Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:27 PM
WilliamPitt (58,179 posts)
That was pretty goddamned incoherent, frankly.
I found that address to be an eloquently delivered ball of fundamental incoherence.
The rub: Gas sucks, dead children are terrible, so I want to attack, but we're working on a diplomatic solution, yet if you're on the right and love the military, or if you're on the left and love human rights, you totally have to look at the dead kids on YouTube and get behind me on attacking Syria even though I've asked Congress to suspend the vote and we're pursuing diplomacy so there won't be an attack, or something. Gobldeygook. Tell me I'm wrong.
|
536 replies, 79987 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
WilliamPitt | Sep 2013 | OP |
PrestonLocke | Sep 2013 | #1 | |
reformist2 | Sep 2013 | #372 | |
MNBrewer | Sep 2013 | #385 | |
Safetykitten | Sep 2013 | #2 | |
JoePhilly | Sep 2013 | #3 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #18 | |
JoePhilly | Sep 2013 | #27 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #37 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #50 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #63 | |
Mr.Bill | Sep 2013 | #92 | |
davidwparker | Sep 2013 | #288 | |
bananas | Sep 2013 | #369 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #97 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #108 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #121 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #143 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #210 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #214 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #423 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #510 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #520 | |
Hekate | Sep 2013 | #237 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #420 | |
cali | Sep 2013 | #394 | |
heaven05 | Sep 2013 | #411 | |
dionysus | Sep 2013 | #422 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #425 | |
dionysus | Sep 2013 | #427 | |
cali | Sep 2013 | #435 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #424 | |
CherokeeDem | Sep 2013 | #405 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #426 | |
CherokeeDem | Sep 2013 | #439 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #443 | |
CherokeeDem | Sep 2013 | #451 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #456 | |
CherokeeDem | Sep 2013 | #462 | |
Gothmog | Sep 2013 | #449 | |
felix_numinous | Sep 2013 | #499 | |
Smarmie Doofus | Sep 2013 | #138 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #153 | |
Cheviteau | Sep 2013 | #403 | |
YOHABLO | Sep 2013 | #232 | |
HooptieWagon | Sep 2013 | #249 | |
RC | Sep 2013 | #252 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #272 | |
RC | Sep 2013 | #280 | |
Blanks | Sep 2013 | #389 | |
RC | Sep 2013 | #407 | |
Blanks | Sep 2013 | #438 | |
bvar22 | Sep 2013 | #452 | |
Skittles | Sep 2013 | #344 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #345 | |
Skittles | Sep 2013 | #346 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #347 | |
Skittles | Sep 2013 | #348 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #349 | |
Skittles | Sep 2013 | #350 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #442 | |
Comrade Grumpy | Sep 2013 | #460 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #509 | |
RainDog | Sep 2013 | #80 | |
JoePhilly | Sep 2013 | #86 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #104 | |
JoePhilly | Sep 2013 | #117 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #128 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #445 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #122 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #136 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #162 | |
Llewlladdwr | Sep 2013 | #178 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #185 | |
Llewlladdwr | Sep 2013 | #197 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #200 | |
Llewlladdwr | Sep 2013 | #216 | |
mimi85 | Sep 2013 | #269 | |
VanillaRhapsody | Sep 2013 | #106 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #191 | |
VanillaRhapsody | Sep 2013 | #198 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #204 | |
VanillaRhapsody | Sep 2013 | #207 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #212 | |
mimi85 | Sep 2013 | #279 | |
CAG | Sep 2013 | #192 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #195 | |
George II | Sep 2013 | #231 | |
Ferretherder | Sep 2013 | #294 | |
mac56 | Sep 2013 | #410 | |
Ferretherder | Sep 2013 | #504 | |
cynzke | Sep 2013 | #458 | |
Ferretherder | Sep 2013 | #505 | |
LukeFL | Sep 2013 | #43 | |
U4ikLefty | Sep 2013 | #66 | |
Jamastiene | Sep 2013 | #170 | |
WorseBeforeBetter | Sep 2013 | #413 | |
LukeFL | Sep 2013 | #519 | |
msanthrope | Sep 2013 | #76 | |
JoePhilly | Sep 2013 | #96 | |
msanthrope | Sep 2013 | #101 | |
Llewlladdwr | Sep 2013 | #87 | |
msanthrope | Sep 2013 | #111 | |
Llewlladdwr | Sep 2013 | #139 | |
msanthrope | Sep 2013 | #149 | |
Llewlladdwr | Sep 2013 | #156 | |
msanthrope | Sep 2013 | #164 | |
Llewlladdwr | Sep 2013 | #169 | |
Hekate | Sep 2013 | #234 | |
gtar100 | Sep 2013 | #365 | |
LukeFL | Sep 2013 | #35 | |
Hell Hath No Fury | Sep 2013 | #42 | |
JoePhilly | Sep 2013 | #58 | |
Hell Hath No Fury | Sep 2013 | #114 | |
DirkGently | Sep 2013 | #160 | |
Beer Swiller | Sep 2013 | #227 | |
brush | Sep 2013 | #395 | |
somethingshiny | Sep 2013 | #415 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #213 | |
DirkGently | Sep 2013 | #118 | |
Hell Hath No Fury | Sep 2013 | #152 | |
brush | Sep 2013 | #391 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #64 | |
AgingAmerican | Sep 2013 | #475 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #477 | |
AgingAmerican | Sep 2013 | #485 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #521 | |
AgingAmerican | Sep 2013 | #522 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #523 | |
AgingAmerican | Sep 2013 | #524 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #525 | |
AgingAmerican | Sep 2013 | #527 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #528 | |
AgingAmerican | Sep 2013 | #529 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #530 | |
AgingAmerican | Sep 2013 | #532 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #533 | |
AgingAmerican | Sep 2013 | #534 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #535 | |
AgingAmerican | Sep 2013 | #536 | |
graywarrior | Sep 2013 | #109 | |
mountain grammy | Sep 2013 | #133 | |
Hekate | Sep 2013 | #229 | |
Beer Swiller | Sep 2013 | #262 | |
Carolina | Sep 2013 | #296 | |
Name removed | Sep 2013 | #490 | |
beerandjesus | Sep 2013 | #390 | |
Number23 | Sep 2013 | #432 | |
Name removed | Sep 2013 | #489 | |
Number23 | Sep 2013 | #495 | |
arewenotdemo | Sep 2013 | #440 | |
grahamhgreen | Sep 2013 | #270 | |
awoke_in_2003 | Sep 2013 | #466 | |
The Link | Sep 2013 | #4 | |
Awknid | Sep 2013 | #48 | |
truedelphi | Sep 2013 | #243 | |
quinnox | Sep 2013 | #5 | |
winter is coming | Sep 2013 | #6 | |
Crimson76 | Sep 2013 | #7 | |
trueblue2007 | Sep 2013 | #8 | |
Hell Hath No Fury | Sep 2013 | #45 | |
Luminous Animal | Sep 2013 | #46 | |
Politicalboi | Sep 2013 | #69 | |
golfguru | Sep 2013 | #266 | |
Democracyinkind | Sep 2013 | #363 | |
golfguru | Sep 2013 | #448 | |
jsr | Sep 2013 | #293 | |
Cali_Democrat | Sep 2013 | #9 | |
JoePhilly | Sep 2013 | #34 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #61 | |
JoePhilly | Sep 2013 | #72 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #98 | |
JoePhilly | Sep 2013 | #127 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #132 | |
dbackjon | Sep 2013 | #258 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #418 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #159 | |
ConcernedCanuk | Sep 2013 | #357 | |
mythology | Sep 2013 | #242 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #267 | |
former9thward | Sep 2013 | #417 | |
Eko | Sep 2013 | #103 | |
JoePhilly | Sep 2013 | #130 | |
DJ13 | Sep 2013 | #115 | |
JoePhilly | Sep 2013 | #125 | |
DJ13 | Sep 2013 | #173 | |
Proud Liberal Dem | Sep 2013 | #201 | |
DJ13 | Sep 2013 | #206 | |
Proud Liberal Dem | Sep 2013 | #377 | |
Llewlladdwr | Sep 2013 | #39 | |
LukeFL | Sep 2013 | #49 | |
Llewlladdwr | Sep 2013 | #59 | |
LukeFL | Sep 2013 | #67 | |
Llewlladdwr | Sep 2013 | #102 | |
U4ikLefty | Sep 2013 | #77 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #189 | |
freshwest | Sep 2013 | #455 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #457 | |
freshwest | Sep 2013 | #459 | |
iandhr | Sep 2013 | #93 | |
LukeFL | Sep 2013 | #180 | |
freshwest | Sep 2013 | #479 | |
Jackpine Radical | Sep 2013 | #54 | |
suffragette | Sep 2013 | #90 | |
sarcasmo | Sep 2013 | #268 | |
Cal Carpenter | Sep 2013 | #140 | |
DisgustipatedinCA | Sep 2013 | #292 | |
laundry_queen | Sep 2013 | #326 | |
cali | Sep 2013 | #396 | |
NuclearDem | Sep 2013 | #182 | |
Carolina | Sep 2013 | #264 | |
DisgustipatedinCA | Sep 2013 | #297 | |
CountAllVotes | Sep 2013 | #433 | |
burnsei sensei | Sep 2013 | #484 | |
Tiredofthesame | Sep 2013 | #211 | |
Peace Patriot | Sep 2013 | #218 | |
arewenotdemo | Sep 2013 | #450 | |
freshwest | Sep 2013 | #290 | |
snagglepuss | Sep 2013 | #441 | |
freshwest | Sep 2013 | #470 | |
morningfog | Sep 2013 | #313 | |
Cali_Democrat | Sep 2013 | #327 | |
beerandjesus | Sep 2013 | #393 | |
noiretextatique | Sep 2013 | #488 | |
forestpath | Sep 2013 | #10 | |
NightWatcher | Sep 2013 | #11 | |
winter is coming | Sep 2013 | #60 | |
whatchamacallit | Sep 2013 | #12 | |
truedelphi | Sep 2013 | #245 | |
tom_kelly | Sep 2013 | #13 | |
Bjorn Against | Sep 2013 | #14 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #15 | |
NYC_SKP | Sep 2013 | #16 | |
freshwest | Sep 2013 | #472 | |
struggle4progress | Sep 2013 | #17 | |
joshcryer | Sep 2013 | #23 | |
cigsandcoffee | Sep 2013 | #19 | |
DirkGently | Sep 2013 | #20 | |
winter is coming | Sep 2013 | #26 | |
1awake | Sep 2013 | #123 | |
DirkGently | Sep 2013 | #135 | |
1awake | Sep 2013 | #150 | |
Logical | Sep 2013 | #220 | |
grahamhgreen | Sep 2013 | #273 | |
jsr | Sep 2013 | #304 | |
avaistheone1 | Sep 2013 | #319 | |
snagglepuss | Sep 2013 | #444 | |
merbex | Sep 2013 | #21 | |
quaker bill | Sep 2013 | #166 | |
jessie04 | Sep 2013 | #22 | |
HangOnKids | Sep 2013 | #311 | |
In_The_Wind | Sep 2013 | #24 | |
Arkansas Granny | Sep 2013 | #25 | |
Skidmore | Sep 2013 | #28 | |
Whisp | Sep 2013 | #29 | |
freshwest | Sep 2013 | #474 | |
Whisp | Sep 2013 | #476 | |
RebelOne | Sep 2013 | #30 | |
Avalux | Sep 2013 | #31 | |
snappyturtle | Sep 2013 | #53 | |
DevonRex | Sep 2013 | #32 | |
DisgustipatedinCA | Sep 2013 | #305 | |
DevonRex | Sep 2013 | #310 | |
DisgustipatedinCA | Sep 2013 | #316 | |
DevonRex | Sep 2013 | #322 | |
tallahasseedem | Sep 2013 | #421 | |
Motown_Johnny | Sep 2013 | #33 | |
bluestate10 | Sep 2013 | #506 | |
johnd83 | Sep 2013 | #36 | |
bluestate10 | Sep 2013 | #507 | |
LukeFL | Sep 2013 | #38 | |
Junkdrawer | Sep 2013 | #40 | |
jazzimov | Sep 2013 | #41 | |
phleshdef | Sep 2013 | #44 | |
VanillaRhapsody | Sep 2013 | #190 | |
Laura PourMeADrink | Sep 2013 | #511 | |
VanillaRhapsody | Sep 2013 | #512 | |
Laura PourMeADrink | Sep 2013 | #513 | |
VanillaRhapsody | Sep 2013 | #517 | |
BlueStreak | Sep 2013 | #47 | |
VanillaRhapsody | Sep 2013 | #193 | |
BlueStreak | Sep 2013 | #221 | |
VanillaRhapsody | Sep 2013 | #223 | |
BlueStreak | Sep 2013 | #238 | |
VanillaRhapsody | Sep 2013 | #244 | |
BlueStreak | Sep 2013 | #257 | |
VanillaRhapsody | Sep 2013 | #263 | |
bigtree | Sep 2013 | #51 | |
Darkhawk32 | Sep 2013 | #52 | |
NoOneMan | Sep 2013 | #55 | |
davidpdx | Sep 2013 | #158 | |
Shampoobra | Sep 2013 | #56 | |
otohara | Sep 2013 | #94 | |
Shampoobra | Sep 2013 | #199 | |
otohara | Sep 2013 | #224 | |
Shampoobra | Sep 2013 | #255 | |
Hekate | Sep 2013 | #228 | |
otohara | Sep 2013 | #265 | |
Enthusiast | Sep 2013 | #341 | |
Snake Plissken | Sep 2013 | #57 | |
forestpath | Sep 2013 | #75 | |
RKP5637 | Sep 2013 | #202 | |
harun | Sep 2013 | #217 | |
CountAllVotes | Sep 2013 | #431 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #62 | |
ProSense | Sep 2013 | #68 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #112 | |
WilliamPitt | Sep 2013 | #79 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #119 | |
ProSense | Sep 2013 | #157 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #171 | |
Whisp | Sep 2013 | #253 | |
4bucksagallon | Sep 2013 | #331 | |
Summer Hathaway | Sep 2013 | #353 | |
4bucksagallon | Sep 2013 | #356 | |
Summer Hathaway | Sep 2013 | #358 | |
4bucksagallon | Sep 2013 | #366 | |
Raine1967 | Sep 2013 | #388 | |
Summer Hathaway | Sep 2013 | #482 | |
Hekate | Sep 2013 | #531 | |
Number23 | Sep 2013 | #434 | |
Summer Hathaway | Sep 2013 | #483 | |
bravenak | Sep 2013 | #65 | |
Snake Plissken | Sep 2013 | #81 | |
bravenak | Sep 2013 | #126 | |
Snake Plissken | Sep 2013 | #161 | |
bravenak | Sep 2013 | #179 | |
Snake Plissken | Sep 2013 | #196 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #256 | |
Snake Plissken | Sep 2013 | #274 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #286 | |
freshwest | Sep 2013 | #518 | |
Whisp | Sep 2013 | #70 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #124 | |
orenbus | Sep 2013 | #155 | |
Hekate | Sep 2013 | #278 | |
Dash87 | Sep 2013 | #409 | |
DisgustipatedinCA | Sep 2013 | #308 | |
Dash87 | Sep 2013 | #408 | |
alcibiades_mystery | Sep 2013 | #284 | |
nashville_brook | Sep 2013 | #71 | |
KoKo | Sep 2013 | #73 | |
msanthrope | Sep 2013 | #83 | |
U4ikLefty | Sep 2013 | #88 | |
msanthrope | Sep 2013 | #95 | |
Whisp | Sep 2013 | #146 | |
arewenotdemo | Sep 2013 | #454 | |
quaker bill | Sep 2013 | #74 | |
Avalux | Sep 2013 | #89 | |
truedelphi | Sep 2013 | #240 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #145 | |
quaker bill | Sep 2013 | #181 | |
JohnnyLib2 | Sep 2013 | #154 | |
msanthrope | Sep 2013 | #205 | |
FSogol | Sep 2013 | #376 | |
Hekate | Sep 2013 | #271 | |
Number23 | Sep 2013 | #436 | |
iandhr | Sep 2013 | #78 | |
bhikkhu | Sep 2013 | #82 | |
struggle4progress | Sep 2013 | #131 | |
noamnety | Sep 2013 | #84 | |
winter is coming | Sep 2013 | #137 | |
truedelphi | Sep 2013 | #248 | |
noamnety | Sep 2013 | #370 | |
truedelphi | Sep 2013 | #493 | |
Tikki | Sep 2013 | #85 | |
Beaverhausen | Sep 2013 | #91 | |
grahamhgreen | Sep 2013 | #99 | |
Mr.Bill | Sep 2013 | #100 | |
tsuki | Sep 2013 | #105 | |
Little Star | Sep 2013 | #107 | |
Old and In the Way | Sep 2013 | #110 | |
MADem | Sep 2013 | #184 | |
Generic Other | Sep 2013 | #113 | |
winter is coming | Sep 2013 | #142 | |
Generic Other | Sep 2013 | #188 | |
Carolina | Sep 2013 | #287 | |
rury | Sep 2013 | #116 | |
BlueCheese | Sep 2013 | #120 | |
1awake | Sep 2013 | #129 | |
Snake Plissken | Sep 2013 | #134 | |
rsmith6621 | Sep 2013 | #141 | |
quaker bill | Sep 2013 | #194 | |
Tiredofthesame | Sep 2013 | #226 | |
4bucksagallon | Sep 2013 | #144 | |
Purveyor | Sep 2013 | #147 | |
another_liberal | Sep 2013 | #148 | |
Jamastiene | Sep 2013 | #151 | |
King_Klonopin | Sep 2013 | #359 | |
LittleBlue | Sep 2013 | #163 | |
truedelphi | Sep 2013 | #254 | |
LittleBlue | Sep 2013 | #260 | |
chillfactor | Sep 2013 | #165 | |
Rain Mcloud | Sep 2013 | #167 | |
erpowers | Sep 2013 | #168 | |
Savannahmann | Sep 2013 | #172 | |
GeorgeGist | Sep 2013 | #208 | |
woo me with science | Sep 2013 | #219 | |
arewenotdemo | Sep 2013 | #461 | |
russspeakeasy | Sep 2013 | #235 | |
Carolina | Sep 2013 | #291 | |
haikugal | Sep 2013 | #330 | |
laundry_queen | Sep 2013 | #337 | |
truedelphi | Sep 2013 | #352 | |
Maedhros | Sep 2013 | #486 | |
truedelphi | Sep 2013 | #492 | |
Maedhros | Sep 2013 | #494 | |
Celefin | Sep 2013 | #361 | |
beerandjesus | Sep 2013 | #397 | |
Supersedeas | Sep 2013 | #464 | |
sibelian | Sep 2013 | #481 | |
crim son | Sep 2013 | #174 | |
newfie11 | Sep 2013 | #175 | |
madamesilverspurs | Sep 2013 | #176 | |
Whisp | Sep 2013 | #177 | |
Marrah_G | Sep 2013 | #183 | |
JaneyVee | Sep 2013 | #186 | |
Whisp | Sep 2013 | #187 | |
arewenotdemo | Sep 2013 | #463 | |
Summer Hathaway | Sep 2013 | #203 | |
fadedrose | Sep 2013 | #209 | |
Laura PourMeADrink | Sep 2013 | #215 | |
Doctor_J | Sep 2013 | #225 | |
Laura PourMeADrink | Sep 2013 | #282 | |
iamthebandfanman | Sep 2013 | #355 | |
Doctor_J | Sep 2013 | #381 | |
eridani | Sep 2013 | #360 | |
carolinayellowdog | Sep 2013 | #222 | |
LuckyTheDog | Sep 2013 | #230 | |
dkf | Sep 2013 | #233 | |
kentuck | Sep 2013 | #236 | |
mrchips | Sep 2013 | #239 | |
wisteria | Sep 2013 | #247 | |
truedelphi | Sep 2013 | #261 | |
HangOnKids | Sep 2013 | #317 | |
jsr | Sep 2013 | #301 | |
scheming daemons | Sep 2013 | #314 | |
Bluenorthwest | Sep 2013 | #416 | |
Skittles | Sep 2013 | #324 | |
Democracyinkind | Sep 2013 | #364 | |
Hekate | Sep 2013 | #241 | |
The Midway Rebel | Sep 2013 | #246 | |
arewenotdemo | Sep 2013 | #467 | |
Ocelot | Sep 2013 | #250 | |
wisteria | Sep 2013 | #251 | |
dbackjon | Sep 2013 | #259 | |
KamaAina | Sep 2013 | #275 | |
Mellow Drama | Sep 2013 | #276 | |
cliffordu | Sep 2013 | #277 | |
obxhead | Sep 2013 | #281 | |
woo me with science | Sep 2013 | #298 | |
arewenotdemo | Sep 2013 | #471 | |
L0oniX | Sep 2013 | #283 | |
davidwparker | Sep 2013 | #285 | |
Darkhawk32 | Sep 2013 | #300 | |
jsr | Sep 2013 | #289 | |
pnwmom | Sep 2013 | #295 | |
zwyziec | Sep 2013 | #299 | |
sigmasix | Sep 2013 | #302 | |
nadinbrzezinski | Sep 2013 | #303 | |
markpkessinger | Sep 2013 | #306 | |
Summer Hathaway | Sep 2013 | #325 | |
markpkessinger | Sep 2013 | #328 | |
Summer Hathaway | Sep 2013 | #332 | |
markpkessinger | Sep 2013 | #333 | |
markpkessinger | Sep 2013 | #334 | |
Summer Hathaway | Sep 2013 | #335 | |
markpkessinger | Sep 2013 | #336 | |
Summer Hathaway | Sep 2013 | #340 | |
Summer Hathaway | Sep 2013 | #339 | |
adirondacker | Sep 2013 | #329 | |
beerandjesus | Sep 2013 | #398 | |
MrMickeysMom | Sep 2013 | #307 | |
TwilightGardener | Sep 2013 | #309 | |
avaistheone1 | Sep 2013 | #318 | |
scheming daemons | Sep 2013 | #312 | |
Waiting For Everyman | Sep 2013 | #315 | |
avaistheone1 | Sep 2013 | #320 | |
BootinUp | Sep 2013 | #321 | |
kardonb | Sep 2013 | #323 | |
Lint Head | Sep 2013 | #338 | |
polly7 | Sep 2013 | #342 | |
Bolo Boffin | Sep 2013 | #343 | |
SunSeeker | Sep 2013 | #351 | |
iamthebandfanman | Sep 2013 | #354 | |
gtar100 | Sep 2013 | #362 | |
G_j | Sep 2013 | #379 | |
Roland99 | Sep 2013 | #387 | |
TomClash | Sep 2013 | #367 | |
rucky | Sep 2013 | #368 | |
michigandem58 | Sep 2013 | #371 | |
DCBob | Sep 2013 | #373 | |
backscatter712 | Sep 2013 | #374 | |
6000eliot | Sep 2013 | #375 | |
Nightjock | Sep 2013 | #378 | |
Lee-Lee | Sep 2013 | #380 | |
99Forever | Sep 2013 | #382 | |
TBF | Sep 2013 | #383 | |
Nitram | Sep 2013 | #384 | |
Roland99 | Sep 2013 | #386 | |
Fuddnik | Sep 2013 | #392 | |
jsr | Sep 2013 | #402 | |
rtracey | Sep 2013 | #399 | |
beerandjesus | Sep 2013 | #400 | |
Fuddnik | Sep 2013 | #401 | |
LWolf | Sep 2013 | #404 | |
No DUplicitous DUpe | Sep 2013 | #480 | |
stonecutter357 | Sep 2013 | #406 | |
Autumn | Sep 2013 | #412 | |
stonecutter357 | Sep 2013 | #465 | |
Autumn | Sep 2013 | #468 | |
ProSense | Sep 2013 | #414 | |
randome | Sep 2013 | #419 | |
dionysus | Sep 2013 | #428 | |
goatmilker | Sep 2013 | #429 | |
CountAllVotes | Sep 2013 | #430 | |
Orsino | Sep 2013 | #437 | |
snagglepuss | Sep 2013 | #446 | |
Jester Messiah | Sep 2013 | #447 | |
bvar22 | Sep 2013 | #453 | |
FiveGoodMen | Sep 2013 | #473 | |
glowing | Sep 2013 | #469 | |
indepat | Sep 2013 | #478 | |
MineralMan | Sep 2013 | #487 | |
marble falls | Sep 2013 | #491 | |
Tx4obama | Sep 2013 | #496 | |
Skittles | Sep 2013 | #497 | |
sulphurdunn | Sep 2013 | #498 | |
Catherina | Sep 2013 | #500 | |
malthaussen | Sep 2013 | #501 | |
kentuck | Sep 2013 | #502 | |
Laura PourMeADrink | Sep 2013 | #515 | |
michigandem58 | Sep 2013 | #503 | |
Whisp | Sep 2013 | #508 | |
Laura PourMeADrink | Sep 2013 | #514 | |
gulliver | Sep 2013 | #516 | |
Rex | Sep 2013 | #526 |
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:28 PM
PrestonLocke (217 posts)
1. It was disorienting to say the least...
Maybe we take his gas and bomb him anyways?
|
Response to PrestonLocke (Reply #1)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:32 AM
reformist2 (9,841 posts)
372. I'm cutting him a lot of slack - he has to play all sides right now
We won't be sure of his true intentions until all this is over, but every day there is no bombing, no invasion, is a good day. |
Response to reformist2 (Reply #372)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:10 AM
MNBrewer (8,462 posts)
385. "We won't be sure of his true intentions until all this is over"
That's starting to sound like "loose cannon"
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:29 PM
Safetykitten (5,162 posts)
2. You sir, are correct. I mean you are not wrong.
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:29 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
3. Summary: "Assad, I'm not bluffing. Take the deal."
Response to joshcryer (Reply #18)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:37 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
27. And the less obvious sub point ... there for those paying attention ...
"Oh, btw ... the Unitary Executive doctrine, is dead."
I can see how some had trouble with this speech ... they had predicted that Obama would be announcing "Shock and Awe" had started, and a 2nd Iraq war like invasion was underway. When that didn't happen, they were a little lost. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #27)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:39 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
37. Yeah, that was pretty impressive, too.
One can't be too bothered by those troubled by the speech, they always expect the worst. So many failed predictions by Obama detractors it's hard to take them seriously.
|
Response to joshcryer (Reply #37)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:43 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
50. Obama expected the American people to back him.
They didn't, big time. It is hard to take those seriously who can (or more probably won't) see that.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #50)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:47 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
63. I don't think so.
I think he expected the international community to back him, though, since chemical weapons are banned by 98% of the world community. I am sure he knew the American people wouldn't back him.
I think what caught him off guard is that other countries backed down the rhetoric. I think he full well would've struck had the EU states been on board, with or without congress, but because they weren't he decided the "do nothing" approach was better and has been backing down gradually ever since. Obama has held the morally consistent and correct position the entire time. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #63)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:55 PM
Mr.Bill (17,380 posts)
92. After the Shit that W pulled,
it will be a long time before anyone backs us in a military action again. That damage is done and we will live with it for decades.
|
Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #92)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:02 AM
davidwparker (5,397 posts)
288. +1
Fool me once .... shame ... shame ... fool me ... won't get fooled again.
|
Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #92)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:28 AM
bananas (27,509 posts)
369. Five years between Vietnam and Reagan's election "to make America strong again"
and to "overcome the Vietnam Syndrome".
|
Response to joshcryer (Reply #63)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:56 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
97. The correct position?
The Chemical Weapons Treaty, which we signed, said the U.S. had to destroy its chemical weapons by May 1, 2012. We refused and now say we intend to destroy them by 2023. When it comes to morals and consistency regarding chemical weapons we don't have a leg to stand on.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #97)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:00 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
108. That is a bold faced lie. 90% is destroyed.
You have to build facilities on the storage sites so that you don't have to move the chemicals to another facility, through communities, through counties, cities. You destroy it on site. The last two remaining sites will have their facilities completed soon. This is a financial and priority thing but the US has been destroying its weapons. The US didn't "refuse" to destroy the weapons.
|
Response to joshcryer (Reply #108)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:04 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
121. I expect you will be making excuses in 2023.
The U.S. still has far more than Assad could ever dream of.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #121)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:10 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
143. We have 365 tons of Sarin + VX and 500 tons of mustard gas.
They have 1,000 of chemical weapons that is our best estimate.
Why are you being an apologist for Syria's chemical weapons program? They're producing the stuff, we're destroying it. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #143)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:43 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
210. You are an apologist for American bullying.
"our best estimate" Who are you, in charge of the program? Do you really think they are giving accurate information? You claim 90% destruction. Then why wait another 10 years for the final 10%?
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #210)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:48 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
214. They have to build facilities.
How hard is this to grasp? You could in theory ship it to a facility to get rid of it but states wouldn't allow that (just look at how nuclear disposal isn't going anywhere). So it's quicker, in reality, to just build the facilities on site and destroy the weapons on site.
Bush cut the program's funding which is why it slipped so badly. It would've been done already had Bush not cut it. If "American bullying" is what got Russia and Syria to decide on destroying Syria's chemical weapons, then fuck yeah I'd be proud to be an "apologist" for that. There are very few conventions the US is on the right side of. Chemical weapons is one of them. The US is still on the wrong side of mines, cluster munitions, and incendiaries. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #214)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:35 AM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
423. So they built facilities for 90% of it
but just can't find the time to build for the last 10%. It will take at least 10 years for the last facility! Maybe its the sequester! Yeah, that's it! The things people believe....
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #423)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:30 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
510. Bush cut the funding for 8 years!
What the fuck.
The last two facilities were the smaller ones, they were saved for last, because you have to justify on paper building two entirely different facilities to destroy chemical weapons in two separate locations equaling under a thousand tons of material. It's better to get rid of the largest stockpiles first. This is so easy to understand I don't know what your problem is. The US is on the right side of this issue whether you like it or not. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #510)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 08:59 AM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
520. US on the right side of this issue?
What exactly is this issue? The U.S. happily uses chemical weapons that for some magical reason are not banned such as Napalm and Agent Orange. Please tell me why does it feel better to die with indiscriminate flaming gasoline thrown on you rather than gas? For that matter why is better to die of a bullet that has exploded in your gut than gas? Military technology has passed by chemical ban treaties long ago and always will. That is why I think it is a BS issue.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #210)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:17 PM
Hekate (77,813 posts)
237. Rachel was just talking about this. The US HAS destroyed nearly all its stockpiles.
The US DOES have to build a special building on site to finish it off, and that building is under way.
|
Response to Hekate (Reply #237)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:30 AM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
420. Ohh and that building is going to take at least 10 years to build.....
The things people post on DU expecting people to believe it.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #210)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:47 AM
cali (114,904 posts)
394. go ahead. tell me I'm an apologist for American bullying.
that would be amusing. I double dog dare you.
Josh is correct re U.S. chemical stores. We hardly deserve an award for it, but he's right and you're demonstrating your ignorance. |
Response to cali (Reply #394)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:47 AM
heaven05 (18,124 posts)
411. Ignorance is bliss
![]() ![]() |
Response to cali (Reply #394)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:34 AM
dionysus (26,467 posts)
422. some people are so mad at the country for various things they'll be in denial about stuff like this.
Response to dionysus (Reply #422)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:37 AM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
425. And some people have facts.
That others turn their heads away from.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #425)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:40 AM
dionysus (26,467 posts)
427. ^ proves my point
![]() |
Response to former9thward (Reply #425)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:11 AM
cali (114,904 posts)
435. not something in your possession in this case. n/t
Response to cali (Reply #394)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:36 AM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
424. Another chemical weapon expert on DU!
Who knew the intellectual riches we have!
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #210)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:23 AM
CherokeeDem (3,694 posts)
405. Please Read this Article on the Storage of Chemical Weapons.
I live in Lexington, KY and the Bluegrass Army Depot in nearby Richmond, KY, is a storage site for Sarin and VX gas... a site for the destruction of the nerve gas is underway. This article should provide you with accurate informtion regarding the intentions of the US when it comes to destroying these chemical weapons.
~snip~ Blue Grass Army Depot will be the last of nine sites to destroy its chemical weapons. The task is harder there because, unlike other sites, the chemicals are loaded in explosive M55 rockets and corroding projectiles that were meant to be shot out of cannons. The plant under construction will make heavy use of robots and other automated assemblies to separate the explosives and metal from the chemicals. Even with that automation, it will employ about 1,000 people. Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/09/09/2812927/chemicals-allegedly-used-in-syria.html#storylink=cpy |
Response to CherokeeDem (Reply #405)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:40 AM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
426. So a MIC jobs program!
That is why it is going to take at least 10 years! At least I can accept that as an excuse instead of the "we must build facilities" bullshit.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #426)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:28 AM
CherokeeDem (3,694 posts)
439. I suspect....
you don't truly understand the complexities of destroying these horrid weapons, which we should have never created in the first place.
The cynicism running rampant on this board leads me to believe that instead of having the best interest of the American public at heart, many only like to hear themselves rant without having any knowledge of what they are ranting about. There is no doubt that the military-industrial complex is powerful, but when the government is trying to do something right, even with all the bureaucratic idiocy, it would be nice for people to at least acknowledge the effort. |
Response to CherokeeDem (Reply #439)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:46 AM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
443. Please explain why it was not complex to destroy 90% of the stockpile...
Which is what the U.S. claims, but it is ohhhh so so complex to destroy the last 10%.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #443)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:22 PM
CherokeeDem (3,694 posts)
451. Although I am a scientist by education...
and have had numerous chemistry classes, I do not know the process of how these chemicals are destroyed.
As for why 90% are already destroyed and 10% are not, I can only speculate. There may have been other types of chemical weapons in other locations that were easier to destroy; I don't know. Mustard gas is stored at the Army Depot here and will be disposed of in another manner from the Sarin/VX gas. I would imagine there are numerous considerations. In Central Kentucky, the dangers posed by the chemical weapons, both in storage and in destruction, created a very vocal and lengthy debate, as did the securing of a location to build a facility to destroy the weapons. For years there was talk of moving the containers from this area and but the safety of moving the sarin and VX, which had been leaking in storage until the bunkers were repaired, created a controversy on its own. Decisions were pushed back as the public voiced their concerns. There is also the issue of the viability of the Bluegrass Army Depot...rumored to be closing at one point. We would all be naive if we thought that the politics of revenue and jobs didn't play a part in this. As for the jobs created by destruction facility currently under construction...well, if you lived in that county, you might be grateful for a job that could last for a few years. Again, I fully recognize the mistakes of our government, and the fact that many, many issues get pushed aside for political reasons. But let me say again, the fact is 90% of the gas, which you admitted, is destroyed, and plans are underway for the remaining 10% to follow. I am thankful for that. One last comment, if you are in some way speculating the remaining 10% is being kept for more sinister reasons, so the military will have such weapons to use, I don't buy that premise. The debate to remove and destroy the weapons at Bluegrass AD has been going on for way too long, extended by the public. The community wanted assurances the destruction of the gasses would be safe. |
Response to CherokeeDem (Reply #451)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:35 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
456. Thank you for your comments.
However it seems much of your assumptions rely on taking at face value what the military says. I don't. You said: 90% of the gas, which you admitted, is destroyed. I admitted no such thing. That is why I put the word "claims" in italics.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #456)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:53 PM
CherokeeDem (3,694 posts)
462. I take nothing at face value...
However, I do know the track record of the Depot and the community on this particular cache of weapons. Is the military telling us everything? Only a fool would believe every thing they hear from the military or the government, since it's all about spin. Are all the members of the community working for the betterment and protection of the community? I seriously doubt it... some may have agendas, especially the business community who wants to keep the jobs and the revenue in their area.
The fact is nothing is perfect, including me. I apoligize for missing the fact you said 'claims.' |
Response to CherokeeDem (Reply #405)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:07 PM
Gothmog (115,396 posts)
449. Good Article
Thank you for posting. The destruction of chemical weapons is difficult enough to begin with and these weapons are attached to explosives. This is from the article
Blue Grass Army Depot will be the last of nine sites to destroy its chemical weapons. The task is harder there because, unlike other sites, the chemicals are loaded in explosive M55 rockets and corroding projectiles that were meant to be shot out of cannons. The plant under construction will make heavy use of robots and other automated assemblies to separate the explosives and metal from the chemicals. Even with that automation, it will employ about 1,000 people. |
Response to CherokeeDem (Reply #405)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:26 PM
felix_numinous (5,198 posts)
499. Wow this is good to hear.
Could use a bit of good news about now.
Thankyou CherokeeDem, |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #108)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:09 PM
Smarmie Doofus (14,498 posts)
138. Interesting, this aspect.
Do you have a link handy?
Also... how do we *know* 90% is destroyed. I mean does the UN send inspectors to Nevada, or wherever? |
Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #138)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:15 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
153. Not the UN, it's a separate entity cooperating with the UN.
OPCW: http://www.opcw.org/
CMA controls the destruction of our chemical weapons (and yes the OPCW inspects our sites and reports to the UN): http://www.cma.army.mil/ The reason the deadline got pushed up is because Bush delayed funding for the program: http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-chemical-weapons-disposal-slippage-no-surprise-expert-says/ |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #153)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:09 AM
Cheviteau (382 posts)
403. I agree with you.
But best of all I like your tag line.
|
Response to joshcryer (Reply #108)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:11 PM
YOHABLO (7,358 posts)
232. So what's the shelf life of some of these chemical weapons?
Response to YOHABLO (Reply #232)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:24 PM
HooptieWagon (17,064 posts)
249. Sarin, mixed, very short. Mustard gas, very long.
I don't know about VX and others...probably inbetween.
|
Response to YOHABLO (Reply #232)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:25 PM
RC (25,592 posts)
252. The stuff we gave Saddam had a maximum shelf life of 8 to 10 years.
The use by date, was long past when we invaded Iraq. And we acted as it there was no expire date. Most of what was left was basically harmless.
|
Response to RC (Reply #252)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:39 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
272. Yeah, Saddam buried his stuff.
And the inspectors said that while it wasn't disposed of properly it was still effectively destroyed / harmless.
|
Response to joshcryer (Reply #272)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:47 PM
RC (25,592 posts)
280. He also did destroy most of it.
But neglected to do the proper paper work to prove it. That proved to be a bit short sighted.
|
Response to RC (Reply #280)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:31 AM
Blanks (4,835 posts)
389. If I remember correctly, he agreed to allow the UN inspectors back in...
Just shortly before we attacked.
What kind of a moron would brag about having destroyed all of their weapons - when they have hostile neighbors? He was railroaded, there wasn't anything Saddam Hussein could do. The decision to attack Iraq was made when the Supreme Court ruled that Dubya won in 2000. |
Response to Blanks (Reply #389)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:34 AM
RC (25,592 posts)
407. Actually, the decision was made well before that.
William Jefferson Clinton winning the Presidency, messed up their plans. One of the reason the Saddam's WMD were out dated and useless, by the time the Neocons got their chance again, eight years later.
You are correct Saddam was railroaded. We helped put Saddam in power to maintain stability in the region. Of that he did do a good job. Baghdad was safe at night. Women could drive, teach in the universities, hold high positions in both government and private enterprise. Saddam suffered terrorists poorly. There were no terrorist in the areas Saddam controlled. Baghdad was the medical center of the Middle East. Their hospitals were the best in that part of the world. You didn't need insurance either. And don't forget the World Class Museum, housing artifacts tens of thousands of years old. They were either destroyed or reside in private collections or rich people, around the world now. Our invading army stood by and watched as the museum was being looted. However, we did guard the Oil Ministry building, to prevent any damage to it or it's contents. Why the Raa, Raa, Raa, USA, USA,USA! by some, is beyond me. |
Response to RC (Reply #407)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:24 AM
Blanks (4,835 posts)
438. Of course you're right on the timeline...
...and they (the neo-cons) were very transparent about their intentions in the Middle East. Dubya talked about attacking Iraq during the 2000 debates.
I wonder how many (if any) of the people who were so insistent that we attack Iraq still believe it was necessary and a good idea. I'm amazed that my 'friends' on Facebook think that Dubya was a good president. I would have thought, on the twelfth anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center - that his pure unadulterated buffoonery was evident to everyone. |
Response to Blanks (Reply #438)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:22 PM
bvar22 (39,909 posts)
452. PNAC also targeted Syria.
Several original signers of the PNAC letter, Will Marshall for one,
were also the original founders of the conservative Democratic Leadership Council using Koch Brothers money. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #63)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:25 AM
Skittles (144,679 posts)
344. check this out
Response to Skittles (Reply #344)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:30 AM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
345. Seen it.
Putin should be so lucky that the US allowed them back to the table. They're the ones causing the issue to begin with, delaying action for years.
|
Response to joshcryer (Reply #345)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:31 AM
Skittles (144,679 posts)
346. what were they saying about Putin when Snowden.....
aw never mind.....not EVEN worth it
![]() |
Response to Skittles (Reply #346)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:32 AM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
347. I state only facts.
Russia has been stopping diplomatic action for the past few years. They're to blame for the 100k dead Syrians, particularly as Russia is selling arms to Syria.
|
Response to joshcryer (Reply #347)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:33 AM
Skittles (144,679 posts)
348. hey, I hear you
I was being sarcastic
![]() |
Response to Skittles (Reply #348)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:36 AM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
349. Oh, OK, Russia is already against a UN plan:
Response to joshcryer (Reply #349)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:49 AM
Skittles (144,679 posts)
350. the plot thickens
![]() |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #347)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:39 PM
Comrade Grumpy (13,184 posts)
460. "I state only facts," you say, just before blaming Russia for all of Syria's dead.
Nothing about Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the CIA?
I tend to blame countries who gin up and arm and finance rebellions, too. |
Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #460)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:27 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
509. Had Assad gone the Bahrain route there would be no civil war.
Of course, there are ignorant posters on this forum who consider Bahrain the utter epitome of authoritarianism despite that less than 100 have been killed. A lot arrested, yes, a whole shit ton arrested and jailed for a long time, but if you're a brutal dictator, and you don't want a civil war, that's what you do. Look at Cuba. It's not a big deal.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #50)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:51 PM
RainDog (28,784 posts)
80. In that case
The unitary executive would not have been dealt a blow.
In fact, it would've been revivified. Maybe Obama expected people to object to the use of force w/o congress putting themselves on the line for such decisions. It's pretty predictable that certain factions will immediately assume the "no attack" side of the issue from both democratic and republican sides of the aisle - and both sides will have those who go along with such attacks. I don't participate in these DU fights - but both sides will spin it to continue to support the position they held before the outcome was known. At least that's what it looks like to me. Personally, diplomacy seems like the better option whenever possible - because that's where all sides will end up anyway. Why not take some of the horror out of the process? |
Response to former9thward (Reply #50)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:52 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
86. Why would he expect that? Explain that arguement please.
Why would Obama think that the American people, on the week the NFL kicks off a new season, would want an attack on Syria?
Well? |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #86)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:00 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
104. He said so.
He said he expected Congress to back him in the vote. Don't you read any news?
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #104)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:03 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
117. I asked WHY he would expect the American people to support it.
Congress and how they vote is not a direct reflection of the American people's support, in fact, Congress has a lower approval than VD.
Again ... why would the American people support attacks on Syria? I doubt that factored into the President's decision. A year ago he said using chem weapons was a red line, he meant that. He was not bluffing. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #117)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:07 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
128. He was bluffing.
Assad will keep his weapons under cover of an international monitor. Again ... why would the American people support attacks on Syria? You should ask that question of Obama not me. I have no idea why Americans would want another mid East war.
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #117)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:49 AM
MADem (135,425 posts)
445. Congress has a lower approval than VD....
You're on fire in this thread--that's one of the best lines in this mishmash!
Bravo! |
Response to former9thward (Reply #104)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:05 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
122. He also said he needs Congressional backing.
That's why JoePhilly noted the end of the Unitary Executive Doctrine.
If Obama says he needs Congress then he must say he expects Congress to vote with him. Otherwise his threat of force is hollow. He can't go "I'm going to blow shit up but I don't think my Congress will let me." It'd be stupid. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #122)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:09 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
136. He never said that at the beginning.
Another person who does not follow news.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #136)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:18 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
162. And he never said he doesn't have the power to act unilaterally.
See how that works? He still maintains he doesn't need Congress even though he's going through Congress.
|
Response to joshcryer (Reply #162)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:24 PM
Llewlladdwr (2,165 posts)
178. So how is that a rejection of the Unitary Executive doctrine? nt
Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #178)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:28 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
185. Because he said he'll listen to Congress.
He didn't say he will or will not do what Congress said.
But it's implied. You just can't know until he does it. ![]() |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #185)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:33 PM
Llewlladdwr (2,165 posts)
197. Sorry joshcryer but I'm just not seeing it.
Had the President rejected the use of military force without Congress' approval then yeah, you'd be right. This kind of mealy-mouthed "maybe I will, maybe I won't" rhetoric is hardly a rejection of the Unitary Executive doctrine.
|
Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #197)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:35 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
200. No President would ever do that.
But it's obvious that the President is waiting for Congressional approval and he'll water down whatever it is he can do to the point where he'll get it (ie, I won't attack unless 100k people die from chemical weapons" or something atrocious like that).
|
Response to joshcryer (Reply #200)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:52 PM
Llewlladdwr (2,165 posts)
216. I agree with you that no president would do that.
Which is why I don't see this as a rejection of the UE doctrine. The President isn't giving up any of his prerogatives.
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #86)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:35 PM
mimi85 (1,805 posts)
269. The NFL?
You somehow compare the NFL season vs an attack on Syria? Do men ever grow up?
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #50)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:00 PM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
106. You cannot be serious...
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #106)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:31 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
191. Yet another person who does not follow the news.
In a prime-time speech that followed two weeks of high-stakes drama, President Obama asked the American people to support a military strike against Syria.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/10/221154902/live-blog-obama-addresses-the-nation-on-syria |
Response to former9thward (Reply #191)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:34 PM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
198. I don't?
thats funny...Everyone I know would disagree with you since I have it on at my house nearly 24 hours a day!
You forgot "if Syria doesn't cooperate"...there fixed that for ya! |
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #198)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:39 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
204. So you are saying the American people backed him?
LOL. You may have the news on 24 hours but that does not mean you are understanding it.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #204)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:40 PM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
207. No...did I say that?
I don't think I did....
Because you cannot put words in my mouth....doesn't mean I don't understand the news either does it? |
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #207)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:45 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
212. Every post you make, makes a little less sense.
Word salad I think they call it. Have a good night...
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #212)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:47 PM
mimi85 (1,805 posts)
279. I think Vanilla Rhapsody
makes perfect sense. I think you might have a problem communicating with women. Assuming Vanilla is a woman of course. And assuming you are male. If I'm wrong in either case, I apologize. I truly think more women should be in positions of power. Our maternal instincts really do influence our personas. For the better, in most cases.
Although I honestly understand your POV and you're most certainly entitled to it. I believe Americans take so much for granted. We are extremely lucky to live in the U.S. And I'm not one of those people who put a flag on my car after 9/11. I was against war then (and before with Vietnam) and I am now. That will never change. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #37)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:31 PM
CAG (1,820 posts)
192. There is generally a good precedent that you let them know that all options are on the table
Response to CAG (Reply #192)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:33 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
195. And Obama is the "everything's on the table" President.
It defines him.
|
Response to joshcryer (Reply #37)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:10 PM
George II (67,782 posts)
231. Yes, funny thing is........
...Obama basically announced that he isn't going to do what "everyone" didn't want him to do. So now those who DIDN'T want us to attack are criticizing him. Un-fucking-believable!
|
Response to George II (Reply #231)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:11 AM
Ferretherder (1,441 posts)
294. I think it is very strange that...
...we now have, after the 8 miserable, misbegotten, god-forsaken years that was the bush presidency, a leader of this country who, I believe, tries his damndest to do what is right and just (in nothing more than this case, at the very least) - and I truly feel that Assad, if he did not directly order the gas attack, at least approved of its implementation - AND in the course of trying to gain a credible coalition of domestic and foreign support for his intended actions, has listened to the voices of EVERY faction, for and against his proposition, and has decided to give diplomacy more time to gain the objectives he seeks, because he saw so many are against a military solution and is bowing to their will in this matter; a very intelligent, articulate, and again, I feel, a very considerate and caring individual, that so many of us on the left side of center (and yes, I consider myself quite left-leaning...really) are now condemning him as some kind of war-mongering scoundrel who is foaming at the mouth to bomb somebody just for the hell of it - the world and their opinions be DAMNED!
I know many of you will say I am rationalizing or trying to equivocate in this comparison, but I truly shudder to think of what might be happening, right now, were we to have a certain insanely wealthy Mormon in the white house at this time...and would THAT individual even be considering the 'will of the people', the approval of congress or international accord. I know where I stand... ...I'm with the man who spoke to the people who elected him to be their president, and who, to my mind, LISTENED to those people, and to the world-at-large, and decided to to let cooler minds have another chance to achieve the goal of destroying another dictators ability to use chemical weapons on the field of war. If I didn't believe this man to be sincere, I would not hold this position. |
Response to mac56 (Reply #410)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:34 PM
Ferretherder (1,441 posts)
504. Thank you, my friend...
...for your recommendation.
|
Response to Ferretherder (Reply #294)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:35 PM
cynzke (1,254 posts)
458. During a GOP Presidential Debate,
Paul Ryan stated that if Assad crossed the line and used chemical weapons we should respond with a military strike. Not boots on the ground, but a military strike none the less. Now he and GOP cohorts who would be cheer leading Romney on are against military action.
|
Response to cynzke (Reply #458)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:36 PM
Ferretherder (1,441 posts)
505. EXACTLY!
You are so right!
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #27)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:41 PM
LukeFL (594 posts)
43. I love you
You and I speak HIS LANGUAGE
![]() |
Response to U4ikLefty (Reply #66)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:21 PM
Jamastiene (38,096 posts)
170. Lol!
My sentiments exactly. Reading some posts is like reading Tiger Beat.
|
Response to LukeFL (Reply #43)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:00 AM
WorseBeforeBetter (11,441 posts)
413. A little too obvious with that one...
dontchathink?
|
Response to WorseBeforeBetter (Reply #413)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 12:30 AM
LukeFL (594 posts)
519. What I can't agree with my fellow DUer?
I got from the president speech exactly what he did.
All of you amateurs should just sit back and my president use his " bick stick" |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #27)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:50 PM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
76. You noticed the Unitary Executive thing, too? He was directly referencing the Youngstown decision,
and I have a feeling that Lindsey Graham heard that and went a little green. John McCain heard it, and will go green when someone explains it to him.
That was a pretty masterful and deft way of invoking those responsible for Article 1 to actually be responsible. |
Response to msanthrope (Reply #76)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:55 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
96. Bingo. nt
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #96)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:59 PM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
101. That it went right over the head of the OP is understandable, but regrettable. He did something
pretty earth-shaking there.
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #27)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:53 PM
Llewlladdwr (2,165 posts)
87. WTF?
The President has been very consistent in saying that he has the authority to launch a military strike on Syria however Congress votes and reserves the right to do so without Congress' support. He repeated this during tonight's speech. That doesn't sound like a rejection of the Unitary Executive doctrine to me.
|
Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #87)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:01 PM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
111. You are unfamiliar with the Youngstown decision? nt
Response to msanthrope (Reply #111)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:09 PM
Llewlladdwr (2,165 posts)
139. No, I'm familiar with Youngstown.
I just don't see where this speech was a rejection of the Unitary Executive doctrine.
|
Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #139)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:12 PM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
149. When he said that he had the authority to act, but believed that this authority was
best expressed with the concurrence of Congress, that was a direct rejection of the Unitary Executive doctrine.
|
Response to msanthrope (Reply #149)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:16 PM
Llewlladdwr (2,165 posts)
156. I disagree.
Had the President rejected taking action without the approval of Congress I would agree with you, but he didn't go that far.
|
Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #156)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:19 PM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
164. We will have to agree to disagree. nnt
Response to msanthrope (Reply #164)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:21 PM
Llewlladdwr (2,165 posts)
169. Agreed!
![]() |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #27)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:13 PM
Hekate (77,813 posts)
234. That's the second time I've heard that from his lips: Unitary Executive, GOP wetdream since Nixon...
... is dead if Obama has anything to say about it.
I didn't think this speech was incoherent at all. How about "good save"? or "he's giving negotiation a chance"? or "How about them unitary executives? Wait-what?" |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #27)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 04:45 AM
gtar100 (4,192 posts)
365. Yes, it's so important to read between the lines to really understand this president.
You just shouldn't take him at his word, or you miss what's really going on. Did I get that right?
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #3)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:40 PM
Hell Hath No Fury (16,327 posts)
42. Obama needs this deal as much as al-Assad.
I have never thought O wanted to strike Syria.
![]() |
Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #42)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:46 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
58. Assad needs it WAY more.
Also ... do you actually think the US diplomatic corps have not been working on Syria's Chemical weapons LONG before Assad used them? You don't think, at a minimum, after the "red-line" question a year ago, they didn't engage counter parts around the globe on exactly that issue? What do you think those folks do all day.
As for Congress ... Obama didn't punt. He's forcing this do nothing congress to take an actual position, not shout from the sidelines, but actually take a position. Tonight, in his speech, Obama knocked some of the elements of the Unitary Executive theory off the table. Very smart. Needed to be done. Obama could have performed limited strikes, and he's be fine. Assad on the other hand, might be dead. Assad needed a deal far more urgently. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #58)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:02 PM
Hell Hath No Fury (16,327 posts)
114. al-Assad could have taken the military hit.
And been back in the bombing business fairly quickly with the help of his good friends, Vlad. Plus, he could have gotten a lot of mileage out of the Standing Up To The Great Satan thing.
Considering that chem weapons have been used repeatedly in Syria by both sides during the conflict, it appears there wasn't a great deal of urgency to put a stop to it. The latest attack was just too big to continue to be ignored. If O had ordered strikes on Syria without the OK of the Congress he would be looking at never getting another thing done for the rest of his term. He's not that stupid. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #58)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:17 PM
DirkGently (12,151 posts)
160. He lost on the strike. TWICE. Obama's stuck.
What's he going to threaten now -- to strike after failing to get the support of the public or Congress? This wasn't sabre rattling. It was an attempt to draw the sword, and the sword broke. Assad's still got reason to compromise -- chemical weapons are of little use, and international pressure is building. But we wouldn't be here if America had answered the call to be the World Police again. Kudos to the administration to recognize it needed an immediate course correction to save face though. They're doing to right thing, thanks to the public pressure. |
Response to DirkGently (Reply #160)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:06 PM
Beer Swiller (44 posts)
227. And ONLY to public pressure.
Maybe military as well. After all, who wants to risk Americans potentially shooting at Russians and vice-versa, as could happen if this dick-waving macho "don't call me a wus, Bill Clinton," crap continues? Think either the American or Russian military wants to risk THAT?
Don't get me wrong; I fundamentally agree with you. And the sword started breaking when the Brits said, "Not this time, mate." |
Response to Beer Swiller (Reply #227)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:50 AM
brush (42,949 posts)
395. "dick-waving macho "don't call me a wus, Bill Clinton," crap?"
Don't you mean dick-waving macho "he tried to kill my daddy, Bush/Cheney," crap?
That would be much more accurate a comparison if that was what O is about. But IMHO it's not. He never wanted to intervene at all, thus the flipping of script by throwing it to Congress, plus the behind the scenes talks with Putin at the 2012 G20 (that info just came to light) and the talks with Putin at the most recent G20. Kerry's mention of it in his presser was no accident (it just seemed that way to many, even some in the press). The Russians and Syrians jumped at the chance to negotiate a surrender of the chem weapons. Another way of putting it is "they blinked." And not a small part of that blinking was how O handled Bin Laden. You can bet that was in the back of Assad's mind. |
Response to brush (Reply #395)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:14 AM
somethingshiny (31 posts)
415. Exactly.
Agreed 100%. It surprises me how few seem to be able to grasp this. And I believe that Kerry's description of a strike being "unbelievably small" was a veiled warning to Assad that he could personally be our "unbelievably small" target.
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #58)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:46 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
213. Pootie desperately needs the situation to be status quo ante bellum or he's out a small fortune.
And he's strategically fucked when it comes to blue water power projection!
Never mind the billions of debt he "forgave" al Assad in exchange for a Gitmo-like deal to use the port of Tartus..... Never mind that, without Assad, there's no Tartus for Pootie... And without Tartus, there's no homeport for a Russian carrier in the MED, no resupply/berthing for submarines and other vessels....and no blue water glory for Pootie Poot!!!! Never mind the fact that Syria is one of the countries that keeps the Russian weapons manufacturing business, the Pootie-MIC, humming, either.... Pootie doesn't want to lose a customer! For all these reasons...and more! Here's the tune he's singing: |
Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #42)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:03 PM
DirkGently (12,151 posts)
118. Obama's in a box now. But he's handling it.
The public doesn't back a strike. Congress isn't backing a strike. Can't strike unilaterally, or he'll look like a maniac and the Dems will get beaten with the Unwanted War. In fairness, though, backing the hell down was exactly the right thing to do. |
Response to DirkGently (Reply #118)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:13 PM
Hell Hath No Fury (16,327 posts)
152. I think everyone will be happy -
if this is pulled off. I know I will.
O isn't forced into a strike and al-Assad stays in power. Win win win for the US, al-Assad, and Russia. I think it's the best that we can hope for. |
Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #42)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:37 AM
brush (42,949 posts)
391. My thoughts also
He flipped the script on all the MIC, their congressional puppets (the neo du), and the war drumming corporate media by sending it to Congress.
And just the restrained way he handled Libya and Egypt should tip everyone off that he didn't want to intervene, as should the fact that the surrender of the Syrian chem weapons has been being discussed since the 2012 G20, not just the most recent G20. But the way he handled Bin Laden also tips off Assad and Putin that "he ain't playing around" if it comes down to it. They basically blinked and jumped at Kerry's "accidental" mention of a negotiated surrender of the weapons. IMHO the President, Kerry and Rice have all understood that they had to appear to be all in on the intervention in order to get the Syrians to the negotiating table on the chem weapons. It worked, it was well played, and the Obama bashers have to quiet down a bit — although there are still some who refused to understand that this president is not W Bush being pushed by Cheney. This president actually things thinks out, considers many options and appears to use game theory in his decision making. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #3)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:47 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
64. That's it. Pretty clear to me, too. Not at all "incoherent." nt
Response to MADem (Reply #64)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:54 PM
AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)
475. When he started talking about 'pinpricks'
...he somewhat lost me. Why even bother acknowledging the loonie right? Nothing he can say will ever placate them. He needs to get over their pitiful nonsense.
|
Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #475)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:28 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
477. He didn't lose me. There was a method and a reason in every word he uttered.
He basically told the loonie right to STFU. It was like "I see you idiots over there in the corner, don't think your shit is passing me by, but I know what I'm doing and you don't."
As for the "pinpricks" there was a very specific reason for that--this is a bit long-winded but the situation isn't simple. He needed to send a couple of messages. What he said was, we prefer to not do this, but if we do take the decision to do this, we are going to hit al-Assad in ways that cause PAIN to him. Killing civilians, or military personnel, would not "hurt" al Assad. He comes from a culture that believes that earthly existence sucks compares to the afterlife. I know many people like this, who often express a lack of what I regard as "healthy fear" when it comes to leaving this earth too soon! There would be no "pain" in Bashir's mind from causing damage to his population, either military or civilian. In fact, he'd USE their martyrdom to bolster morale. The way to hurt al-Assad is to deliberately spare his people and take away his toys--his fixed wing and helicoptor aircraft (that he's still paying for), his tanks, his APCs, his rocket launchers, his ammo depots, his oddball factories way out on deserted desert roads, his AIRFIELDS, his piers in his ports---all the things he uses to prosecute his civil war and resupply it. Obama's audience wasn't just al-Assad with that comment, either. Pootie has a "Gitmo deal" with al-Assad to use the port of Tartus at a mega-bargain price; in exchange for the forgiveness (twenty some odd cents on the dollar) of a shitload (we're talking billions) of old USSR debt. Since the Turks don't like warships of a certain capacity to bypass their straits, if Pootie wants to build a presence in the Med he needs something south of Turkey to do it. He's already dredged the port sufficiently to accommodate his cruiser-ish aircraft carrier, and he had big plans to really fix the place up. He has exclusive use of one end of that port, and he's been using it. He does have dreams of a glorious Russian Navy, but thus far, it's pretty much dreams (though he IS working on it--make NO mistake--he's increased recruiting and show-the-flag cruises). Further, if, just supposin', al Assad fails and the Sunnis take over, there are a shitload of Russians in Syria, "helping" the regime in this way-n-that....kind of how the Cubans "help" Venezuela. Those people will need to be gotten OUT, quickly, because some of the assorted Sunni 'opposition forces' might regard them as lucrative ransoms, or worse, as infidels whose heads need to be lopped off on YOUTUBE to incite the morons who support them against the "infidels" (anyone they don't like, i.e.) who oppose them. In any event, Pootie will NEED Tartus to do a non-combatant evacuation operation. If the piers at Tartus are crushed with Obama's "pinpricks-plus," or there's a hazard to navigation--like some big ass old barge or what-have-you---blocking the port, then Pootie will have to rely on air assets to help his people escape....and if the airfields are pockmarked like a spotchy teen's face, he'll have trouble on that end, too. Pootie knew it was in his best interest to stop with the snark and start contributing to a solution. That does not make Pootie a hero or a peacemaker, it makes him a pragmatist who understands his own self-interest. |
Response to MADem (Reply #477)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 03:50 PM
AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)
485. He needs to stop reacting to their idiocy
IMHO
|
Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #485)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 01:34 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
521. He's not reacting, he's just acknowledging their existence.
No flies on him, no skin off his nose. He knows who he is, he's the leader of the free world, and he's president of all the American people--including those idiots, even if they don't like it!
|
Response to MADem (Reply #521)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 01:35 PM
AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)
522. He is reacting to their idiotic statements
...in a very public way. Doing so legitimizes their stupidity.
|
Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #522)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 01:43 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
523. How do you legitimize stupidity?
He's just saying "OK, you morons, I see you. You and your dumb asses are part of the American tapestry."
And, like it or not--they ARE that. You obviously had enough insight to realize they are stupid. See? No harm, no foul. |
Response to MADem (Reply #523)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 01:46 PM
AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)
524. By reacting to it as if it is legitimate
Reacting to the reaction = drama
|
Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #524)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 02:55 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
525. There was no drama in Obama's brief remark. You're trying to create some, though, and I'm
sorry, most people aren't seeing it that way.
It was a cursory nod to a group that, like it or not, as POTUS, is part of his constituency. His beliefs and philosophies are Democratic, but his charge is to be president to the entire nation. All he was doing was acknowledging their existence, nothing more. |
Response to MADem (Reply #525)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 09:46 PM
AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)
527. That is rediculous
The GOP is not part of Obama's constituency. His constituency are the people who elected him.
That is the biggest problem with his presidency, that he feels obligated to placate his enemies. Stockholm syndrome. |
Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #527)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 09:49 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
528. It is not "ridiculous."
Obama is the President of all Americans.
When he goes abroad, when he speaks to the nation, when he appears at national events, he represents everyone, not just Democrats, not just those who voted for him. If you believe otherwise, there's nothing really more to say. We are very far apart. |
Response to MADem (Reply #528)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 09:55 PM
AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)
529. You are claiming that the Tea Party are Obamas constituents?
Obama represents the Tea Party? You must have him mixed up with Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann, Louis Gohmert and Steven King. Those people represent the Tea Party, not a Democratic president.
Oh wait, you must be referring to the 'halfpublican' Third Way nonsense..... ![]() |
Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #529)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 10:01 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
530. I hate to tell you this, but even the KKK and those Stormfront nuts are Obama's constituents.
He's President of the USA...not President of the Democrats and Independents and odd crossovers-who-voted-for-him. As a servant of the people, he was elected to serve "WE, The People." That doesn't mean "Just the people YOU happen to like."
This has nothing to do with "Halfpublican" or 3rd Way, and there's no need to be rude. |
Response to MADem (Reply #530)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 10:08 PM
AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)
532. Oh, so they have his ear too?
A constituency are the people who vote you into elected office. Not your political enemies. More ridiculous Third way nonsense.
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #532)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 10:11 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
533. Now you're just being combative, obtuse, and offensive.
One does not have to "have the ear" of a politician to be represented by that politician.
The President represents all of us. If you don't like that, too damn bad for you. It's how it works, so just get used to it, get over it, deal with it. You're making a spectacle of yourself with this foolishness. |
Response to MADem (Reply #533)
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 01:51 AM
AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)
534. I'm stating fact
Democratic presidents don't carry out Republican policies, sorry. You see, Republican policies are the cause of most of our problems as a nation. You cannot include the problem as part of the solution and expect anything good to come of it.
You should stop wasting time with your petty attempts at personal attacks and take a basic course in political science. |
Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #534)
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 01:58 AM
MADem (135,425 posts)
535. You apparently don't understand, won't grasp what I am saying, and I'm tired of arguing with you.
No one is demanding Obama "carry out Republican policies, sorry" -- but like it or not, he's President of all the American people, not just the ones you like.
If I were to "personally attack" you, you'd know it, but I don't play those foolish games. You go on and have a nice life, now--I'll make an effort to remember your name so I can avoid you in future, because I don't care for your combative attitude. Have the last word, now, I'm sure that will please you. |
Response to MADem (Reply #535)
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 03:07 AM
AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)
536. I know exactly what you are saying
And you are wrong. Democratic politicians are elected to implement Democratic policies and quash damaging RW policies, not adopt them.
A good example of this is Obama offering up damaging budget cuts to the GOP in spite of the fact that economists say they will only damage the economy. That is third way adoption of RW policies. Including the cancer as part of the cure. It is madness, and many are unfortunately blinded by it. I liken it to Stockholm Syndrome where torture victims begin identifying with their tormentors. It has been sad to watch it unfold and it has pretty much ruined the Democratic party. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #3)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:00 PM
graywarrior (59,440 posts)
109. That's what I thought!
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #3)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:08 PM
mountain grammy (24,547 posts)
133. That's what I heard.
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #3)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:08 PM
Hekate (77,813 posts)
229. I heard that too: Not bluffing, but giving peace a chance.
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #3)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:31 PM
Beer Swiller (44 posts)
262. You really believe this deal was Obama's idea.
Wow. Just wow. Well, take comfort in your fantasy.
My take, and you'll never agree with it, is that Obama wanted a war of his very own. Very badly. As a distraction from the NSA scandal, from the declining standard of living of most Americans(of whom I'm sure you are not one of, or you wouldn't be saying what you do on a daily basis), from the impending cut in Food Stamps effective October 1, from the growing realization that the lack of cost-controls in the Affordable Care Act is nothing but a mandatory bonanza for the health insurance corporations, from the impending bursting of the student loan bubble, and gods know what else. There's a whole lot going really, really wrong with our economy, you know. And Obama has done absolutely nothing to make it better. Nah, even if you know it, you'll never admit it. Too bad. And you back this guy because he has the Democratic Party label. If he were Republican, I doubt you would be saying the same things; oh, yes, I doubt that very much. But you have to cheer for your Blue Team. Well, cheer away. Vladimir Putin just gave Barack Obama the chance to save his political life from his own unnecessary and foolish Red Line, not because Putin likes Obama, but because Putin doesn't want to risk a nuclear war with America, old KGB colonel that he is. And somebody in Washington told Obama that he'd better take that deal, or else. This wasn't umptidimensional chess. This whole thing about attacking Syria was sheer stupidity on the Obama Administration's part. Not to mention completely unnecessary, dangerous, and foolish. If I were you, I'd send Vladimir a Christmas card. I know I will. And I don't even like the SOB. |
Response to Beer Swiller (Reply #262)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:11 AM
Carolina (6,960 posts)
296. Touché!
Welcome to DU and thanks for your excellent response to some of the real 'swill' that is littering this thread.
![]() |
Response to Carolina (Reply #296)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Beer Swiller (Reply #262)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:35 AM
beerandjesus (1,301 posts)
390. Awesome post! +1
Although I really don't believe Obama's motivations were quite as craven as you make them out to be....
|
Response to Beer Swiller (Reply #262)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:02 AM
Number23 (24,544 posts)
432. So Putin gave Snowden asylum as a way to give the finger to the US
but according to you, Putin decided to give Obama an out for reasons of pure goodness and benevolence and to "avoid a nuclear war?"
What in the world? |
Response to Number23 (Reply #432)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Name removed (Reply #489)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 05:31 PM
Number23 (24,544 posts)
495. I take great comfort in the knowledge that the number of people that think that Putin
"outmaneuvered" the President on this issue are few, small and dwell primarily in this forum.
Your assessment of Putin's behavior on Snowden makes a lot more sense. |
Response to Beer Swiller (Reply #262)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:41 AM
arewenotdemo (2,364 posts)
440. I agree with everything you said...until the very last line.
I love the mother.
Also, let's not forget Libya. But Obama wasn't content with overthrowing the Libyan regime and killing Qaddafi, he was on the move again. He's been waging a covert war against Syria and Assad for the last two years. He's been exceedingly reckless when one considers the volatility of the Middle East and the fact that he's been targeting Russian allies.....sorry, client states. And when it gets down to it, we have the American people and, largely, Republican Congressional representatives to thank for putting the brakes on his foolish rush to yet another war. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #3)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:38 PM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
270. Assad, I'm not bluffing, you know how much money we'll make off WWIII :)
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #3)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:06 PM
awoke_in_2003 (34,582 posts)
466. I need some ketchup for my crow. nt
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:30 PM
The Link (757 posts)
4. Military strikes in national security interest of the US. Make my children safer.
Huh?
|
Response to The Link (Reply #4)
Awknid This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to The Link (Reply #4)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:20 PM
truedelphi (32,324 posts)
243. Dubya explained all this some years back. We gotta kill them
Over there, so they don't kill us over here!
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:30 PM
quinnox (20,600 posts)
5. It reflects the confused situation of today
I think it was a pretty good speech, all in all. But things are in flux right now, so that was reflected in the speech, good or bad.
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:31 PM
winter is coming (11,785 posts)
6. Not only was it incoherent, I had the impression that the President knew it.
It was a turd-polishing attempt to appear on top of what's happening.
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:31 PM
Crimson76 (79 posts)
7. 100% correct Mr. Pitt
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:31 PM
trueblue2007 (15,546 posts)
8. tell you you're wrong? I THINK YOU ARE WRONG.
IT WAS A GOOD SPEECH.
i am still thinking of the hundreds of children - women - men writhing in pain and then dying horrible death. |
Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #8)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:42 PM
Hell Hath No Fury (16,327 posts)
45. Like the ones killled by our own drones?
![]() Are you ready to get a war on over them?? |
Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #8)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:42 PM
Luminous Animal (27,310 posts)
46. Yes. In Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now we need to
kill Syrians to stop Syrians from killing Syrians.
|
Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #8)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:48 PM
Politicalboi (15,189 posts)
69. I liked his speech too but,
What about the children we kill? I guess those children are just too bloody to show on TV. How can the US EVER talk about the killing of children. Like somehow a gas death is worse than a bombing death. I'm glad we are going to wait and see for now. I hope and believe by his talk about specific targets, we WON'T have ANY children killed or ANY innocent people killed.
I want to trust our President, but hypocrisy doesn't suit him well. |
Response to Politicalboi (Reply #69)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:34 PM
golfguru (4,987 posts)
266. The children we kill won't be wreathing in pain
The chemical poisons deliver painful death lasting hours.
Our Cruise missiles will decapitate the children instantly. They will not know what hit them! /Sarc I was at first for punishing Assad with missile strikes, but now I have made a 180 deg turn. I think we are better off not attacking Syria, no matter how small the strike. It results in no gain and much pain. |
Response to golfguru (Reply #266)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 04:39 AM
Democracyinkind (4,015 posts)
363. I hope you are kidding. nt
Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #363)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:00 PM
golfguru (4,987 posts)
448. Yes, and I hope you noticed my sarcasm tag. n/t
Response to Politicalboi (Reply #69)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:10 AM
jsr (7,712 posts)
293. Flying body parts are better than asphyxiation.
![]() |
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:31 PM
Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)
9. The haters are mad there will be no US attack on Syria
They desperately wanted to use it to bash Obama. When a diplomatic solution becomes reality, the haters won't know what to do.
It'll be like watching chickens run around with their heads cut off. Good times. Good times. |
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #9)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:38 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
34. He was supposed to announce that SHOCK and AWE #2 had started.
And then go on to describe the ground invasion.
When that didn't happen, some were confused. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #34)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:46 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
61. No confusion.
The American people just said NO!
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #61)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:49 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
72. Then why would Russia try to help with some deal?
Why not leave Obama dangle?
Come on ... explain why Russia decides to save Obama because the American people said "No". I'll try to save you some time ... you can't explain it. (But please feel free to try.) |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #72)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:57 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
98. Russia looks like a peacemaker to the world.
America looks like a warmonger. Pretty simple really.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #98)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:06 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
127. Except no one in the world believes that, no one.
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #127)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:08 PM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
132. You are not the world.
Even though you think you are.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #132)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:29 PM
dbackjon (6,578 posts)
258. Only America haters think that
Response to dbackjon (Reply #258)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:28 AM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
418. Yeah, America love it or leave it!!!
Where have I heard that before????
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #127)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 03:38 AM
ConcernedCanuk (13,509 posts)
357. I am ONE - maybe the only one? "America looks like a warmonger" . . . damm straight.
.
. . And I do not hate, nor even dislike USAmericans - lived there - liked most, even loved a few. My first room-mates were vets from Vietnam, so I do have a bit of an idea about USAmerican atrocities. The USA/MIC/PNAC has been bombing the shit out of other people's countries as long as I've been alive. Trying to remember how many countries have bombed North America . . . . ![]() CC |
Response to former9thward (Reply #98)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:19 PM
mythology (9,527 posts)
242. Considering Russia is arming Assad
the guy gassing his own citizens, how in the blue hell does Russia appear to be a peacemaker?
I think Russia realizes that they are going to lose the long game on this and so are trying to save some face. Putin knows he can't win a military showdown with the U.S. and this lets him avoid having to back down from that. |
Response to mythology (Reply #242)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:35 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
267. Pootie doesn't want the USA to target any piers in Tartus, that's the real bottom line.
That's why he's suddenly decided to be "helpful" instead of being a smarmy little shit, like he usually is.
He's spent a fortune getting that port up to snuff so he can park his warships and subs there. If that port was damaged, he'd have to find new digs. About the only place where he might be welcomed is Lebanon--and stuff goes BOOM there a lot. Also, if al-Assad took a powder as a consequence of overthrow, that deal he has to use Tartus would disappear, too--that deal is worth billions, he doesn't want to lose it. Anyone who thinks that Pootie is in the catbird seat here doesn't understand the Naval challenges the Russians have when it comes to power projection. They have a NEED for Syria if they want to be a viable Naval power. It is in their interest that we don't lean too hard on al Assad. |
Response to mythology (Reply #242)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:27 AM
former9thward (26,860 posts)
417. America has lost the "long game" and the world knows it.
That is why Obama could not build world support for his aggression. No one wants to be on the losing side. As far as "the guy gassing his own citizens" I will await the UN report. You may trust the agenda driven U.S. intelligence services but I don't. The UN said the rebels used sarin gas in May and the U.S. turned its head. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #72)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:59 PM
Eko (5,553 posts)
103. Maybe
Russia was trying to save Assad.
|
Response to Eko (Reply #103)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:07 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
130. Because Russia knew Obama was not bluffing.
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #72)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:03 PM
DJ13 (23,671 posts)
115. To keep Assad in power, which blocks the pipeline Russia doesnt want
![]() |
Response to DJ13 (Reply #115)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:06 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
125. Strikes weren't intend to remove him from power.
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #125)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:21 PM
DJ13 (23,671 posts)
173. Mission creep began to mention regime change
McCain included it in the Senate resolution that passed.
|
Response to DJ13 (Reply #173)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:35 PM
Proud Liberal Dem (22,816 posts)
201. Um.....McCain isn't President nor does he speak for President Obama
I'll settle for what President Obama has been saying. Never for one moment have I believed that he was talking about regime change (I'm sure he wants it but is not wanting us to do it)
|
Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #201)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:39 PM
DJ13 (23,671 posts)
206. Go ahead
Just be aware that he would have had authorization to go for regime change if he wanted it.
|
Response to DJ13 (Reply #206)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:40 AM
Proud Liberal Dem (22,816 posts)
377. The key words being:
If he wanted it
|
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #9)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:39 PM
Llewlladdwr (2,165 posts)
39. If there's not to be any attack on Syria...
what was the point of this speech?
In all honesty absolutely nothing in Syria is different than it was last week. Assad stll has his chemical weapons and all the time he needs to hide them now. If they even need hiding. I've yet to hear a clear explanation of exactly how Syria putting their chemical weapons under international control is going to work. Are the weapons going to be destroyed? Removed from Syria? Monitored in place? This is a long way from over... |
Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #39)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:43 PM
LukeFL (594 posts)
49. PRESSURE!
Duers MUST learn to read between the lines
|
Response to LukeFL (Reply #49)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:46 PM
Llewlladdwr (2,165 posts)
59. If the President wants to apply pressure...
shouldn't he be pushing for a vote on AUMF? Once he has that in hand he'll be much more credible. Postponing the vote takes the pressure off.
|
Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #59)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:48 PM
LukeFL (594 posts)
67. Ugh!!!!!!!!!!!!
Didn't you hear the ..... Postponing, seeking, diplomacy?
Why is this SO hard even for his do called supporters to understand him? I really give up |
Response to LukeFL (Reply #67)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:59 PM
Llewlladdwr (2,165 posts)
102. Well, I'm having a hard time understanding because frankly, it makes no sense.
Are we applying pressure by threatening the imminent use of military force or are we backing off the threat of force in order to give diplomacy a chance? The President seemed to be trying to have it both ways in this speech.
|
Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #59)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:50 PM
U4ikLefty (4,012 posts)
77. Shhh, they're too busy looking into his dreamy eyes
and reading his mind to answer.
|
Response to U4ikLefty (Reply #77)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:29 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
189. Gee--I thought his detractors were too busy critiquing his eyebrows ....
Response to MADem (Reply #189)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:32 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
455. Bwahaha! Still trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! How many lost on popcorn stock?
![]() They're upset because we won't be bombing Syria and everyone will follow international law. What, no WW3? Bor-ring!!! 'What about my furrows of worry? I have a lot invested in this! It just has to be real!' Oh, no, please, don't give credit to diplomacy! Singing 'give peace a chance' my ass! And all the while spewing hate and everything but love. Gotta keep that energy going! Peace doesn't sell books and airtime! |
Response to freshwest (Reply #455)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:35 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
457. I don't think a lot of the detractors on this thread are going to like the home page today either...
http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/1017144684
The waiter in this place serves up one helluva meal! |
Response to MADem (Reply #457)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:38 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
459. Woot! Let me go take a peek and be back. Thanks, MADem!
EDIT: The Earl sure does! And I love the name of that server, 'Betterment.'
|
Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #59)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:55 PM
iandhr (6,852 posts)
93. Actually no
Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:14 PM - Edit history (2) If diplomacy fails the President can come back to congress and the American people and say.
"The United States has made a good faith effort to resolve the situation diplomatically. Unfortunately these efforts have come up short. I now ask congress to authorize the use of force" If that happened I think many Americans who are currently against would change their minds. |
Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #59)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:31 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
479. PBO asked Congress in May. Guess what the focus was at DU then?
Obama Call To Repeal 'Perpetual War' Law Contradicts Pentagon
By Matt Sledge - 05/23/2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/obama-aumf-repeal_n_3328667.html Obama Calls for Repeal of "Perpetual War" Law Published on May 24, 2013 An interesting part of Obama's speech that many seem to be looking over is that he called for the repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the "Perpetual War" law... Mention of this at DU only produced the sound of crickets. Obama asked Congress to take AUMF war making powers away for himself and future presidents. To learn what the man is about requires actually listening to the man. The bills didn't make it far because of the GOP. Obama can't push them to do anything as some may think. The view on him here goes from being omnipotent to helpless dumbass. Usually from the same posters. Where was the push at DU to press Congress when Democrats had introduced these bills? |
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #9)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:44 PM
Jackpine Radical (45,274 posts)
54. Please get off that kick. It is asinine.
I've seen no indication that very many people want to see a strike on Syria. What the ones you call "haters" have hated is the prospect of the US going it alone again into another Middle East quagmire in what would be a very dangerous and likely futile effort to police the world. These "haters" are, as far as I can tell, cautiously hopeful that there will be no strikes. If Obama is the prime architect of a peaceful resolution, then let us salute him. What matters is the humanitarian end, not the distribution of credit for the outcome. It couldn't happen without Obama getting on board the liferaft (whether or not he built it in the first place), and it couldn't happen without Putin (despicable as he may be) joining the effort. Whatever Putin is, he is not crazy. Let us all thank our lucky stars that both the US and Russia had the good sense to back down, just as JFK and Kruschchev did a half-century ago.
|
Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #54)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:54 PM
suffragette (12,232 posts)
90. +1,000 jackpine
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #9)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:10 PM
Cal Carpenter (4,959 posts)
140. How far from reality must you be to even conceive of such a thing?
What the fuck.
You think people desperately want innocent civilians halfway across the planet to be killed by US bombs just so they can complain about the president? How the fuck does your brain come up with shit like that? What does that say about *you*? |
Response to Cal Carpenter (Reply #140)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:09 AM
DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)
292. Well said. Thank you. -The Sane
Response to Cal Carpenter (Reply #140)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:24 AM
laundry_queen (8,646 posts)
326. That's pretty much what I was thinking. nt
Response to Cal Carpenter (Reply #140)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:52 AM
cali (114,904 posts)
396. it's a sick suggestion and that indicates what kind of a brain comes up
such shit.
|
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #9)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:26 PM
NuclearDem (16,184 posts)
182. Oh stop that.
I really, really, really fucking wish the Obama personality cultists would stop making this about how people view him or who is going to be next on the persona non grata list for not fawning over every decision he makes.
Let be me absolutely fucking clear: we don't want a damn war. The cultists cheered it on for a long damn time because Obama was behind it, and then when the anti-war crowd managed to pressure him into going to Congress, they all of suddem switched course and were suddenly behind diplomacy. The rest of us are grown up enough to put bullshit personality and ego stroking aside to realize this isn't a goddamn game. |
Response to NuclearDem (Reply #182)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:33 PM
Carolina (6,960 posts)
264. Excellent
response... The cultists have been all over the map to justify BHO's actions, words, whatever.
But the rest of us have always maintained that this is serious, that we are opposed to yet another war for the1% and that this is not a game, nor is it about being humanitarian! |
Response to NuclearDem (Reply #182)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:13 AM
DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)
297. ^^^This post is right on target^^^
Response to NuclearDem (Reply #182)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:09 AM
CountAllVotes (19,897 posts)
433. You have learned something
It is called Power to the People.
When the people act as a unit and in a way that demands attention, attention is had. I wrote to my senators and the message was simple. NO WAR IN SYRIA NO WAR IN SYRIA NO WAR IN SYTRIA Understand? Maybe they don't understand but they didn't cross that line with the American people that want nothing at all do with another damned war to add to other damned wars that are already going on around the world and such wars are being paid for by you and me already. Enough already a long long time ago! Peace! |
Response to CountAllVotes (Reply #433)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 03:42 PM
burnsei sensei (1,820 posts)
484. +1000
nt
|
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #9)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:44 PM
Tiredofthesame (62 posts)
211. I don't need anything related to Syria to bash Obama.
I have an exceptionally long list from the past 5 years, to do all the bashing I would like. I would say most people you claim are "hating", would rather not see any military intervention whatsoever. I for one, am completely against ANY military intervention at all. And I am no stranger to bashing the President.
|
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #9)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:53 PM
Peace Patriot (24,010 posts)
218. People who feared Persian Gulf War III (if not WW III) are "haters"?
That's ridiculous. Obama was looking every ounce "the Decider" who couldn't find the WMDs under the Oval Office rug, but, hey, what's a hundred thousand innocent people slaughtered to take out target #2 of the "Project for a New American Century"?
That's what it looked like, and you can love Obama or hate Obama, but THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE. Sending Cruise missiles into the tinderbox Middle East COULD trigger nuclear war. At a MINIMUM, it would inflict more slaughter and suffering in Syria. And then there are all the grades of disaster beyond that, including a potential U.S. ground war and nuclear war, with Israel having nuclear weapons, Pakistan having nuclear weapons, India having nuclear weapons, and both Russia and China having big arsenals of nuclear weapons. And all kinds of other really bad possibilities, one of them being strengthening Al Qaeda among the "rebels" in Syria and the region and another being a spreading ground war among various countries and their "rebels" and tribal and religious factions. It's a TINDERBOX. You don't send missiles into a tinderbox unless you are willing to deal with the conflagration that you may ignite. When the President of the United States starts saber-rattling, we're not supposed to object? Who knows if he's serious? He said he was. He said he had the power to attack Syria without anybody's agreement, here or around the world. It's not a matter of hating Obama. It's a matter of hating WAR. I find it amazing that people who want PEACE somehow get turned around into "bad guys" and "haters." I've seen it in a number of threads now, and it's "Alice in Wonderland" insane. Please stop doing this. It is so unfair. Furthermore, this situation is NOT over. Here we are poised yet again over unilateral U.S. military action, nervously awaiting the outcome of diplomatic efforts and UN weapons inspectors. We don't know what's going to happen next. And we are going to be faced with this again and again, as our "military-industrial complex" manufactures yet more reasons for its existence and profitability. We are in fact engaged in a "Forever War." Realizing this has nothing to do with hating anybody. It has to do with wanting THIS country to become a PEACEFUL country. |
Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #218)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:07 PM
arewenotdemo (2,364 posts)
450. "It's a TINDERBOX."
"You don't send missiles into a tinderbox unless you are willing to deal with the conflagration that you may ignite."
I'll just add: he was a FUCKING FOOL for even suggesting it. He had already overthrown a Russian ally in Libya, killing the Head of State there, all under the guise of R2P and "humanitarian intervention". And he has been waging a covert war against the secular Assad regime in Syria for two years, arming and training Islamists/jihadists. |
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #9)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:07 AM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
290. Right-Wing Media's Love Affair With Putin Continues Over Syria Weapons Proposal
By SAMANTHA WYATT
September 9, 2013 Right-wing media have rushed to heap praise on Russian President Vladimir Putin for a proposal to allow Syria to avoid U.S. air strikes by surrendering all of its chemical weapons to the international community, despite the fact that Russia was responding to statements by Secretary of State John Kerry and that President Obama supports the solution. http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/09/09/right-wing-medias-love-affair-with-putin-contin/195803 Surrendering all of its chemical weapons to the international community brings Assad to acting within 'international norms' as PBO said he had to do, detailed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention This is a victory for us who want lives saved and nothing to complain. But it's not good enough for some and that's just sad. Save life, not face. EOM. |
Response to freshwest (Reply #290)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:45 AM
snagglepuss (12,704 posts)
441. This is a complete non sequitor but I truly needed
to see that lolcat in you post. Nothing sums up better the frame of mind I am in. Thanks for the much need laugh.
![]() |
Response to snagglepuss (Reply #441)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:29 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
470. You're welcome. Apply liberally as needed!
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #9)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:37 AM
morningfog (18,115 posts)
313. If you start with "The haters..." you have conceded you have no argument.
The rest simply verifies that.
|
Response to morningfog (Reply #313)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:24 AM
Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)
327. What about if someone calls me a cultist?
Does that mean they have conceded they have no argument?
![]() |
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #9)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:43 AM
beerandjesus (1,301 posts)
393. What an assholish comment.
Worthy of a teabagger.
|
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #9)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 03:56 PM
noiretextatique (27,273 posts)
488. that's the most insane thing i've read here in a long while
seriously.
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:31 PM
forestpath (3,102 posts)
10. No, you're not wrong. You pretty much summed it up.
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:32 PM
NightWatcher (39,343 posts)
11. I dont think he even really neede to give the speech..unless we were bombing tomorrow
It was pretty vague and since they are going to try the diplomatic route the speech seemed kinda awkward.
and No, I'm not going to watch all the videos. Sure kids died, but kids will just as sure die in any war, or strike, or conflict... Nothing was really accomplished by talking for a few minutes to the US tonight. No news broke, nothing was determined. |
Response to NightWatcher (Reply #11)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:46 PM
winter is coming (11,785 posts)
60. It was scheduled on the eve of the Senate vote, and I believe it was originally intended
to sell the country on intervention, to put pressure on Congress. Apparently, it was decided that re-purposing the speech would be a better idea than canceling it, so we got this strange amalgamation of "Syria bad... must bomb" and "diplomacy".
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:32 PM
whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)
12. I missed it, but assumed it would be
10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag.
|
Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #12)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:21 PM
truedelphi (32,324 posts)
245. Yep, that would be my call too.
IF I was as concise as you.
Well Done. |
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:32 PM
tom_kelly (800 posts)
13. I'm with you
This whole thing is getting more strange with each day.
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:33 PM
Bjorn Against (12,041 posts)
14. It was an awful speech that focused more on bombing than diplomacy
To push bombing right after such a major diplomatic breakthrough is destructive, this speech could seriously damage the talks with Russia. Obama had a couple good days and he completely blew them with this speech.
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:33 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
15. It was pretty damn simple, actually.
![]() Obama says "I disagree with the use of chemical weapons and so does almost everyone in the world. I have decided to blow shit up to take care of those chemical weapons. A diplomatic solution now exists thanks to my decision to blow shit up*. I'm taking it to the UN and asking Congress to delay the vote until that point. Meanwhile, have a look at the videos, because, you know, this whole position I have against chemical weapons is the morally correct position." *(yes he literally said that) |
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:33 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
16. The whole world was watching or listening. Every word was deliberate and had purpose.
Where it was coherent, it was deliberately so.
He was speaking to different constituencies AND to Russia and the Syrians. Obama provided a few solid points, like his commitment to have Congress involved, amid a palate of shadows and tones, leaving it to the viewer to read between the lines when needed. He's not going to paint himself into a corner, show his entire hand. This is how it's done. |
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #16)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:34 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
472. Well said. But still, some miss 'the beloved pair' running the country:
![]() Those were the days of glory for some here. For me, not so much. I welcome the change in leadership. |
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:33 PM
struggle4progress (114,536 posts)
17. Transcript, for those inclined to read it
Response to struggle4progress (Reply #17)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:36 PM
joshcryer (61,988 posts)
23. Words. Me. Am. Not. Able. To. Read.
So. Confusing!
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:35 PM
cigsandcoffee (2,300 posts)
19. Yeah, that's about right. n/t
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:35 PM
DirkGently (12,151 posts)
20. Chris Hayes nailed the fundamental contradiction.
An appeal to upholding "international norms" by a unilateral act that is illegal under the same international norms. Essentially: American exceptionalism entitles America to be the World Police, when and where it chooses. |
Response to DirkGently (Reply #20)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:37 PM
winter is coming (11,785 posts)
26. Yes, he did nail it, as usual.
I guess we're supposed to believe It's Okay If You're An American.
![]() |
Response to DirkGently (Reply #20)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:05 PM
1awake (1,494 posts)
123. Best way I've ever heard it put.
gonna borrow that if it's okay.
|
Response to 1awake (Reply #123)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:08 PM
DirkGently (12,151 posts)
135. I give you permission to quote Chris Hayes!
![]() |
Response to DirkGently (Reply #135)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:12 PM
1awake (1,494 posts)
150. ha... yea i know, but you caught it not me so... thanks! n/t
Response to DirkGently (Reply #20)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:57 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
220. This needs to be its own post! Thanks! n-t
Response to DirkGently (Reply #20)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:40 PM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
273. +1,00000000000000000000000
Response to DirkGently (Reply #20)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:24 AM
jsr (7,712 posts)
304. Excellent description.
Response to DirkGently (Reply #20)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:55 AM
avaistheone1 (14,626 posts)
319. THAT as the BIG one.
![]() |
Response to DirkGently (Reply #20)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:48 AM
snagglepuss (12,704 posts)
444. Bang on.
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:35 PM
merbex (3,123 posts)
21. I think he is setting up the 'diplomacy' for failure
He asked to postpone the vote - clearly he knew he didn't have the votes.
Now, he wants to see if the 'compliance will work'.....what if our 'compliance demands' are unrealistic? He AGAIN asserts he has power to use military without Congress.... Overall, you are correct. Appealing to emotion asking us to watch youtube - that has to be a first. TRUST the internet says the POTUS. Weird speech |
Response to merbex (Reply #21)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:20 PM
quaker bill (8,164 posts)
166. No, actually he is setting up Assad and Congress
Game this thing out.
Say Mr. Assad breaks into the massive stockpile again next week, and kills a few thousand more. Where do you think the votes in Congress will be then? (answer: if there are enough dead children on CNN, even the T-party wackaloons will be on board) Where do you think Mr. Assad thinks the votes will be if he does this? Remember BHO only put the saber back into the sheath, but it is still parked just offshore and could pay Mr. Assad a visit in 30 minutes... After a dozen years of war, do you really think anyone in the Middle East thinks we are not capable of going crazy stupid with all that firepower on a whim? Do you think anyone over there does not fully comprehend the massive technical advantages we possess against every scrap of military equipment they possess? He is not setting diplomacy for failure. The Secretary of State is on his team. He is setting up Assad and Congress, if Assad acts. |
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:35 PM
jessie04 (1,528 posts)
22. Pul-eeze...He nailed it !!
He held out his hand for peace but would not back down.
An IRON fist in a velvet glove. I'm sure the RW social media are praising your thoughts. |
Response to jessie04 (Reply #22)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:36 AM
HangOnKids (4,291 posts)
311. Can You Cram A Few More Cliches In Your Post?
I don't think you put in enough:
1. hand out for peace...check 2. would not back down...check 3. iron fist in a velvet glove...check 4. nailed it...check 5. RW social media praising...check Can you add a few more? Pul-eeze doesn't count and I am just not satisfied with only 5. Thanks ![]() |
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:36 PM
In_The_Wind (72,288 posts)
24. You aren't wrong, Will.
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:36 PM
Arkansas Granny (30,687 posts)
25. That's pretty much what I heard, too.
I thought I must have missed something, but maybe not.
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:37 PM
Skidmore (37,364 posts)
28. I heard the man ask for some time to continue to pursue a diplomatic solution to completion.
I also didn't get the impression that this is open-ended either and I do think that he was asking for people to come together to give thought and support to a reasonable solution to the problem of chemical weapon stockpiled in Syria. AND when I see those dead kids, I understand that, had the Iran-Iraq war gotten more lopsided back in the 80s and similar weapons used on the western edge of Iran made it to Tehran, those could have been my kids. We all need to give a tinker's dam about reducing this type of weaponry in the world and we definitely should care about those they have been used against. There were more than dead kids from that attack, there were survivors too who will live with the injury and disability brought on by a ruthless man's disregard for part of his people whose existence had become inconvenient for him. I really find it intensely disturbing to hear these deaths dismissed as a nuisance to be acknowledged.
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:37 PM
Whisp (24,096 posts)
29. don't talk about balls, Will. nor incoherence.
o man. you wrong. you wrong and you mad bro.
![]() |
Response to Whisp (Reply #29)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:42 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
474. The glory days are no more, and peace is bor-ring. Speaking of the rule of balls:
![]() I don't miss 'the beloved pair.' |
Response to freshwest (Reply #474)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:01 PM
Whisp (24,096 posts)
476. Betty White has something to say about 'balls'.
![]() |
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:38 PM
RebelOne (30,947 posts)
30. Yes, you are totally correct.
I am against war and he did not convince me. I love Obama, but I disagree with his stance on any attack on Syria.
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:38 PM
Avalux (35,015 posts)
31. I think you're wrong.
If Obama wanted to attack - if he was like Shrub - chomping at the bit to bomb, he would do it. He wouldn't be working on a diplomatic solution.
|
Response to Avalux (Reply #31)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:43 PM
snappyturtle (14,656 posts)
53. But he certainly reminded us he can take action if he choses.
He may be working on a diplomatic effort but he's keeping
the military in place 'if needed'. This whole speech was so full of loopholes no matter what he does do, he covered it. imho |
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:38 PM
DevonRex (22,541 posts)
32. You're embarrassing yourself at this point.
Maybe study the Cold War in depth. Really study. Game theory.
|
Response to DevonRex (Reply #32)
DisgustipatedinCA This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #305)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:36 AM
DevonRex (22,541 posts)
310. Yeah, I apologize for that.
I should never have acted that way.
|
Response to DevonRex (Reply #310)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:47 AM
DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)
316. Thanks.
Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #316)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:04 AM
DevonRex (22,541 posts)
322. You're welcome.
I'm not usually such a witch. (apologies to actual witches)
|
Response to DevonRex (Reply #32)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:34 AM
tallahasseedem (6,716 posts)
421. +1
It's mind boggling! Imagine what they would say about Kennedy...
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:38 PM
Motown_Johnny (22,308 posts)
33. You are wrong.
He is getting attacked both by the right and the left so he had to speak to both sides. If you really can't distinguish between the two different arguments then it may have sounded incoherent to you. |
Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #33)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:55 PM
bluestate10 (10,942 posts)
506. Some posters on this site know only one gear. And they crank that gear right into a tree. nt
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:39 PM
johnd83 (593 posts)
36. It made perfect sense
It is the carrot and the stick. He just spent most of time pointing out that he was ready to use the stick.
|
Response to johnd83 (Reply #36)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:57 PM
bluestate10 (10,942 posts)
507. I agree. I understood what the President was doing. Diplomacy with a big stick at the ready
if it is needed.
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:39 PM
LukeFL (594 posts)
38. Can't believe you don't know him yet
What do you think he was trying to do there?
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:40 PM
Junkdrawer (27,993 posts)
40. cut and paste rewrite....
not enough time for new rehearsals...
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:40 PM
jazzimov (1,456 posts)
41. OK: YOU'RE WRONG.
Far from "gobldeygook". I thought he was dead-on.
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:42 PM
phleshdef (11,936 posts)
44. It was perfectly clear to me.
Response to phleshdef (Reply #44)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:30 PM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
190. It was perfectly clear if you didnt have your fingers in your ears going
la la la la la...I can't hear you...
like some here did. |
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #190)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:03 PM
Laura PourMeADrink (38,973 posts)
511. -1,000,000
Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #511)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:08 PM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
512. Looks like one of the la la la group has chimed in
![]() |
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #512)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:11 PM
Laura PourMeADrink (38,973 posts)
513. Ha...looks like the one who almost got blocked today who people say is rude ALL
the time chimed in.
|
Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #513)
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 12:11 AM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
517. blocked?
so...hitting back with equal force is "rude"? GMAFB
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:42 PM
BlueStreak (8,377 posts)
47. Thanks for the summary version. I wasn't about to sit through the whole thing.
Response to BlueStreak (Reply #47)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:31 PM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
193. Of course not...
figures "but you don't hate Obama" right?
|
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #193)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:01 PM
BlueStreak (8,377 posts)
221. I give him credit for the good things that he has done.
He just hasn't dome very many of them lately.
|
Response to BlueStreak (Reply #221)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:03 PM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
223. that made me laugh out loud...
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #223)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:19 PM
BlueStreak (8,377 posts)
238. I flipped through the first 15, and all of them
from from 2009-2010.
I am more interested in the recent moves. It is clear that the second term is the time he pays back the people who funded him. As I said, I give him credit for the 2009-2010 stuff, and that's a hell of a lot better than we would have gotten from McCain. |
Response to BlueStreak (Reply #238)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:20 PM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
244. No you didn't say...you said NOTHING.
I happen to have met the young lady who created that site. Yeah she hasnt updated...but it was enough to debunk YOU and your "Obama has done nothing".
You sounded very much like the teabaggers who claimed Obama had no credentials to be President. I used to carry around a long list of them in my wallet to pull out whenever they made that claim |
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #244)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:28 PM
BlueStreak (8,377 posts)
257. I said "I give him credit for the good things that he has done."
What is hard to follow about that?
Most of those good things were in his first two years. Since reelection, it has been a hard right turn. Out best scenario is to keep him in check another three years and hope for somebody a little less right wing in 2016. |
Response to BlueStreak (Reply #257)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:31 PM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
263. No it has NOT.... where the hell do you people get this stuff?
you oppose anyone who is not left of Kucinich...and then you are disappointed by Obama...and that means everything he has done is Right? (Since the second election....I think Gay people would beg to differ with ya).
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:43 PM
bigtree (81,555 posts)
51. so good to hear someone acknowledge that.
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:43 PM
Darkhawk32 (2,099 posts)
52. Sorry, but you're wrong. It was pretty succinct to me. n/t
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:44 PM
NoOneMan (4,795 posts)
55. 1745 Dimensional Chess
I read it. Yeah. Strange. But I've been told its all part of a top secret masterplan only smart people could understand.
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:45 PM
Shampoobra (423 posts)
56. He's an embarrassment
I get so upset whenever I hear descriptions of what sarin does to its victims (and even more upset when I hear people try to downplay its effects with comments like, "Hey, killing is killing," as if death by a bullet is somehow as bad as the torturous effects of sarin) that I find myself wanting to side with the strike-Syria crowd.
Can't, though. None of the strike-Syria crowd seem to know what that is supposed to accomplish. And then the president comes on the screen with his freshly-painted eyebrows and pretends he has a message of some sort. It's embarrassing. |
Response to Shampoobra (Reply #56)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:55 PM
otohara (24,135 posts)
94. Freshly Painted Eyebrows?
Really?
|
Response to otohara (Reply #94)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:35 PM
Shampoobra (423 posts)
199. Sorry, that wasn't very clear
I was still a little steamed when I wrote the above. No, his eyebrows should not be an issue. I just don't see why he needs to dye them jet-black.
|
Response to Shampoobra (Reply #199)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:04 PM
otohara (24,135 posts)
224. Black POTUS Has Always Had Black Eyebrows
http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/new_official_portrait_released/
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/19/nation/la-na-adv-inaug-fever-20130120 Your horns are showing - stop it. Sounds like something Michele Bachman would say...back track and say the same thing differently. |
Response to otohara (Reply #224)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:27 PM
Shampoobra (423 posts)
255. Your links show that they weren't, as I had thought, "freshly painted"
What's really going on here is, I broke my own most important rule (when it comes to online activity). I posted when I was in a rotten mood.
So if I offended you, or any one else with my comment about his eyebrows, I apologize. Bringing physical appearance into an argument is unnecessary, and never bolsters one's point. |
Response to Shampoobra (Reply #199)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:07 PM
Hekate (77,813 posts)
228. Very weird observation. Reagan dyed his whole head at 80+ and PBO is going gray at 50-something
Obama's beard and sideburns may be black as well. The men in my Irish family keep red beards (or stubble) and sideburns after the hair on top their heads is gray and vanishing.
|
Response to Hekate (Reply #228)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:33 PM
otohara (24,135 posts)
265. It's That Bad Here At DU
going after the grey haired presidents eyebrows.
|
Response to otohara (Reply #94)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:06 AM
Enthusiast (50,983 posts)
341. I was feeling low down after reading all the fighting
and arguing on this thread. Then I came to your post with the kitteh GIF. It made me laugh. Thanks.
|
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:46 PM
Snake Plissken (4,103 posts)
57. What's most disheartening is we are wasting so much time and effort on this
when there are so many more important issues which need to be addressed.
I'm so sick of our country being the Middle East's little lap dog. |
Response to Snake Plissken (Reply #57)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:50 PM
forestpath (3,102 posts)
75. +1000
Response to Snake Plissken (Reply #57)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:36 PM
RKP5637 (63,477 posts)
202. +1000!!! This endless bullshit in the middle east decade
after decade is sucking the life blood out of the US. Eventually, there will be great unrest in this country as we expend all of our resources, money and energy running around the world. Obama says we are not the policemen of the world, but I'll be damn, that's all I've seen my whole long life starting with the Vietnam war where many of my friends died.
Meanwhile, the US sinks lower and lower on the world stage, while other countries take their money, resources and energy to improve the lot of life for their citizenry, while we wage war, and they sit back. Our foreign policy has always sucked, always! |
Response to Snake Plissken (Reply #57)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:53 PM
harun (11,282 posts)