Laugh At This
Were these Democrats lying? Stupid? Or simply playing politics? "Bush bad uber alles!"
Democrat Liars?
Were these Democrats lying? Stupid? Or simply playing politics? "Bush bad uber alles!"
Democrat Liars?
Our plan is working DWS
- Thread starter davegolf
- Start date
He probably heard a Limbaugh rant that included the line. . .
"Blah blah blah the liberals, just like they lost Vietnam for us". . .just a comment with absolutely no explanation and no evidence. Dave heard that and said "Yes, Rush, thank you for bringing that absolute fact to my attention. I'll straighten out all those libs in the cooler with that fact."
"Blah blah blah the liberals, just like they lost Vietnam for us". . .just a comment with absolutely no explanation and no evidence. Dave heard that and said "Yes, Rush, thank you for bringing that absolute fact to my attention. I'll straighten out all those libs in the cooler with that fact."
The joke is on you...
I'm registered independent and have been for quite some time because I think both parties are made up of (mostly) lying shitbags. Although I do believe republicans tend to be more insane. If there is no other choice I'll vote democrat simply because they are less crazy.
It was a cute video though. Sooooooooo, they said Hussein was TRYING to get nuclear weapons. Ok. They mentioned chemical weapons. Yes, Reagan gave them to him and he may have still had some. I forgot, how many times did Hussein use those against the U.S.? And they made no mention of Powel's sales job on all these weapons we would find. Hell, after his little power point and video I was convinced we'd find the mother load after we invaded. The Bush administration sold a bill of goods that they called "intelligence".
Sure, Hussein was always trying to make weapons. What ruthless murdering dictator isn't? Did he actually have any? I'm still waiting for that mother load I was told we'd find. If Hussein did have them he was far more likely to use them on his own people or against Iran. . .going by history anyways.
I'm not sure what your point was. Was I supposed to be upset? Please, feel free to post more videos. I find them entertaining.
I'm registered independent and have been for quite some time because I think both parties are made up of (mostly) lying shitbags. Although I do believe republicans tend to be more insane. If there is no other choice I'll vote democrat simply because they are less crazy.
It was a cute video though. Sooooooooo, they said Hussein was TRYING to get nuclear weapons. Ok. They mentioned chemical weapons. Yes, Reagan gave them to him and he may have still had some. I forgot, how many times did Hussein use those against the U.S.? And they made no mention of Powel's sales job on all these weapons we would find. Hell, after his little power point and video I was convinced we'd find the mother load after we invaded. The Bush administration sold a bill of goods that they called "intelligence".
Sure, Hussein was always trying to make weapons. What ruthless murdering dictator isn't? Did he actually have any? I'm still waiting for that mother load I was told we'd find. If Hussein did have them he was far more likely to use them on his own people or against Iran. . .going by history anyways.
I'm not sure what your point was. Was I supposed to be upset? Please, feel free to post more videos. I find them entertaining.
Here is your problem Dave,
You seem to assume Obama has a plan. Obama has no clue what ISIS is, where it is, where it is going, what it's objective is, or what the long game is. Why do you expect a plan when Obama had no clue?
This is remarkably similar to the Iran nuke negotiations. Obama has no objectve there either. His precious "snap back" sanctions means about as much as "if you like your doctor . . . ." which is nothing but a vacuous talking point.
It should now be clear that the only plan or objective of Obama's entire presidency is to give him talking points while he pretends to act like a president.
You seem to assume Obama has a plan. Obama has no clue what ISIS is, where it is, where it is going, what it's objective is, or what the long game is. Why do you expect a plan when Obama had no clue?
This is remarkably similar to the Iran nuke negotiations. Obama has no objectve there either. His precious "snap back" sanctions means about as much as "if you like your doctor . . . ." which is nothing but a vacuous talking point.
It should now be clear that the only plan or objective of Obama's entire presidency is to give him talking points while he pretends to act like a president.
Well, I'm convinced. . .
That you are the "independent expert" I hear referenced in Fox News clips. You know, the "expert" who's contrary "facts" are referenced without evidence on a regular basis. Don't be modest, it's you.
That you are the "independent expert" I hear referenced in Fox News clips. You know, the "expert" who's contrary "facts" are referenced without evidence on a regular basis. Don't be modest, it's you.
If you think I am an exper now
Think how awesome I'd be if I had billions of dollars and thousands of employees devoted to providing me with current information, historic research, and suggestions about what to do. But to be POTUS I'd have to actually receive and be able to act on that input in the public interest instead of giving speeches about it.
This post was edited on 4/19 12:58 PM by CO. Hoosier
Think how awesome I'd be if I had billions of dollars and thousands of employees devoted to providing me with current information, historic research, and suggestions about what to do. But to be POTUS I'd have to actually receive and be able to act on that input in the public interest instead of giving speeches about it.
This post was edited on 4/19 12:58 PM by CO. Hoosier
He said
Their only objective is terror. That is clueless and naive. It is in the same league as snap back sanctions and if you like your doctor.
Their only objective is terror. That is clueless and naive. It is in the same league as snap back sanctions and if you like your doctor.
It's because President Obama hasn't sent CO an email detailing. . .
Current intelligence along with any and all details of what is happening, plus Bill O'Reilly said there was no plan.
Current intelligence along with any and all details of what is happening, plus Bill O'Reilly said there was no plan.
Actually Obama has sent out an email
About ISIS. He wants to figure out how to develop them into a voting block and a political contributor.
About ISIS. He wants to figure out how to develop them into a voting block and a political contributor.
The Point Was This
You blamed Iraq on Bush.
The tossed in Reagan for good measure.
All the while claiming you're an independent.
Bush did what the Democrats said needed doing. So either point us to your criticism of anyone quoted in that video or admit that you apply different standards to Democrats and Republicans.
Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran as late as 1983 and against the Kurds in 1988. He invaded Kuwait in 1990. The first UN Resolution he ignored was passed in 1991. On November 8, 2002, 11 years later (ELEVEN!! YEARS), the UN still said he was in "material breach" of his WMD obligations.
In March 2003, when Bush DID what the Democrats SAID needed doing, it did not take a month before everybody in that video was targeting the intel instead of Saddam - as if intel is EVER reliable. (No US President has had "certain" intel since the Battle of Midway.) Instead of "politics stop at the waters edge," and unqualified support of the war they VOTED FOR, they turned on Bush. They made the deaths a political tool.
Despicable.
Just like the whiners who urged Lincoln to fight the south, and then when the war turned ugly, (as if it never does!) backstabbed him and said he should have let the slaveholders leave the Union.
You blamed Iraq on Bush.
The tossed in Reagan for good measure.
All the while claiming you're an independent.
Bush did what the Democrats said needed doing. So either point us to your criticism of anyone quoted in that video or admit that you apply different standards to Democrats and Republicans.
Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran as late as 1983 and against the Kurds in 1988. He invaded Kuwait in 1990. The first UN Resolution he ignored was passed in 1991. On November 8, 2002, 11 years later (ELEVEN!! YEARS), the UN still said he was in "material breach" of his WMD obligations.
In March 2003, when Bush DID what the Democrats SAID needed doing, it did not take a month before everybody in that video was targeting the intel instead of Saddam - as if intel is EVER reliable. (No US President has had "certain" intel since the Battle of Midway.) Instead of "politics stop at the waters edge," and unqualified support of the war they VOTED FOR, they turned on Bush. They made the deaths a political tool.
Despicable.
Just like the whiners who urged Lincoln to fight the south, and then when the war turned ugly, (as if it never does!) backstabbed him and said he should have let the slaveholders leave the Union.
So, because I'm independent I'm supposed to ignore the facts?. . .
Bush invaded Iraq.
Reagan gave chemical weapons to Hussein.
Clinton signed that piece of sh!t NAFTA bill (that republicans wrote, but he still signed it), which was one of the biggest betrayals on American workers.
Is there anything else I can help you with?
Bush invaded Iraq.
Reagan gave chemical weapons to Hussein.
Clinton signed that piece of sh!t NAFTA bill (that republicans wrote, but he still signed it), which was one of the biggest betrayals on American workers.
Is there anything else I can help you with?
CoH, Think we can agree...
...that, just like Obama, we think ISIL is a highly successful terrorist group and by virtue of this ranks very high on our list of enemies.
Where we might have a disagreement is about whether ISIL's interpretation of Islam makes them more or less dangerous as an opponent.
I think ISIL's brand of Islam makes them less attractive in terms of recruitment. However, having said that, ISIL seems to be attracting recruits from just about everywhere. Makes me wonder if the recruits are being attracted for religious dogma, or some other reasons, or a combination of things.
...that, just like Obama, we think ISIL is a highly successful terrorist group and by virtue of this ranks very high on our list of enemies.
Where we might have a disagreement is about whether ISIL's interpretation of Islam makes them more or less dangerous as an opponent.
I think ISIL's brand of Islam makes them less attractive in terms of recruitment. However, having said that, ISIL seems to be attracting recruits from just about everywhere. Makes me wonder if the recruits are being attracted for religious dogma, or some other reasons, or a combination of things.
Said davegolf's ODS addled wingman
I'm imagining a Jeff Foxworthy routine: "You might be a wingnut". The examples would all be your inane posts propping up the dumbest poster in the history of this board. When did you decide to become davegolf's wingman?
I'm imagining a Jeff Foxworthy routine: "You might be a wingnut". The examples would all be your inane posts propping up the dumbest poster in the history of this board. When did you decide to become davegolf's wingman?
Actually, you already have vast resources available to you
You could type simple searches into Google and learn all manner of things. But you conspicuously don't, preferring instead to pull stuff out of your ass. You may be the laziest poster on this board.
You could type simple searches into Google and learn all manner of things. But you conspicuously don't, preferring instead to pull stuff out of your ass. You may be the laziest poster on this board.
What is sad is that
several of you believe that ISIL/ISIS killing of Ethiopian Christians requires no action by the US. It is there problem not ours. Of course I understand that USA Today is a right wing news source and their reporting is not reliable. DWS
Christians Killed
several of you believe that ISIL/ISIS killing of Ethiopian Christians requires no action by the US. It is there problem not ours. Of course I understand that USA Today is a right wing news source and their reporting is not reliable. DWS
Christians Killed
Really?
How is that sad? Do you honestly think it's our job to go in and stop crimes against humanity wherever they happen in the world?
How is that sad? Do you honestly think it's our job to go in and stop crimes against humanity wherever they happen in the world?
The primary appeal of ISIS
Is like an Islamic gang that is taking over the 'hood. Syria, Iraq and Libya are no longer countries as we think of a country. The Syria/Iraq border does not exist as ISIS has set up shop in the region and does not recognize either country. ISIS is growing. ISIS is a significant geopolitical force. Like any gang, ISIS is giving millions of people something to believe in and fight for when they have nothing else. Obama and his brain trust see none of this. He stupidly said ISIS has no ideology beyond terrorism and killing people. We can't address this with a few air raids and Arab boots on the ground. We need to understand what the ISIS movement is, the long term objectives and then respond. President Sisi opened the door New Years Day and we have yet to even see the door let alone walk through it. ISIS is indeed Islamic and is motivated by ideas; not terrorism. We need to address it along side of other Muslims who see the problems. This is a hard task and it will take a great deal of leadership. Obama is too lazy to put in the effort and no world leader will follow him anyway. Even the Iranian defector took the time to point out how feckless Obama has been with the nuke negotiations.
Is like an Islamic gang that is taking over the 'hood. Syria, Iraq and Libya are no longer countries as we think of a country. The Syria/Iraq border does not exist as ISIS has set up shop in the region and does not recognize either country. ISIS is growing. ISIS is a significant geopolitical force. Like any gang, ISIS is giving millions of people something to believe in and fight for when they have nothing else. Obama and his brain trust see none of this. He stupidly said ISIS has no ideology beyond terrorism and killing people. We can't address this with a few air raids and Arab boots on the ground. We need to understand what the ISIS movement is, the long term objectives and then respond. President Sisi opened the door New Years Day and we have yet to even see the door let alone walk through it. ISIS is indeed Islamic and is motivated by ideas; not terrorism. We need to address it along side of other Muslims who see the problems. This is a hard task and it will take a great deal of leadership. Obama is too lazy to put in the effort and no world leader will follow him anyway. Even the Iranian defector took the time to point out how feckless Obama has been with the nuke negotiations.
Ah, yes, the old COH standby.
This is probably the, what, 5,000th time you've voiced this complaint? And yet, you still have yet to even once explain what it means.
Do you really think we'd be better off if Obama said publicly, "You know what? ISIS really does espouse a perfectly valid version of the Muslim religion?"
This is probably the, what, 5,000th time you've voiced this complaint? And yet, you still have yet to even once explain what it means.
Do you really think we'd be better off if Obama said publicly, "You know what? ISIS really does espouse a perfectly valid version of the Muslim religion?"
You are stuck in the mind trap
Of believing there is a "perfectly valid version of the Muslim religion". That is ignorant on two levels. First when it comes to ideology there is no such thing as a "perfectly valid" anything. Second Islam isn't only a religion, it's also a system of civil order.
Of believing there is a "perfectly valid version of the Muslim religion". That is ignorant on two levels. First when it comes to ideology there is no such thing as a "perfectly valid" anything. Second Islam isn't only a religion, it's also a system of civil order.
No, I'm not. And you're avoiding the question.
As I have explained many, many times, there is no objective way to state what the "true version" of a religion is. But that's not what I asked you about.
I asked why you think we'd be better off if Obama explicitly stated such. The benefits of rhetorically attacking the validity of ISIS as a religious movement seem pretty obvious to me, and I've gone over them many times. Such rhetoric, however, seems to bug the hell out of you, and you've never adequately explained why.
This post was edited on 4/19 9:30 PM by TheOriginalHappyGoat
As I have explained many, many times, there is no objective way to state what the "true version" of a religion is. But that's not what I asked you about.
I asked why you think we'd be better off if Obama explicitly stated such. The benefits of rhetorically attacking the validity of ISIS as a religious movement seem pretty obvious to me, and I've gone over them many times. Such rhetoric, however, seems to bug the hell out of you, and you've never adequately explained why.
This post was edited on 4/19 9:30 PM by TheOriginalHappyGoat
I don't think that is the question
Obama and his team are totally ineffective with ISIS. He chose to bomb them for a reason. But his stated reason is ignorant. As has been said a time or two, he might know what ISIS is but doesn't want to say so. Okay, fine. But we don't see any actions from Obama that suggests he has any clue either. Meanwhile all we have to go on is what the man says.
Obama and his team are totally ineffective with ISIS. He chose to bomb them for a reason. But his stated reason is ignorant. As has been said a time or two, he might know what ISIS is but doesn't want to say so. Okay, fine. But we don't see any actions from Obama that suggests he has any clue either. Meanwhile all we have to go on is what the man says.
It's absolutely the question.
Which you continue to refuse to answer.
Let's assume your interpretation of his comments is accurate, for the sake of argument. If you're going to excoriate him for that - as you repeatedly do - then offer up a reason why the alternative is better. How would we be better off if he publicly acknowledged the validity of the ISIS version of Islam?
Which you continue to refuse to answer.
Let's assume your interpretation of his comments is accurate, for the sake of argument. If you're going to excoriate him for that - as you repeatedly do - then offer up a reason why the alternative is better. How would we be better off if he publicly acknowledged the validity of the ISIS version of Islam?
You have no clue why I excoriate Obama
ISIS is an ideology. It makes no difference if we call it Islam or Jack Squat. But Obama has no clue. He has said more than once it is only a terror group unhinged from Islam or anything else. You can't defeat an idea with bombs. If Obama thinks ISIS is worth bombing, ISIS is worth defeating. If we want to defeat it we need to understand what and who we are dealing with and what their intentions are. I think it is connected to Islam and so do other world leaders. But if Obama thinks otherwise that isn't a real big deal except that I think he looks stupid and therefore ineffective in leading on this issue. Reread my first post about this. We've come full circle.
ISIS is an ideology. It makes no difference if we call it Islam or Jack Squat. But Obama has no clue. He has said more than once it is only a terror group unhinged from Islam or anything else. You can't defeat an idea with bombs. If Obama thinks ISIS is worth bombing, ISIS is worth defeating. If we want to defeat it we need to understand what and who we are dealing with and what their intentions are. I think it is connected to Islam and so do other world leaders. But if Obama thinks otherwise that isn't a real big deal except that I think he looks stupid and therefore ineffective in leading on this issue. Reread my first post about this. We've come full circle.
ISIS has lost over a quarter of their Iraq territory
Overall situation isn't very good for them in Iraq.
Iraq retakes over quarter of 'Islamic State'
Overall situation isn't very good for them in Iraq.
Iraq retakes over quarter of 'Islamic State'
I didn't get that one. I didn't sign up at. . .
paranoidracistjerkoffs.org. Do they send out a regular newsletter? Are they affiliated, loosely or otherwise, with the 700 club?
paranoidracistjerkoffs.org. Do they send out a regular newsletter? Are they affiliated, loosely or otherwise, with the 700 club?
The President hasn't said they don't have an ideology.
What he's said, for the sake of our Muslim allies, and like Bush before him, is that Islamic terrorists pervert and insult the religion of Islam.
That statement is not an objective, academic statement. It is a subjective, moral one. And it's politically and diplomatically appropriate.
Nothing he's said would lead a reasonable person to believe that he doesn't understand the ideological basis of radical Islamic terror.
goat
What he's said, for the sake of our Muslim allies, and like Bush before him, is that Islamic terrorists pervert and insult the religion of Islam.
That statement is not an objective, academic statement. It is a subjective, moral one. And it's politically and diplomatically appropriate.
Nothing he's said would lead a reasonable person to believe that he doesn't understand the ideological basis of radical Islamic terror.
goat
Terrorism is an ideology...
...based upon the idea that by killing and intimidating others a group can take control of areas, cities, and regions. Once in control the terrorist group can then install its political and/or religious ideology.
The killing and intimidating of innocent citizens by a group wishing to control terrain is in and by itself a sufficient act against which governments such as ours find as a crime against humanity. One need go no further in reacting negatively to terrorism regardless of its core ideology beyond just the use of terrorism.
As I see it, no core belief system can justify terrorism from the standpoint of any major religion including Islam. I may seem clueless to some deep thinking pundits, but I am far from alone in my thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if ISIL before its final demise could actually bring Sunni and Shiite forces together. Allah can work in mysterious ways
.
...based upon the idea that by killing and intimidating others a group can take control of areas, cities, and regions. Once in control the terrorist group can then install its political and/or religious ideology.
The killing and intimidating of innocent citizens by a group wishing to control terrain is in and by itself a sufficient act against which governments such as ours find as a crime against humanity. One need go no further in reacting negatively to terrorism regardless of its core ideology beyond just the use of terrorism.
As I see it, no core belief system can justify terrorism from the standpoint of any major religion including Islam. I may seem clueless to some deep thinking pundits, but I am far from alone in my thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if ISIL before its final demise could actually bring Sunni and Shiite forces together. Allah can work in mysterious ways
I think you are mistaken
Here is Obama's statement:
"ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way."
I read this as Obama's specific rejection of any underlying ISIS ideology.
Here is Obama's statement:
"ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way."
I read this as Obama's specific rejection of any underlying ISIS ideology.
That's because you're not a reasonable person.
You've allowed your hatred of our President to cloud your judgment.
Read in it's full context:
...And one of those groups is ISIL -- which calls itself the "Islamic State."
Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not "Islamic." No religion condones the killing of innocents. And the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria's civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.
It's clear that Obama is using a rhetorical strategy to attack the fundamental legitimacy of ISIS. He is making the moral argument that their religious justification is illegitimate, and the technical argument that their political justification is illegitimate.
You've allowed your hatred of our President to cloud your judgment.
Read in it's full context:
...And one of those groups is ISIL -- which calls itself the "Islamic State."
Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not "Islamic." No religion condones the killing of innocents. And the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria's civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.
It's clear that Obama is using a rhetorical strategy to attack the fundamental legitimacy of ISIS. He is making the moral argument that their religious justification is illegitimate, and the technical argument that their political justification is illegitimate.
We agree
Obama uses "rhetorical strategy". He has done that to be nominated, elected, and to govern. It doesn't work as a governing principle.
Obama uses "rhetorical strategy". He has done that to be nominated, elected, and to govern. It doesn't work as a governing principle.
That's just plain stupid.
Rhetorical strategy is an important part of government and diplomacy, both of which are important in this issue.
To suggest otherwise simply highlights your hatred of Obama and how it has made your arguments incoherent.
Rhetorical strategy is an important part of government and diplomacy, both of which are important in this issue.
To suggest otherwise simply highlights your hatred of Obama and how it has made your arguments incoherent.
Actually I think it's amusing and clever
Strategy is important. Rhetorical strategy reminds me of the salesman saying "let me check with my manager" when I buy a car.
Strategy is important. Rhetorical strategy reminds me of the salesman saying "let me check with my manager" when I buy a car.
