Is that fair to say?
If it is, and Obama is responsible for what is happening, what can he do? I'd like to see him earn that Nobel Peace Prize. He received it prematurely, which wasn't his doing. But it is his doing if he never fulfills the promise that people excessively projected onto him.
२० नोव्हेंबर, २०१२
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३०२ टिप्पण्या:
302 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»It's not his fault, but what he's doing (or not doing) is not helping.
Time to earn that peace prize- I like it...
..though it will never catch on.
Egypy & Libya are both Obama policies. Shouldn't the left be talking about blowback at this point?
First, isn't "prematurely" the wrong word? It implies, at least to me, eventually he will earn it. Like, a premature death is one that happens before the inevitable. Same with premature birth. Maybe, he was given something he did not deserve.
Second, in that light, why did he accept it? Wouldn't a person of integrity say "Thanks, but no thanks. No peace prize." Especially since he hadn't done anything to deserve it.
" I'd like to see him earn that Nobel Peace Prize."
I guess by that you mean show up for work and not screw things up. That would be a welcome change. Can they give him a Super Duper Nobel for that? Maybe a third term?
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. ~ The Washington Times
bwahaha as Althouse con, sour grapes parade continues unabated!
btw, Gaffney is a certifiable neocon lunatic ... on a good day!
@Dante: Well stated.
We can only hope this is the worst of it, as bad as it might be. Absolutely fair to put responsibility on him, whether he wanted this part of the job or not.
Jeez, while we are at it, let's give him a gold star for being present. Maybe.
The Nobel prize is just one of so many things Obama needs to thank George Bush for.
I'm sure everything will work out fine. Just relax. "We won."
Regime change in Libya and Egypt was a major initiative by this administration. They are trying to do the same thing in Syria and Yemen. Sure, give him another Peace Prize.
But it is his doing if he never fulfills the promise that people excessively projected onto him.
So other people can make promises on our behalf and we have to fulfill them?
Argue with the substance shiloh, that would be like me dismissing your points as stupid because they come from you. Oh wait
"Obama needs to thank George Bush for"
Indeed, as again, (8) years of cheney/bush incompetency/ineptitude, much of it to do w/foreign policy, beget eight years of Obama!
Thanx Dick/George. :)
I know that if Obama had an -R after his name, it would be his fault.
Damn, when are cons gonna stop whining? Rhetorical.
LET THE APPEARANCE OF SECOND TERM HAMSTRINGING BEGIN!!!1!!!1!!!!!
whining? Are you satisfied with the present situation in the Middle East, shiloh?
although he was awarded the nobel prematurely, he should have declined it out of humility (dies laughing)
It is only fitting that affirmative action has reached the Nobel committee.
And the results speak for themselves. More drone killings, more rockets into Israel, more dead ambassadors, more spying on US citizens, more riots in the middle east.
The video did it.
re: jr565:
Egypy & Libya are both Obama policies.
Eh, not really. His "policy" on Egypt was confused for a while, and in the end, we were largely irrelevant to what happened. On Libya, policy was driven by the Europeans, and we were just along for the ride (and to provide the planes. And bombs). Leading from behind, as they said.
Frank Gaffney? Jesus.
shiloh whines about whining
Damn, when are cons gonna stop whining? Rhetorical.
When are the libs going to be accountable?
This is the economy of Gaza, and Palestine. Throw a few rockets over the border, create some dead baby pictures, flash mob at a burned car carcass, and then put your hand out for the economic development aid.
What in the hell do you think a community organizer does?? He hands out cash....er...I mean...economic development aid.
You don't really think he's going to use his l33t negotiating skills, and set those people on a new trajectory.
Safe to say there was never much in the way of planning in the ME. Things are spiraling out of control as a result.
Say what you will about Iraq, we had an idea of what was going to come next, and yes, it was expensive. We had no plan with Egypt and Libya, and it will be even more expensive in the long run.
"Are you satisfied"
No, but I don't blindly blame Obama for everything that's wrong in the world today, like Althouse cons do daily.
Heck it's a cottage industry here, go figure.
hmm, maybe the Bush's misbegotten Iraq War which gave Iran more power in the region has something to do w/ME chaos? Rhetorical.
btw, were you fools whining when Bush had a 90% job approval rating after cheney/bush got caught w/their pants down on 9/11? Again rhetorical.
Oh the irony of self-righteous cons!
And so it goes ...
I'd like to see him earn that Nobel Peace Prize.
Earning connotes that there is a balance statement. I would suggest that with troop deployments and drone strikes, POTUS is deeply in the red.
Over 35,000 Syrian citizens have been killed by their government in the current conflict including thousands of children. Thousands more have been tortured including children, and hundreds have been tortured to death. Why aren't you hearing about it? Why are Israel's defensive actions all over the media and Assad's continue in silence. That is the media we get our information from, and we think we know what's going on.
Argue the points garage. This would be like me claiming anything from you was innaccurate and full of shit because they came from you. Oh wait..
phx said...
So other people can make promises on our behalf and we have to fulfill them?
He accepted the accolade of his own volition as others have pointed out. Perhaps the people whose opinions bother you actually want the Prize to mean something. Maybe you really think the Prize is a farce.
*shrug*
So other people can make promises on our behalf and we have to fulfill them?
If you fly out on Air Force one to accept the physical embodiment of that promise, ie the award itself, then yes.
On the other hand, he could have stood up, thanked them graciously for the award, but then turned it down because he had literally done nothing to earn it, promising to do his best to live up to it.
That would be an honorable, laudable, and historic.
As I predicted yesterday and Shiloh obediently demonstrates, this President now will be portrayed as helpless against the power of us conservatives who lost the election.
That's a good boy. Here's your treat.
A lot of this, particularly his hostility to Israel in the hopes of appeasing the Moslem crazies (much like "Myanmar" yesterday) is all his doing.
And Mr Lead From Behind can do nothing.
Once again, Netanyahu is giving him a bitch slapping on the world stage.
shiloh said...
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. ~ The Washington Times
bwahaha as Althouse con, sour grapes parade continues unabated!
No, another day, another chicken come home to roost.
btw, Gaffney is a certifiable neocon lunatic ... on a good day!
And shilol is a certifiable moron any day.
Indeed, as again, (8) years of cheney/bush incompetency/ineptitude, much of it to do w/foreign policy, beget eight years of Obama!
They won their fights and no governments went Islamist on their watch.
Can't say either about Choom.
But, lessee, foreign policy incompetence...
Corpseman
A-stan - 3 times as many dead in half the time and the situation deteriorates
Iraq - they wanted us to stay, but Zero couldn't be bothered
Egypt - Moslem Brotherhood running the show
Labia - Benghazi
Burma - "I Wish I Could ... Impose My Will on Congress"
Israel - bitch slapped 3 times by Netanyahu
Oh, yeah, he's a keeper.
And where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Archivist of bin Laden's collection of goat porn?
bagoh, I know you're pissed about foolishly predicting Willard would win, but put your big boy pants on and act like a grown-up!
You can do it junior, give it a try!
But it is his doing if he never fulfills the promise that people excessively projected onto him.
This is the secret of Obama's success, besides being a black man who is "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," is not the man he is, but people's excessive projection onto him. No one could live up to that projection.
It's one reason libs get to testy at the slightest attack on Obama. You're attacking them and their projection, not just Obama.
No, but I don't blindly blame Obama for everything that's wrong in the world today, like Althouse cons do daily.
Heck it's a cottage industry here, go figure.
You know how this self-serving game the cons play goes.
Whatever goes wrong is Obama's fault.
Whatever goes right is because of someone else.
This is the same ole, same ole on Althouse. The only ones who can't see through that game are the cons themselves.
No, but I don't blindly blame Obama for everything that's wrong in the world today, like Althouse cons do daily.
Why would you? Isn't that what Bush is for?
Did Obama give Israel permission to take another baby step?
Obama's Cairo speech, his (including State) very mixed messages with Syria, his involvement with the war in Libya, but uninvolvement post-war, his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan re the American departures with minimal interest in the likely aftermath, the lack of support for the Iranian opposition movement, all point towards a result of what we are seeing now.
No, but I don't blindly blame Obama for everything that's wrong in the world today, like Althouse cons do daily.
This is a fair statement. It's also fair to ask what we expect of the president in the next four years. What do you and your fellow libs expect from the man, Shiloh? I should add Rhetorical because you people aren't accountable for anything. Seriously, your whole life is made form taking other people's productivity and using it for what you deem to be the right use of it.
BTW - it is fair to say. The radical Muslims have seen Obama's weak stance on Isreal as a sign that it's safe to attack Israel.
shiloh said...
Are you satisfied
No, but I don't blindly blame Obama for everything that's wrong in the world today, like Althouse cons do daily.
Heck it's a cottage industry here, go figure.
It's called the truth. And some people can't handle it.
hmm, maybe the Bush's misbegotten Iraq War which gave Iran more power in the region has something to do w/ME chaos? Rhetorical.
Ignorant.
Iraq gutted and discredited Al Qaeda and boxed in Iran. The only thing that gave it more power in the region was Barry Chamberlain doing his Muncih act.
btw, were you fools whining when Bush had a 90% job approval rating after cheney/bush got caught w/their pants down on 9/11? Again rhetorical.
Again stupid.
The little weasel gives Zero a pass for Benghazi, but forgets his wet dream's Willie's girl, Jamie Gorelick, an d her impenetrable wall blinding our intel establishment.
So where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Wanking off as you watched the videos of the WTC getting hit over and over?
I don't know about that, DAD, but they didn't see any down side going after 4 Americans in Libya.
Re: bagoh20:
Over 35,000 Syrian citizens have been killed by their government in the current conflict including thousands of children. Thousands more have been tortured including children, and hundreds have been tortured to death. Why aren't you hearing about it? Why are Israel's defensive actions all over the media and Assad's continue in silence. That is the media we get our information from, and we think we know what's going on.
There are a number of reasons why you hear more about Israel than about Assad.
1. The Muslim states are always whining about Israel. Because they use Israel as an excuse for everything, that gives Israel (at least superficially) greater geostrategic importance.
2. Assad slaughtering his own countrymen is more or less par for the course for a Middle Eastern dictatorship. His father did it too. The news is if the rebels succeed this time.
3. American journalists think of Israel as "us" and think of Palestinians as the "other." Violence by the "other" doesn't get judged by normal human standards and hence isn't newsworthy; violence by Israel does, and hence, is.
4. Certain sorts of people hate Israel because they are not allowed to hate Jews anymore, at least in public.
phx said...
You know how this self-serving game the cons play goes.
Whatever goes wrong is Obama's fault.
Your party's motto, "The Buck Stops Here".
phx said...
No, but I don't blindly blame Obama for everything that's wrong in the world today, like Althouse cons do daily.
Heck it's a cottage industry here, go figure.
You know how this self-serving game the cons play goes.
Whatever goes wrong is Obama's fault.
Tell us again about all of this administrations middle east foreign policy successes.
Oh. Yeah. You couldn't the first time.
I'm sure he can fix everything with some well placed drones. He's good at.......oh wait. Nevermind.
Shiloh, I not only hoped and expected an Obama loss. I voted for the other guy. I did not want what you now need to defend. I'm off the hook. So start defending, explaining, taking responsibility like a grown up. You didn't just vote for Obama like a little girl with crush did you? I assume you wanted this so, explain it all: today tomorrow, and on and on. The election is long gone. You've got the ball now, so stop trying to hand it off.
I remember at the time finding the whole notion of giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize as hilariously absurd as most people on the right (and even a few on the left) did. But when he didn't refuse it outright it pretty much confirmed what I already believed about him. Narcissists are generally incapable of refusing awards, praises, and affirmations.
As to the current Middle East problem, I don't know how much blame you can assign to Obama. But I certainly don't believe his actions as POTUS have done much to ameliorate tensions over there over the past 4 years.
FUCK NO! It's Bush's fault!
FORWARD!
shiloh said...
"Are you satisfied"
No, but I don't blindly blame Obama for everything that's wrong in the world today, like Althouse cons do daily.
Heck it's a cottage industry here, go figure.
hmm, maybe the Bush's misbegotten Iraq War which gave Iran more power in the region has something to do w/ME chaos? Rhetorical.
btw, were you fools whining when Bush had a 90% job approval rating after cheney/bush got caught w/their pants down on 9/11? Again rhetorical.
Oh the irony of self-righteous cons!
And so it goes ...
Shiloh shows up and reminds us what a success no 'child left behind' has become.
Washington Times... Frank Gaffney....
Nuff said...Bubbleland must persist!
hmm, maybe the Bush's misbegotten Iraq War which gave Iran more power in the region has something to do w/ME chaos?
I don't see how Iran is particularly relevant to the developments in Egypt, Libya, or Syria. That's not to say Iran is irrelevant. In Iraq, Iran has happily moved in to fill the power vacuum left by our retreat. And Iran's nuclear program is proceding apace. But the other messiness isn't really linekd with Iran.
That said, there's an easy and obvious way to blame Bush II that actually makes sense. Bush II pushed democracy hard in the Middle East, harder than any American president before or since. That destabilised the old order of tyranny and oppression. It led to an abortive restoration of democracy in Lebanon. And it laid the seeds for Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria, and the whole mess we're seeing play out now.
Unfortunately, what Bush II perhaps did not appreciate is that when you give the vote to millions of people who have been taught to hate America and hate Israel for decades, the result is not going to be happy for either Israel or us.
Gaza is so lucky I'm not President of the United States, I'd be having the Star of David painted on B-52s in Omaha.
But it is his doing if he never fulfills the promise that people excessively projected onto him.
So other people can make promises on our behalf and we have to fulfill them?
Yes, you sound a little co-dependent there, Althouse...
Oh, how we miss the glory days of last week, when we were simply winners, back when the previous President was not the same one we still have, and will for FOUR MORE YEARS.
Does anyone really expect that four years from now that Obama's supporters will not still be blaming Bush for why their dreamboat couldn't do anything right? Bush: 4 terms and counting.
Obama's policy is negotiations always work, and there's no plan b.
So the strong guys take over.
That's a stable political arrangement, just one with the masses of the population having a very low standard of living.
The strong guys get all the wealth, and distribute it to people in proportion to their power, to stay in power themselves.
It's one step up from hit the guy on the head and take his stuff, as an economic arrangement. You have a police state to take care of order.
Thanks Obama.
shiloh said...
bagoh, I know you're pissed about foolishly predicting Willard would win, but put your big boy pants on and act like a grown-up!
speaking of somebody needing to put his big boy pants on!
The little weasel first has to get out of Pampers.
Adults don't spend every waking moment running around saying, "Nyah, Nyah! I won! I won! Ned Silver said so!".
You really are pathetic, aren't you?
You're not for anything, you just need somebody to hate - and you hate almost everybody.
You need a fake Messiah to tell you whom to hate, but you really don't like anybody - we never hear you say anything intelligent or meaningful about helping people, especially the ones the Lefties keep telling us are sooo downtrodden.
So we know where you were when the Romster was winning - you were curled up in a corner someplace in the fetal position crying to yourself how could this happen.
Balfegor
Iran's hands are all over this, those aren't bottle rockets ordered from the advertising section of Boys Life landing in Israel.
Note: Is Boys Life still in publication?
Obama can win an election because he can use his straw men arguments and give-aways. It's a bit harder to use that strategy in a campaign against events and reality. I'm sure he'll keep lashing out at the repubs, but I doubt they'll turn out to be his nemesis in the second term.
The US policy has always been to prevent wars of extermination of Israel.
Sweet, nice and kindly Obama has done whatever he can to see that 50 year containment policy destroyed and see the wars of Arab Spring breaking out all over so that the UN will need to hail Obama as the peacemaker.
And that sounds like a good plan to most Obama supporters. What could they want more? Well maybe a fait accomplis Iranian Nuclear system would be what would really do the trick.
Millions of dead Muslims and Jews will only be collateral damage to Obamanites.
I'd love for Obama to go to the middle east and play Danniel and litterly walk along the border in view of Hamas and the PLO.
Then, presuming he survives, his eyes will be open as to who is the real terrorist over there.
But Obama walk among lions? Eat dogs, yes, walk in the mist of danger? No.
Isn't this what America voted for?
And as I've pointed out before, in polls conducted by Al Jazeera and other outlets, the general view of the USA amongst regular citizens of Middle Eastern countries has become more negative since Obama took office. And Obama's own approval has gone down as well. Empirically it seems like whatever Obama has done hasn't really improved relations and viewpoints.
He received it prematurely
You mean completely undeservedly.
Obama has already disgraced himself and the Nobel Committee who awarded him the prize. There is nothing Obama can do to "earn" that prize...he has too much blood on his hands. As was his predecessor, he is a mass murderer and war criminal.
The Nobel Committee should formally withdraw the prize from him as a mea culpa and in order to try to regain a shred of legitimacy for its egregious award to Obama.
J.P.Sartre turned it down. President Zero doesn't have the humility to admit he didn't deserve it and do the same.
I hear all this, you know, 'Well, this is religious warfare, this is whatever.' No. There is nobody in this war who got killed on his own — nobody. You built a missile out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your bombs and missiles to Gaza on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired bomb makers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your bomb shelter because of “iron domes” and sophisticated radars that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding Israelis would come and seize everything at your bomb factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a missile and it turned into something horrific, or a great explosive. God bless — keep a big hunk of shrapnel. But part of the underlying warring contract is, you take a hunk of land and money and pay forward for the next al Qaeda sympathizer who comes along.
Obama has zero responsibility. Just hand him prizes, accolades and tongue baths.
Robert Cook, we are already know what you think, so why waste your time putting it in a post at Althouse?
Lather, rinse, repeat ...
But to be fair, that's the nature of political blogging, especially w/cons.
ie if you say it often enough, it must be true.
blessings
Robert Cook,
The Nobel committee was sufficiently disgraced by its award to Arafat. Whatever Obama's done pales in comparison.
Shiloh...I'm hardly a conservative. Why, to the Althouse crowd, I'm a regular commie!
shiloh said...
Robert Cook, we are already know what you think, so why waste your time putting it in a post at Althouse?
Pot, kettle, black - you know the drill.
We all give Cook a hard time, but at least he has something of his own to say and sometimes can make a good point.
The little weasel OTOH has only one note.
PS Is it me or do the trolls only have, "We won! We won!" , and nothing more today?
They're awfully flat.
Obama DID earn his Nobel Prize, considering the Prize has been a liberal steaming heap of shit for the last fifty years, when it reach the heap factor of the UN, except for those awarded in the very legitimate sciences. FORWARD!
Nobody ever talks about frozen pasta.
Anymore.
Re: McTriumph:
Iran's hands are all over this, those aren't bottle rockets ordered from the advertising section of Boys Life landing in Israel.
Except some of the bigger missiles, I think most of these are actually built by the Palestinians themselves. The Qassam rockets are apparently quite primitive.
At any rate, while it certainly seems to be the case that Iran smuggles weapons to the Palestinians, that's not something that's new, and I'm not sure that it's changed markedly in recent years as a result of either Bush II or Obama policies, has it? Iran has been heavily active in supporting anti-Israel terrorism since the 80's.
Robert Cook, even you have reading comprehension deficit as I did not say you were a con, just mentioned it's a con's m.o. to repeat crap ad nauseam.
Attention to detail as yes, you're an equal opportunity annoyer in search of his political Shangri-La/Utopia which will never exist.
Something to do w/Adam eating the apple and original sin or some such nonsense. I digress.
Obama earn his peace prize? No. He is too busy being present.
My understanding is that the rockets reaching Tel Ave are Iranian manufactured and more targetable.
"Robert Cook, even you have reading comprehension deficit as I did not say you were a con, just mentioned it's a con's m.o. to repeat crap ad nauseam.(sic)"
Shiloh, you seem to have poor writing skills. As written, your statement clearly implies that I'm a conservative. If you did not mean to convey that meaning, you failed.
Palestinian homemade rockets, Christ, I can remember being able to buy that kind of stuff and firearms from Boys Life magazine advertising. Bet you can't now, we have pussified the Boy Scouts.
It turns out that "president elect" Obama will be inheriting more than just a bad economy from his own previous administration.
Saying he earned the prize prematurely sets the assumption that he would be capable of earning it.
I'm not convinced that he'll ever rise to that ability.
"...you're an equal opportunity annoyer in search of his political Shangri-La/Utopia which will never exist."
Oh? It's pie in the sky utopianism to expect our country and our President not to commit mass murder?
How deeply cynical are you, Shiloh?
Robert Cook, it should not even be a point of contention, since your posts here have clearly indicated you're not conservative and in fact are a total appeaser.
So it goes w/out sayin' ie you deducted something that was silly to deduct, my writing composition aside.
blessings
I think Shiloh's trying to beat some sort of record here. Sort of a pathetic goal, if you ask me.
I've been wondering what the tone of his inaugural / state of the union speech will be, Will he continue to blame Bush, and the current Republican congress (the mainstream media would be fine with that), or will we hear about how much he's learned in his first 4 years as president? That would at least be honest since he knew so little when he started. Affirmative action sometimes puts you in places where you really have no idea what you're doing.
Ok now.
We know Obama isn't going to be able to fix this, at all.
That is exceedingly obvious.
That, and, when is shiloh going to stop being a stupid asshole? Rhetorical.
lol.
"How deeply cynical are you, Shiloh?"
I'm a realist since men have been killing men, Cain and Abel, since the dawn of creationism! :-P
Indeed, human nature ...
Rumpletweezer said...
Isn't this what America voted for?
Obama voters don't care about this stuff. A certain proportion of them don't know about this stuff. For many of them it's enough that he's not white. Another, and overlapping proportion voted for more free stuff. Plenty of them, whether they pay the least attention to events outside their daily lives or not, are devotees of a cult of personality that makes things completely simple and leaves them impervious to doubt.
I'm struck more than I ever have been under any American politician by the proportion of BO's support who can never be moved to criticize him about anything at all. Fears that he will make himself dictator are exaggerated, to say the least, but, if they are, it's only because he hasn't got enough worshipful followers and not because he would be reluctant to claim such power. In the case of a major crises, I worry about this man and his personality cult.
He's only one man and the situation we're in now has been long in the making before he showed up. But we're more vulnerable now than we've been for a long time to the tendency of such men to engineer and exploit a crisis. In the meantime I expect that discussion of events remote from the interest of Obabmaphone or wind farm voters might be entertaining but is otherwise a waste of breath.
Electoral politics is probably over with and may have been dead for a long time before I began to suspect it. It's so thoroughly managed that it's mainly a farce. Only a crystal ball would tell whether they'll drop the charade the way a few presidents in the past have come close to doing. But we've been asking for it for a long time now. The rulers may eventually no longer trouble to pretend to need elections.
Is that fair to say?
Yes.
Obama wants this unrest. He has worked hard to create it.
Own it Obama. Own it Progressives.
"I'm a realist...."
The universal self-defense by cynics the world over.
"The universal self-defense by cynics the world over."
ok, we may finally be in agreement ...
Cat fight!
"Cat fight!"
Again, if not for libs, Althouse would be a total bore! :::zzz:::
hmm, "we" should form a union! for services rendered ...
shiloh, you're correct. Let me be your negotiator. I'm good at it, and for enough money, I could be persuaded to argue in bad faith.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/20/clinton-heading-to-middle-east-as-israel-prepares-ground-war-on-gaza/
"I could be persuaded to argue in bad faith."
ok, that was somewhat amusing as district attorneys, whether con or lib, argue in bad faith all the time lol.
hmm, equal protection under the law.
Let's just give up on the middle east, move Israel to southern California, no doubt they would solve the illegal immigrant problem and maybe turn California's governance problem around. Then we could just sit back and watch muslims kill each other, because that's what will happen without Jews to hate. Of course when they're tired of that they'll move on Europe, no problem we can give up on that too.
FORWARD!
shiloh said...
How deeply cynical are you, Shiloh?
I'm a realist since men have been killing men, Cain and Abel, since the dawn of creationism! :-P
No, he's described himself as an independent contractor (of course, 30 pieces of silver doesn't go as far as it once did), so, even at best, he's nothing but a hired keyboard.
Considering he can't come up with anything beyond his standard boilerplate, it's doubtful he's even that.
As I say, he just wants somebody to hate, to be glad when something goes against them.
If he were a realist, he'd say Barry has continued the war, but not with the efficiency or skill of Dubya, Darth, Condi, and Rummy. If he were a realist, he applaud them for going after the people who attacked us, but he doesn't.
So all we have left is an embittered little husk mad at the world because he isn't as good as the rest of us.
He really needs help.
PS Except for Cook's usual boilerplate about war crimes, I think he was on the money.
Again, if not for libs, Althouse would be a total bore! :::zzz:::
Although having some halfway intelligent libs would make for a more interesting discussion forum.
shiloh said...
Again, if not for libs, Althouse would be a total bore! :::zzz:::
Spoken by a total bore.
At least Ann goes out and finds interesting things to talk about other than politics.
The little weasel can't even do that.
Clinton, along with other middle east leaders, heading to Gaza to legitimise Hamas, a terrorist org. Just like Obama did for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Balfegore wrote:
Eh, not really. His "policy" on Egypt was confused for a while, and in the end, we were largely irrelevant to what happened. On Libya, policy was driven by the Europeans, and we were just along for the ride (and to provide the planes. And bombs). Leading from behind, as they said.
Wrong.
" But it is his doing if he never fulfills the promise that people excessively projected onto him."
Wrong. He was not responsible for "the promise people excessively projected onto him". Everyone knows bad things were Bush's fault. Obama was responsible for killing Osama with his bear hands, and nothing else.
The Norwegians had money to burn, it's their fault, not our soon to be dearest Dear Leader's. The ignorant people projected their hopes onto a snake oil peddler, a slumlord protecting community organizer, it's their fault, not his. He was doing his best for himself and his family.
After four years of abject failures, he was re-elected to do four more on the strength of stuffing Big Bird with taxpayers' money, giving Fluke free condoms, scapegoating a parolee for the mayhems in Benghazi. The people excessively projected the promise that things would get better onto him. He has not made such a promise, and is incapable of keeping such a promise.
He was blameless in last four years, he will remain blameless in the next four. The Republican House and Rubio instead of Bush will be the ones to blame.
I'll take "Fair" for $1000, Alex.
phx wrote:
You know how this self-serving game the cons play goes.
Whatever goes wrong is Obama's fault.
Whatever goes right is because of someone else.
We also know your side will play it out. Whatever went wrong, why that was Bush's fault.
It's pretty clear from the comments that many of you want Obama to fail. I hope you change your mind. Think about what would be best for the country at this point rather than what will justify you and the vote you made November 6.
But if you don't and you continue to make it clear that you want Obama to fail, don't be surprised if the rest of America turns further and further away from you in the days ahead.
I know many Republicans really do want the country and our President to succeed and are looking ahead rather than behind. I believe that, unfortunately for them, they will continue to be saddled with the views of the extremists in the GOP and the Tea Party unless they make it known they are carving out a future without them.
Oh? It's pie in the sky utopianism to expect our country and our President not to commit mass murder?
You don't murder animals, you kill them. Islamic terrorists fall in a similar category.
Obamashmuck: Can I bomb the shit outta them goddammed Yids yet, Val?
Jarrett: Well, you do have The Responsibility To Protect.
Obamapuke: Yeah, come to think of it that crazy ginger Samantha Power bitch gave me a stick to beat those Jews good, god how I hate them Yids.
Jarrett: We need an atrocity, boss, then we take that to the UN and talk up R2P and then...
Obamashit: But I want to kill the Kikes now, Val, I want to so bad!
Jarrett: Soon, boss, soon.
A man of with character would have refused to accept the unearned Nobel Peace Prize.
A man of with character would have refused to accept the unearned Nobel Peace Prize.
When we know more about you maybe we could judge if you know anything at all about what a man of character would do. Right now you aren't off to a good start.
re: McTriumph:
Re: the missiles hitting Tel Aviv, you are probably right. But again, is that new? If we're talking about blaming Obama, I don't think that US policy of the past 4 years (or the past 12) has particularly affected Iran's involvement with the anti-Israel terrorist groups. They've been heavily involved the entire time and we've never been successful in deterring them.
re: jr565
Balfegore wrote:
Eh, not really. His "policy" on Egypt was confused for a while, and in the end, we were largely irrelevant to what happened. On Libya, policy was driven by the Europeans, and we were just along for the ride (and to provide the planes. And bombs). Leading from behind, as they said.
Wrong.
Hmm? How so? What was Obama's policy that led to Egypt and Libya?
It's pretty clear from the comments that many of you want Obama to fail. I hope you change your mind. Think about what would be best for the country
From my standpoint, I want him to fail because I think his policies ARE bad for the country. I think this is the disconnect that liberals have. Why should I support a President who I truly believe is not going to better the nation?
re: phx:
When we know more about you maybe we could judge if you know anything at all about what a man of character would do. Right now you aren't off to a good start.
What are you talking about? We know a lot about his character! For example, that he's a hobo who lives in a barrel. And that he's a bit daft and carries a lamp around in broad daylight pretending he's blind or something.
I believe that, unfortunately for them, they will continue to be saddled with the views of the extremists in the GOP and the Tea Party unless they make it known they are carving out a future without them.
This might come as a surprise but the real extremists are those who believe we can continue to pile in a trillion dollars a year in deficits or somehow get the deficit under control by taxing the top 1%.
If the majority of the country wants to move in that direction than oh well. Nations aren't perpetual.
Re: Colonel Angus:
From my standpoint, I want him to fail because I think his policies ARE bad for the country.
Exactly. When he pursues stupid policies, I want him to fail so we aren't stuck with stupid policies in the future. When he pursues policies that look like they might work, I would like him to succeed. For example, he's occasionally made noise about school reform. That hasn't really played out well, but maybe now that he's won his last election he'll be more willing to work with reformers to help schoolchildren escape the worst public schools and the most incompetent public schoolteachers.
When we know more about you maybe we could judge if you know anything at all about what a man of character would do. Right now you aren't off to a good start.
Typically when you are given an award, you did something to merit the award. Obama did nothing to merit being awarded The Nobel Peace Prize. I'm certain even you can see the ridiculousness of such an accoldae.
Yes you would think he would be a little more protective of the name he appropriated for himself.
phx said...
A man of with character would have refused to accept the unearned Nobel Peace Prize.
When we know more about you maybe we could judge if you know anything at all about what a man of character would do.
Hilarious.
Right up there with the chickenhawk defense. Anyone challenging a Lefty's character has to pass the Lefty character test (assuming there is one).
Unlike phx, Cook remains true to his code. We may not agree with it, we may be annoyed or mystified by it, but I think most of us can agree Cook calls 'em like he sees 'em.
phx wrote:
It's pretty clear from the comments that many of you want Obama to fail. I hope you change your mind. Think about what would be best for the country at this point rather than what will justify you and the vote you made November 6.
But if you don't and you continue to make it clear that you want Obama to fail, don't be surprised if the rest of America turns further and further away from you in the days ahead.
It depends on what you mean by wanting Obama to "fail". IF I'm against him raising the debt by another trillion this year then yes I want him to fail at doing that. If I'm against his policies, then yes I want those policies to not succeed.
In the case of wars I always want our country to win. I never described the war in Iraq as a diversion from the real war on terror. Do you think those making that statement that called the war unjust and a diversion from the real war on terror and say Bush lied and people died, did those people want Bush to succeed in Iraq? When they were saying they support the troops but not the mission did that somehow suggest to you that they supported the mission?
In the case of Obama's war in Afgahnistan, I do support it. But that doesn't mean I agree with how he's fighting it. In fact I probably support the mission a lot more than democrats do.
We had Biden talking about getting troops out of afghanistan on a set date NO matter what. It was Ryan and people like myself saying you can't make that promise.You have to base that decision on what's happening at the time. If on the day before we leave it looks like Israel vs Gaza does today, you probably don't want to leave at that moment if it means you lose all your gains.
So who is supporting Afhganistan, me or the dems?
In the case of Libya, I have to point out, that it was democrats who poopoohed Bush's push for democracy, and called him an idiot for making the argument. So, when Obama makes the same claim, its not that I dont support it, but can I not point out your sides utter hypocricy on it? When he eviscerates the war powers act, can I not make a point about that? Woudl you support Bush if he violated the War Powers act and sent in bombers to effect a regime change? YOu would be HOWLING in outrage, which would be suggestive that you were not supportive.
In the case of Egypt, if you're going to demand regime change, then perhaps you should have an expectation as to what comes after you get the regime to topple. If we get rid of a soft dictator who was relativey benign and maintained neutrality with Israel, and he gets replaced with the Muslim Brotherhood, perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to have pushed so hard to oust Mubarak without having a back up plan.
Dems had NO problems calling everything BUsh did reprehensible. You should expect a similar response.
Balfegore wrote:
Wrong.
Hmm? How so? What was Obama's policy that led to Egypt and Libya?
Look it up.
... maybe now that he's won his last election he'll be more willing to work with reformers to help schoolchildren escape the worst public schools and the most incompetent public schoolteachers.
And maybe pigs have wings.
Once you wih ANYTHING from the Nobel committee, who are under no obligation to look at the world as you prefer to see it, you can tell them whether you deserve it.
Well in the past, the prize was awarded to an individual who has actually DONE SOMETHING to advance the cause of peace.
I guess some of us were just looking at precedents.
Except for the security of Israel and jihad not reaching our shores, I don't give shit about the middle east. If the left and Obama weren't such luddites, we'd have all the energy we need here and be exporting it.
Dems had NO problems calling everything BUsh did reprehensible. You should expect a similar response.
and ...
We also know your side will play it out. Whatever went wrong, why that was Bush's fault.
I'm not responsible for anyone's "side". I'm responsible for my own behaviors. I don't give myself a pass to act a way that I think is wrong because other people have done that.
What about you? Do you allow yourself to engage in language or behaviors towards Obama that you would normally think weren't fair or just because in your view others did the same thing to Bush?
btw, Gaffney is a certifiable neocon lunatic ... on a good day!
@shiloh, and you're a certifiable member of the left-wing lunatic fringe on every day of your life.
Ah, it feels good to get down in the gutter with scum like you, shiloh. Just I need to take hot shower with laundry soap afterwards.
You forget the most important tag for this post.
Obama is like Cedarford.
Obama does not have to "earn" his Peace Prize. He just has to do what he does best. Nothing. Just vote present and let Israel do what it has to do to clean out the terrorists and destroy the Bomb in Iran. Israel is not asking for our troops like our so-called Arab allies did. They are asking for limited logistical assistance and non-interference.
But that won't happen. Obama will move to save his buddies in the Muslim Brotherhood. He will do all he can to stop Israel from doing what must be done to these mindless barbarians.
And he won't care. What's a few dead Jews anyway?
@leslyn: I went right to the citation as well and was going to quote it at length, but then I realized it didn't help POTUS' cause or case. Also, you should keep in mind that he was nominated before he was sworn in.
As Althouse intimates, subsequent events have indeed shown that Oslo's laudation, while hardfelt, was premature.
"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
And how's that workin out?
Well DAMN! I guess they just disagree with you, Colonel-Still-Thinks-It's-The-Civil-War.
I'm sure they do. They gave him the award solely on his 'vision' and 'hope' rather than on, you know, substance.
The delicious irony is that he really hasn't accomplished any of that and in fact, doubled down on drone attacks, regime change and assasinations. So in reality, the Nobel Committee completely beclowned itself. Then again, that's nothing new.
"It's pretty clear from the comments that many of you want Obama to fail. I hope you change your mind. Think about what would be best for the country"
I gave him a pass for 4 years, even though I didn't like him. Now, all I want is for the press to do their damn job. It's high time that they covered this Administration with the same sort of detail that they would cover a Republican administration. I want answers on Benghazi and I'm tired of hearing how "racist" it is to ask for that.
phx wrote:
I'm not responsible for anyone's "side". I'm responsible for my own behaviors. I don't give myself a pass to act a way that I think is wrong because other people have done that.
You're arguing from one side though. WHere were you when your side was railing against all things Bush?
would normally think weren't fair or just because in your view others did the same thing to Bush?
People should be fair in their criticisms. It's just hilarious that dems and libs after blaming everything taht happened on BUsh and his evil or competence are suddenly suggesting that people should view the other side fairly.
I'm responsible for my own behaviors. I don't give myself a pass to act a way that I think is wrong because other people have done that.
Yes you are, but in your shoes I'd take a harder look at your second sentence there. Are you lying to us? Or just to yourself?
Do you allow yourself to engage in language or behaviors towards Obama that you would normally think weren't fair or just because in your view others did the same thing to Bush?
Nope. Nearly everything I criticize about Obama I would have criticized Bush about, had he stooped so low. I even criticized Bush over his deficit spending, not realizing that Bush's deficits were nickels and dimes next to Obamas.
Leslyn, when you resort to becoming a grammar Nazi on a blog's comment section, you should realize you're not winning the argument.
Just sayin dear.
Yes Leslyn, I did and I stand by my assertion. The Nobel Committee engaged in a goodly amount of projection to justify the award. Considering his subsequent actions as President, it is clear those projections were grossly unfounded.
and phx, remember it's your side arguing any objection to Obama is racism. This is true whtether its the tea party or John Mccain. Us repubs hate women, hate the poor, hate grandma and want to throw her off a cliff.
If you personally havne't made the charges about evil repubs, how many times did you tell "Your" side to cool it with the overblown rhetoric and demagoguery? How many times did you do so when the left was essentially piling on with their derangement on all things Bush?
The Norweigans are insane, and their Peace Prize should be viewed as part of their national insanity.
Further evidence can be found with Anders Breivik, who massacred 77 people, 55 of them teenagers. His sentence? 21 years!
So in other words, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because Obama represented a new hope (pardon the pun) rather than a material contribution toward it, and, was under no obligation, moral or otherwise to follow through on it.
That's what you are implying Leslyn. If it was me, I would stop trying to defend this pointless and ridiculous award to Obama. Seriously it was a joke then and even moreso now.
leslyn wrote:
Of course, you're right. Because the Peace Prize was before he became President, carried not obligation that he solve the world's problems as a result, much less the Middle Easts--and because of course, the topic of this post is,
so then why did they give it to him then? You will admit though that, in retrospect it probably wasn't a good choice right?
@leslyn: You could at least chuckle and shrug that Nobel Committees do sometimes err. Even Sullivan laughed when the EU got the Peace Prize--"at least it wasn't for Economics"
leslyn how could you disagree with this statement?
I'm sure they do. They gave him the award solely on his 'vision' and 'hope' rather than on, you know, substance.
Since they awarded him an award before he became president it cant be based on anything he did, but rather the hope or vision of what he might do.
How could you possibly disagree with that statement.
So, in terms of furthering peace, how did he do? kill lists, drone strikes, multiple wars, not closing Guantanamo, killing OBL. sounds like a neocon, not like Dennis Kucinich.
Yes you are, but in your shoes I'd take a harder look at your second sentence there. Are you lying to us? Or just to yourself?
Do you have some evidence I'm lying Big Mike, or are you just showing your usual poor character?
Obama has been a miserable failure as President and it will get worse in his second term. It always does for two term President.
The campaign he ran has lost him the chance for any bi-partisan cooperation of any degree. His radical agenda will become clearer as he becomes more "flexible" in his second term.
We will be seeing more of the "real" Obama. The one who says stuff like "I won" and "You didn't build that" and "we need to spread the wealth around."
It is not going to be pretty.
leslyn said:
Before you go calling a respected institution ignorant, perhaps you would like to check your spelling, punctuation, and EXIT POLLS.
Oh, dear, and not so very long after she posted this:
Once you wih [sic] ANYTHING from the Nobel committee, who are under no obligation to look at the world as you prefer to see it, you can tell them whether you deserve it.
If you personally havne't made the charges about evil repubs, how many times did you tell "Your" side to cool it with the overblown rhetoric and demagoguery? How many times did you do so when the left was essentially piling on with their derangement on all things Bush?
You recognize the fallacy of this argument, right? You can see it's an ad hominem?
Obviously, there are benighted regions of the Middle East that do not yet appreciate His especial radiance.
Nor do I tell your side to "cool it with the overblown rhetoric and demagoguery."
I don't care what you do. But I often do point out what I see.
phx wrote:
You recognize the fallacy of this argument, right? You can see it's an ad hominem?
How so? I'm suggesting that in fact you ARE arguing from a side, that you are not arguing from a neutral position and that the side you are arguing from has done nothing but make the attacks you decry and say are unfair.
And yet you then weigh in pretending to be all impartial and above such partisanship.
How so? I'm suggesting that in fact you ARE arguing from a side, that you are not arguing from a neutral position and that the side you are arguing from has done nothing but make the attacks you decry and say are unfair.
And yet you then weigh in pretending to be all impartial and above such partisanship.
I don't belong to a "team" - it's not my "side". I'm not responsible for what anyone else does or says, any more than you are responsible for ALL or ANY of righties on your side. It would be hell on earth if we were, wouldn't it?
If someone unfairly castigated Bush you have a problem with THEM, not with ME. But if you unfairly castigate Obama, you may have a problem with me.
phx wrote:
I don't care what you do. But I often do point out what I see
RIght, the word to stress is "often". Meaning you often do not.And aren't you complaining that the other side isn't doing it ALWAYS? well then apply the same standard to yourself hypocrite.
RIght, the word to stress is "often". Meaning you often do not.And aren't you complaining that the other side isn't doing it ALWAYS? well then apply the same standard to yourself hypocrite.
And there's the ad hominem. "You have no right to accuse me of mistreating animals when you are wearing leather shoes. Hypocrite!"
That's arguing against the person rather than point that was the issue - whether one was mistreating animals or not.
You are also saying I'm not allowed to deal with someone's perceived malfeasance until I apparently show the same concern for everyone else's in the world. This is the equivelant of a child's argument - "You let Billy get away with it."
Raise your standards jr565. You aren't stupid.
The press of events will serve to illustrate how empty and brittle is this sham of a President.
Benghazi is just the first drip of the deluge. War in the Middle East.
An Iranian nuclear bomb. The takeover of the rest of the Middle East by radical Isalm. The fiscal cliff. No budget again. Unemployment over 12%. Gas at $10 a gallon and rationed at that.
His second term will not be pretty.
phx wrote:
If someone unfairly castigated Bush you have a problem with THEM, not with ME. But if you unfairly castigate Obama, you may have a problem with me.
IF someone unfairly castigated Bush would YOU have a problem with them or they with you? Or were those times instances when you decided to look away.
And lets look again at what you say,and see if you indeed are not taking sides;
You know how this self-serving game the cons play goes.
Whatever goes wrong is Obama's fault.
Whatever goes right is because of someone else.
THAT'S NOT A BLANKET STATEMENT ASCRIBED TO ALL CONS?! Sounds an awful lot like you are arguing from one side. Not someone cons, not, the cons who play the game. All Cons. That's not only a blanket statement on ALL Cons. But also a blanket statement that no con is arguing in good faith that some Obama policies are legitimately to be blamed on Obama.
Of course he will sit in the oval office and repeat over and over again the one important fact:
"I won."
phx wrote:
You are also saying I'm not allowed to deal with someone's perceived malfeasance until I apparently show the same concern for everyone else's in the world. This is the equivelant of a child's argument - "You let Billy get away with it."
Well did you let Billy get away with it and not comment? Sounds like youre pickings sides there. So perhaps where you come at the question of what is or isn't a fair criticism is coloered by where you stand. Its not that you don't have to deal with all the other malfeasance in the world first, but my guess is, the other malfeasance that existed in the world was not commented upon by you, because you either didnt' know that it was malfeasance or didnt' care.Which is only to suggest that you are not the neutral party you pretend to be.
Can a republican hold a position that something is Obama's fault and it not be the "Cons Game" that "All the Cons play" inherent in your so called call for fairness is an absolute bias pointing one way.
or let me translate it for you in PHX speak:
You know how this self-serving game the libs play goes.
Whatever goes wrong is Bush's fault.
Right about then would be the time you'd demand fairness and non blanket statements from conservatives making that point. Why then did you make that point using that exact language to apply to all cons? BECAUSE YOU ARE A HYPOCCRITE IS WHY.
THAT'S NOT A BLANKET STATEMENT ASCRIBED TO ALL CONS?! Sounds an awful lot like you are arguing from one side. Not someone cons, not, the cons who play the game. All Cons. That's not only a blanket statement on ALL Cons. But also a blanket statement that no con is arguing in good faith that some Obama policies are legitimately to be blamed on Obama.
I am not tying any particular con to that position, as for instance, you are trying to tie ME to what you say libs did to Bush.
And you are selectively quoting me. From this same thread, I wrote:
"I know many Republicans really do want the country and our President to succeed and are looking ahead rather than behind. I believe that, unfortunately for them, they will continue to be saddled with the views of the extremists in the GOP and the Tea Party unless they make it known they are carving out a future without them."
I think I'm pretty careful about not attaching responsibility to any individual for actions I don't know they aren't responsible for.
You however, jr565, don't seem to think it will matter if it seems to help your argument.
Well did you let Billy get away with it and not comment? Sounds like youre pickings sides there.
Just because I agree with someone's side about a parituclar issue does NOT mean I'm responsible for everyone on that side and all the issues they believe.
You need to get this clear if you want to argue correctly jr565, and not just be a ranter.
I have never pretended to be a "neutral party." I said I'm not responsible for what other people who call themselves lefties, liberals or Obama supporters say or do.
You haven't stepped back to see the childishness of the position you are taking!
Can a republican hold a position that something is Obama's fault and it not be the "Cons Game" that "All the Cons play" inherent in your so called call for fairness is an absolute bias pointing one way.
Yes, they absolutely can. You are right about this. I intended to say it was a game "cons" were playing but not all cons. I'm happy to clarify that.
phx wrote:
I am not tying any particular con to that position, as for instance, you are trying to tie ME to what you say libs did to Bush.
if you say CONS you are applying it to all cons.
Whatever goes wrong is Bush's fault.
I actually haven't heard this here. If you do point it out to me.
phx wrote:
I have never pretended to be a "neutral party." I said I'm not responsible for what other people who call themselves lefties, liberals or Obama supporters say or do.
You haven't stepped back to see the childishness of the position you are taking!
And then CONS are not responsible the positions that all cons say or do. if you don't like people using blanket language it doesn't help when you do the same. If you can clarify your statement to include cons, but not all cons, then cons can clarify their statment to include lbs but not every lib. Right?
I don't know about that, DAD, but they didn't see any down side going after 4 Americans in Libya.
True. It may be fair, but they won't put any blame on Obama. Obama was smart and got a "The Buck Passes Here" sign for his desk.
phx wrote:
This is the same ole, same ole on Althouse. The only ones who can't see through that game are the cons themselves.
All the cons on Althouse?
By your definition, that would make you a "ranter".
@jr656 My statements were clarified in this thread just a little below. Further I clarify my statements here everyday that I don't hold all cons, wingers, or Republicans responsible for the extreme behaviors and words that constantly stream through this site. You and I have exchanged enough and courteously enough that you should know that.
You're right though. THAT particular sentence "Cons are playing a game" should have been properly qualified by "Many cons here are playing a game." Maybe I should name the names, but I think it's pretty obvious who does that.
phx wrote:
No, but I don't blindly blame Obama for everything that's wrong in the world today, like Althouse cons do daily.
Not some Althouse cons, but all Althouse cons? And blindly? Not one Althouse con has argued anything that wasn't out of blindness when it comes to Obama's failures?
See, the problem with you is, you think your shit doesn't stink PHX.
phx wrote:
Maybe I should name the names, but I think it's pretty obvious who does that.
And we can make the same argument about libs "Maybe I should name the names, but I think it's pretty obvious who does that."
So, you're asking for a short hand when it comes to describing cons, and we should all know who the people you are referring to are when you use that shorthand, and yet if cons use shorthand to describe people (and it's pretty obvious who they are referring to) why then PHX's panties get all in a bunch.
"I know many Republicans really do want the country and our President to succeed and are looking ahead rather than behind. I believe that, unfortunately for them, they will continue to be saddled with the views of the extremists in the GOP and the Tea Party unless they make it known they are carving out a future without them."
See, your ignoring this and now some of the baser motives you harbor are starting to show themselves.
jr565 has the better of it in this exchange, phx. I respectfully suggest you step back from the argument and take a cliser look in the mirror.
phx wrote:
I'm not responsible for anyone's "side". I'm responsible for my own behaviors. I don't give myself a pass to act a way that I think is wrong because other people have done that.
Well in fact, I think that you do give yourself a pass.
It is all well and good to derail the discussion into what liberals and conservatives think, but to get back to the point of this thread- The Middle East is about to blow up and President Obama will be on the wrong side of the conflict (talking about sides).
Israel is moving to protect itself as bombs are falling on their capital. But Obama will put the weight of the United States on Israel to stop them from destroying Hamas and other terrorist entities. He will facilitate the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood as he did in Egypt and Libya.
Every terrorist the Israeli's kill is one less that could attack us. Obama doesn't see it that way. Dead Jews don't matter to him.
Maybe he can get another Peace Prize out of it.
The Europeans find Israel very distasteful as well. How dare they try to survive.
Phx, they seem to thik that they can spout all sorts of stuff that we libs consider nonsense or worse, and not have us point out the error of their ways. Yes it's a majority conservative comment section, but until there are no liberals that comment here anymore, we will continue to call out what we see as bullshit.
You folks most certainly can do the same and do, to us liberals. We don't HAVE to agree.
Cue Cedarford to talk about "Neo-cons" and "Progressive Jews in the media" and all the little Obamaites will nod their head and go "Good point" our God can do no wrong.
Wait and see.
phx wrote:
I actually haven't heard this here. If you do point it out to me.
REALLY. So then when dems (and to clarify, not every single dem excluding the few who do not say that), excuse Obama's handling of the economy as being a response to Bush's handling of the economy that is an argument youve never heard?
So then, if you don't want to place the blame on Bush, that would mean Obama is resonsible for the last four years of the economy, right?
rcommal I respect you but right now that's not how it's seeming to me.
Oh, looks like a ceasefire has been called. Seems Zemo will be dissapointed.
I already said I should have qualified "Cons play games". I demonstrated with my quote from this thread, before the argument began, that I did not believe "all cons" are doing that.
I think you both should re-walk through this argument step by step.
@jr565, I think you and I and rcommal are in strong agreement. My take is that phx is mentally incapable of the level of introspection necessary to understand that he was deep into self-delusion when he wrote that second sentence. But maybe I do him (her?) a disservice. Maybe he's just a run-of-the-mill repackager of liberal talking points and doesn't see the contradiction.
Oh! no final agreement yet, carry on Zemo.
Phx, they seem to thik [sic] that they can spout all sorts of stuff that we libs consider nonsense or worse ...
It's called "reality," Inga. Let me know when you're ready to live in the real world.
Only Hamas has stated that there will be an agreement.
Of course you only listen to the Muslim extremists just like your President.
That is the point of this whole thread but you don't see it.
But it will become quite clear very shortly.
Benghazi will be just the tip of the iceberg.
"The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam."
Inga wrote:
Phx, they seem to thik that they can spout all sorts of stuff that we libs consider nonsense or worse, and not have us point out the error of their ways. Yes it's a majority conservative comment section, but until there are no liberals that comment here anymore, we will continue to call out what we see as bullshit.
Who is saying you can't call bullshit? But it just as well may be true that what you see as calling us on our bullshit is an example of you in fact spewing it.
And by the way PHX, here's an example of the reverse which you will conveniently ignore. Note Inga's use of short hand to describe ALL liberals. they seem to thik that they can spout all sorts of stuff that we libs consider nonsense or worse, and not have us point out the error of their ways
Who is THEY? ALl conservatives on the boards? And note how Inga appropriates her ideas to those of ALL libs. If she can do so, why can't cons say Libs without having you weigh in on how one side is using blanket statements to describe all groups.
My guess is, when Inga says ALL libs, that wont pop up on your radar, since of course, to you that's not really egregious. Because the standard you want applied is one where Inga can say ALL libs or ALL conservatives and not get commentary from you because you think that such blanket statemetns are in fact fair.
Again, you are not the non partisan guy above the fray you pretend to be.
Big Mike, funny, I was about to say something almost exactly like you just did about conservatives, amazing how we see reality differently.
Perhaps our brains truly are wired differently as some studies suggest.
"I know many Republicans really do want the country and our President to succeed and are looking ahead rather than behind. I believe that, unfortunately for them, they will continue to be saddled with the views of the extremists in the GOP and the Tea Party unless they make it known they are carving out a future without them."
Not once have you acknowledged that I wrote this IN THIS THREAD that I can see. That seems dishonest that you refuse to recognize my evidence against your charges that I paint ALL cons one way.
"If you can clarify your statement to include cons, but not all cons, then cons can clarify their statment to include lbs but not every lib. Right? "
Except that there are Libertarians, libertarians, Republicans, conservatives, neocons, Tea Party conservatives, Christian conservatives, paleo-conservatives, etc., with diverse viewpoints here. (Although most of us know a wholly incompetent POTUS when we see one - Obama - just as we knew a partially incompetent one when we saw him - Bush.)
By comparison, there are only articulate lefties and inarticulate lefties, all of whom are groupthinkers, except for Cookie, who is possibly a real, live Marxist.
Jr.,
What you fail to see is that there are degrees to how far one leans, on both sides and those who are truly independent. Perhaps it's better to use the caveat of the word "some" when speaking in generalizations. Most people understand this though.
"Not once have you acknowledged that I wrote this IN THIS THREAD that I can see. That seems dishonest that you refuse to recognize my evidence against your charges that I paint ALL cons one way. "
"Republican" and "conservative" are not synonymous.
"Perhaps it's better to use the caveat of the word "some" when speaking in generalizations. Most people understand this though."
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....
By accepting the award, Obama became complicit in it. Then he became the all-time leader for drone killings by a Nobel Peace Prize winner, which I'm sure secretly rankles the Scandis who gave it out.
In any case, Obama only does campaigns, golf and partying. If there is serious work to be done, like killing Bin Laden, someone else will have to do the heavy lifting, and Obama will have to be yanked off the golf course for the photo op.
Make peace in the Middle East? Who do you think he is, Jimmy Carter?
Clyde
That's going to leave a mark!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा