, understandably, said little of these consequences. Yet, in debate after debate, with her call for more aggression on Syria and Iran, Clinton has only continued to demonstrate that she is an unabashed war hawk.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, looking back, the facts show that she did not just push for and lead the war in Libya; she even went out of her way to derail diplomacy.
 
Rune said:
You fool.
BAC gave you a lot more chances than you deserved.
He was polite to you until very recently.
Click to expand...
ROFL.. BAC has long been a hothead - it's expected. it never bothered me,and it doesn't now.
What does bother me is he's willing to go and vote for a piece of shit corrupt warmonger when of all people he should know better.

But that's on him. It's not my problem. he's the one that went nuclear over this.
 
anatta said:
really? have you done any research to say that? did you read the NYTimes article I posted-did you read what Gates said?
Have you done anything else? there are all kinds of articles out there. try this: Salon. not a RW rag.

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/eve...illary_clinton_led_nato_bombing_of_libya_was/
Even critics understate how catastrophically bad the Hillary Clinton-led NATO bombing of Libya was
Clinton played a uniquely hands-on role in the war.

Sec. Clinton pressured a wary President Obama to join France and the U.K. in the war, the Times reported. Vice President Biden, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, among others, opposed the war effort.
Numerous government officials recalled that her hawkish enthusiasm was decisive in the “51-49 decision.” (Gates)..

Hillary has, understandably, said little of these consequences. Yet, in debate after debate, with her call for more aggression on Syria and Iran, Clinton has only continued to demonstrate that she is an unabashed war hawk.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, looking back, the facts show that she did not just push for and lead the war in Libya; she even went out of her way to derail diplomacy.
Click to expand...

Here's all the information I need dumbass: Clinton and Obama in the war room. Who makes the decisions? You think it was Clinton. You're a dumbass.
 
Guille said:
Here's all the information I need dumbass: Clinton and Obama in the war room. Who makes the decisions? You think it was Clinton. You're a dumbass.
Click to expand...
that's really an utter lack of understanding of how the White House National Security Council works.
It's not a "war room" like the bin Laden decision..that was a decision based on timelines.

This was a decision based on deliberative council. Lots of travel and conferences led upto it.
Clinton was the ultimate deciding voice. see the various references this thread.
 
anatta said:
that's really an utter lack of understanding of how the White House National Security Council works.
It's not a "war room" like the bin Laden decision..that was a decision based on timelines.

This was a decision based on deliberative council. Lots of travel and conferences led upto it.
Clinton was the ultimate deciding voice. see the various references this thread.
Click to expand...

You don't understand how things work. The POTUS and the Secretary of State are in a room together watching a situation unfold and you blame the Sec. of State for mistakes? You're a fucking idiot.
 
domer76 said:
Be careful what you wish for. How often do you think it will actually be invoked? Probably next to zero.
Click to expand...

whenever we need to......I expect most proposals will pass without filibuster because of bipartisan support......many Democrats are tired of being the do-nothing party.......
 
domer76 said:
Well, yes it is still 60, unless the filibuster is deemed to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
no idiot....that is not the trigger......the trigger is McConnell stating there is a constitutional issue......and that statement is not subject to review or contest, it simply is if he says it is......just as when Reid decided that appointments were a constitutional issue......
 
Guille said:
You don't understand how things work. The POTUS and the Secretary of State are in a room together watching a situation unfold and you blame the Sec. of State for mistakes? You're a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...
they are NOT IN A SITUATION ROOM when they are in the WH NSC mode. good god man..it's a meeting room.
they discuss matters of national security there is no decision making -there is advice/council and debate..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top