Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 11:38:29 GMT -5
I find it interesting that the Lib position on this is that obama should go through congress not because it's the right thing to do, but because it will supposedly make congress look bad. No Don ... That's not a Lib position What I said was "What a smart and crafty move that would be for Obama" Charlie Come on Charlie. How does these words describe it as NOT a lib position. You are a lib, it's your position. First grade math allows the easy conclusion it's a lib position.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Aug 29, 2013 11:42:58 GMT -5
I think he should lob a few missiles at ammo dumps. It's not like they need those ammo dumps.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Aug 29, 2013 11:49:44 GMT -5
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Aug 29, 2013 11:52:14 GMT -5
I think he should lob a few missiles at ammo dumps. It's not like they need those ammo dumps. Too funny. . .
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Aug 29, 2013 15:04:08 GMT -5
Come on Charlie. How does these words describe it as NOT a lib position. You are a lib, it's your position. First grade math allows the easy conclusion it's a lib position. I love it ...we've got Scott answering for Don..Are you really Helen in disguise? I am a Lib and certainly proud of it (although most real Libs would love to disown me)...relax guys moderates and progressives and Libertarians are Libs to this forum. My point is not that that "obama should go through congress not because it's the right thing to do, but because it will supposedly make congress look bad." My point is that it would be a smart and crafty move. Congress wants to blame the President for taking action and for not taking action. So let them decide what should be done...not to make them look bad... but to get the country moving forward I love all the lawyers on this forum, dont you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 16:00:15 GMT -5
I am a libertarian and nobody thinks I am a liberal.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Aug 29, 2013 16:01:36 GMT -5
Ok, you caught me. I'm really Scott (Shotgunnner). I had to make up a new identity so I could argue with myself. *hangs head in shame*
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Aug 29, 2013 16:35:05 GMT -5
Charlie: Smart and crafty move for Obama. *L* More like cynical, blatantly political, scumbag move. Look, if he had a real reason to go against the will of the American people who are very tired of war and get into a conflict with yet another country and could explain such reason to congress and the American people to change their sentiment, I would not agree with it, but would understand it.
"Smart and crafty move" just makes him a cynical piece of crap trying to cover his own ass and find someone else to blame for his own diplomatic failures, while going against the will of the American people.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Aug 30, 2013 14:34:23 GMT -5
So the last SOSOTUS Hillary said it "just didn't matter" that Americans died in Benghasi. Today Kerry says over and over again "it matters" concerning Syria. Insanity!
Lee
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Aug 30, 2013 15:08:37 GMT -5
Don't worry all y'all. Even though everyone else in the world is gonna sit this one out, we've still got the French on our side.
Uh oh, aren't the French the ones who changed their state of emergency signals from "green", "yellow", and "red" to "Retreat", "Surrender", and "Colloborate". Now I'm sure this is gonna work out OK .
Cracks me up how so many of you lefties have now all become hawks to cover the ass of your horrible presidential choice. Absolutely no real difference between this proposed incursion and that in Iraq except, that in Bush's Iraq, we actually had a lot of other countries on our side. And of course congress approved Bush's war and most the American public did too. And wasn't Obama the guy who made a speech about how we should do nothing without congressional approval and the UN? And, in this instance, the majority of the American public opposes attacking Syria and messing about with another country's internal conflicts and that big idiot Obama has no idea how this is going to turn out. He is literally taking a shot in the dark with no clue as to what the outcome will be. That outcome could further bankrupt our country and possibly trigger a much larger war and to what purpose, to help one of our enemies defeat the other enemy?......Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Aug 30, 2013 17:56:03 GMT -5
Oh who cares, the reason this is such a nonissue to begin with is either 1 of 2 things would happen. He would be 'forced' to bow out of violence because it was both unpopular or Congress won't go for it. OR, he would lob a few missiles at some ammo dumps in Syria. He did his best either way, and gee. No war.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Aug 30, 2013 18:25:32 GMT -5
Helen, I doubt his advisers are as optimistic as you right about now. He is finding out how it feels to be in a "damned either way" situation. lose/lose.
And since he has been doing the tough talk, he now must lose face either way he goes. Azzhead has had plenty of time and notice of potential targets to have no doubt moved some stuff around. Better hope Obama don't give the "Tomahawk chop" to a munitions dump containing chemicals, he will really have a popularity problem then.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Aug 30, 2013 18:51:00 GMT -5
Being the President is always a lose/lose situation, since you cannot please everyone all the time.
Kerry wants WAR, Obama's a peacenik. But he's off the hook if he can't do it, so he's looking for a way to avoid doing anything but still sound like he WOULD if he COULD. We see this every admin, and there are advisors on both sides of the fence DEMANDING the President do the 2 opposite things. Few Presidents are stupid enough to actually start mobilizing for war like Bush did... UNILATERALLY.
I find it ironic that anyone can make fun of Obama for only having France on board with lobbing a few missiles at ammo dumps... when Bush actually sent US troops to Iraq unilaterally with only Britain willing to go with him and ALL of Europe (and Canada) having street protests against war (anyone remember 'Freedom Fries' because we were so pissed at France and Canada?).
How's he going to lose either way? Seems to me he wins either way. He gets to lob missiles to back up the punishment for chem weapons or he is 'forced' to bow out because he listens to his nation and Congress. What's he going to lose? His approval rating is still 5x higher than Congress's, so even if it drops by HALF, it's still DOUBLE Congress's.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,175
|
Post by jamesp on Aug 30, 2013 19:05:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by helens on Aug 30, 2013 19:17:28 GMT -5
Now I know why you can't fathom logic, James. See, here's the latest approval ratings from a fast google: www.ibtimes.com/congress-approval-rating-all-time-low-obamas-lowest-2011-1360879Obama approval 45% (lowest point since 2011), so assuming that ALL the rest DISAPPROVED (as opposed to don't care), his DISAPPROVAL is 55% (but his approval actually goes as high as a whopping 69%, and according to Roper, 79%- pretty impressive for a black man don't you think?) Congress, which is mostly Republican, has a DISAPPROVAL rating of 83%. So the MOST optimistic rating for Congress (giving Congress the benefit of the 'dont care don't know votes) would be 17% approval (note that I've seen this figure to be 11% Approval). Pretty simple math.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,175
|
Post by jamesp on Aug 30, 2013 19:44:15 GMT -5
There is close to 5000 members on this forum. So you represent 1/5000th of the forum and represent about 95% of his defense.
Much simpler math
|
|
|
Post by helens on Aug 30, 2013 20:00:05 GMT -5
There are 124-134 members on the forum that VIEW it on any given day (only members can post). On political topics, at best we have 10 posters average on a given DAY.
So lets do a quick headcount: Republican: Don (Jakesrocks), JamesP, Billy (who is CANADIAN and cannot vote)
Libertarian: Scott, Mel, Rockoonz, Greyfingers, Rob
Democrat: Me, Parfive, Chas, Deb123, VegasJames, Wampidy (I THINK. He can clarify, but he's all for the environment, and that means regulations)
Others occasionally pop in, but the above are the key players for PURELY POLITICAL discussions, no? Did I miss anyone?
That's 2 Republicans and 1 Canadian non-voter 5 Libertarians 6 Democrats
The right leaning just post more and larger pix. The Democrats are a bit more dignified about posting, except for me:).
And I won't name names of the over a dozen Democrats who pm me and do not post because they can't handle the hate, or contribute once in a blue moon. This is probably true for Republicans as well. I assume you all have over a dozen NON-Political posting Republicans in support of you in PMs as well.
This forum does NOT represent the average US demographics, as you well know from the polls... after all, Obama was elected President, and they were predicting a Romney LANDSLIDE here. This forum is an anachronism that doesn't reflect the US public.
Please correct where I am mistaken on the numbers.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Aug 30, 2013 20:04:32 GMT -5
Well, here goes ole Helen with her revisionist history again " Bush sent US troops to Iraq unilaterally with only Great Britain....."
Come on Helen, the coalition for the Iraq war had about forty members from all over. Unilaterally by the way means by yourself. American plus Britain would be bilaterally. *L* What you find ironic, I find somewhat mathematically odd. Is forty more than your handsies and toesies? You're allowed to have your own opinion but not our own facts, pard......Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Aug 30, 2013 20:14:21 GMT -5
Mel, This is ironic, and hopefully a source YOU can trust... Fox News from 2003... no support. Funny funny, read please: www.foxnews.com/story/2003/01/30/international-support-scarce-for-iraq-war/And here's the Wiki of ALL the participants IN the war: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_IraqActive May 14, 2004 – December 31, 2009 Country United States (2004 – 2009) United Kingdom (2004 – 2009) Australia (2004 – 2009) Poland (2004 – 2008) Ukraine (2004 – 2008) Georgia (2004 – 2008) Bulgaria (2004 – 2008) Denmark (2004 – 2007) Italy (2004 – 2006) Spain (2004 – 2004) Tell me, how big are the armies of Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Italy and Spain? Hmm? Do any of them even have armies:)? And look at the dates... Spain was active for... a week? LOL! 2004-2004... hrm... Now, go take a good look at NATO and ALL the allies in it... how many followed us to Iraq? How many screamed and hollered and protested and called Bush names? Who decided to give President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, just to slap Bush in the head? 40 nations eh? Which 40?
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Aug 30, 2013 20:29:25 GMT -5
Helen, I ain't gonna do my hunt and pick typing all evening. The countries are all listed on Wikipedia along with the numbers of troops and how long they were in Iraq. And there were about 40 of them. Go back and read the whole wiki post. Shows the countries next to their flags. It does not matter how many troops, as many of those countries have small armed forces. What matters is you were again spouting revisionist bullshit. It was "not" unilateral. It was a coalition even if you only count the 11 countries you listed, which is incorrect, no matter how you try to twist the facts. Just admit it and move on.....Mel
|
|