saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,756
- 10,839
- 2,030
JakeStarkey, you are a waste of my valuable time enjoy ignore mode. You want to join the intelligant debaters here, I'll reconsider.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Obama: "My Accomplishments are Slight..."
JakeStarkey, you are a waste of my valuable time enjoy ignore mode. You want to join the intelligant debaters here, I'll reconsider.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Obama: "My Accomplishments are Slight..."
You know, it's, at a minimum, disingenuous, and at a maximum, intentionally deceitful, to post only a part of a sentence and trying to pretend that that part contains the complete thought. But that's what we've come to expect from wingnuts.
Liability, the use of the ellipsis justifies you cutting up the quote for your hypocritical purpose. Beowulfe legitimately kicked you in the face for it. If you want to discuss honestly, do so. If you can't, like saveliberty or CG or the others, you are going to keep getting kicked in the face.
The past does have consequences, and BHO has inherited the situation of the incompentently-led Bush administrations. BHO is enganging in a morally justified war in Afghanistation, suppoted by dozens of countries, under UN sanctions. Gingrich and Palin approved his speech. Rove believes BHO is on the right track. In light of this, let us see if his detractors act in a supporting, encouraging role here.
The leadership of the Bush Administration in engaging in the Wars over there were not incompetent. You are a bit blinded by your undue partisanship. So sorry wars tend to be messy and not run with clockwork precision.
The war in Afghanistan may or may not be morally justified. But if it IS morally justified, the reasons for it as well as the underlying bases need to be articulated with a lot more clarity than the President has so far offered.
The fact that it is "supported" by other nations is of no value to the discussion. Who was the fight against Saddam.
The support of Gingrich is hardly persuasive. And citing the support of Palin whom all the lefties love to denigrate as woefully ignorant is also rather curious and remains just as unpersuasive.
It is not at all clear that Mr. Rove believes that the President is "on the right track." It MIGHT be that Mr. Rove approves of SOME components of what the present Administration is now doing. That's a much more limited kind of "support."
I am a detractor of President Obama. I think taking the fight into Afghanistan is potentially a good move, but I absolutely cannot fathom why any President would elect to announce a ramp-up simultaneously with announcing a withdrawal date. Jesus Lord God in Heaven above, that is so singularly stupid that this President's judgment is open to serious rebuke.
Many of the "enemy" already think we are merely a paper tiger. They mock us because we value life too much. They believe (with some evidence from the historical record) that we lack staying power. They believe we have no belly for a long drawn out fight. And President Obama is practically going out of his way to confirm that set of beliefs for them.
How are they now expected to react? After fighting for as long as they have, does ANYBODY actually imagine that they will now say, "Oh crap. It's gonna be a long hard slog of ANOTHER 18 whole months! By Allah, we'd best put down our weapons!"
The question, therefore, is not how President Obama's detractors might react. The better question is why his "supporters" are not alarmed by the way this President behaves and why THEY are not clamoring for clarity of thought and action from this Administration.
Yes. The past does have consequences. So does the present.
Liability has not given any compelling or convincing evidence to counter the truth (1) that the "incompetently-led Bush administrations" did mismanage the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and (2) that Obama administration seems to be managing Afghanistan just fine and is correcting the liabilities have the previous administraton's mistakes there.
The fact is that Rove, Palin, and Gingrich would disagree with Liability's assessment above. Let's move on.
Jake, Obama has the Bush playbook and is using it page for page. There is no difference AT ALL in how Obama is running the wars. None.
Facts are just plain mean to Libruls
* * * *
Please tell me that you're it's your partisianship that's blinding you. It is INCOMPETENT to wage a war against a nation that had done nothing to you (Iraq). That's the height of incompetence ---- hitting the wrong target.
The people who issued the orders and did the planning for 9-11 were sheltered in Afghanistan. Unless you're arguing that we should have taken that 'punch in the nose' and sat quietly.
Liability, the use of the ellipsis justifies you cutting up the quote for your hypocritical purpose. Beowulfe legitimately kicked you in the face for it. If you want to discuss honestly, do so. If you can't, like saveliberty or CG or the others, you are going to keep getting kicked in the face.
You, JokeStarkey, are blathering and blithering. Beopuppy didn't kick ME in the face for anything, you fuckin' moron. He was addressing another member's post, in the first place, ya schmuck.
Secondly, your grasp of the use of an ellipsis is weak beyond the ability to hold anything.
An ellipsis simply marks the part of a quote that has been omitted. And it served its purpose FAIRLY AND SQUARELY within the context in which it was used to quote the man-child who is now President.
Here's a quarter. Go out in the hallway and call home. Tell the folks back there that you will not in fact ever be a rational human being.
Jake, Obama has the Bush playbook and is using it page for page. There is no difference AT ALL in how Obama is running the wars. None.
Facts are just plain mean to Libruls
There is/was NO bush playbook. Increasing troop levels is a time honored military tradition when the enemy is not succumbing to your efforts. Even the surge in Iraq wasn't Bush's idea, it was McCain's.
Beowulfe, we understand that wingnuts, or even those who were far worse in Nazi Germany, offer nothing constructive to a critical-thinking discussion.
However, they serve great purpose in that their darkness permits the light of truth and reason to shine all that more brightly. I thank the Crusader Franks and Mr. Rabbis and the California Girls for their invaluable services in lighting their darkness highlight the truth.
Facts are just plain mean to Libruls
There is/was NO bush playbook. Increasing troop levels is a time honored military tradition when the enemy is not succumbing to your efforts. Even the surge in Iraq wasn't Bush's idea, it was McCain's.
Who cares who's idea it was...Bush was the CinC and gave the order to deploy...and won the Iraq war.
* * * *
Please tell me that you're it's your partisianship that's blinding you. It is INCOMPETENT to wage a war against a nation that had done nothing to you (Iraq). That's the height of incompetence ---- hitting the wrong target.
The people who issued the orders and did the planning for 9-11 were sheltered in Afghanistan. Unless you're arguing that we should have taken that 'punch in the nose' and sat quietly.
"Please tell me that you're it's your partisianship . . . ." WTF?
Sorry, beobitch, but I don't care to take the time to translate your incoherent babble into English. Try again. Consider editing before submitting. Get an adult to help you out.
Go.
There is/was NO bush playbook. Increasing troop levels is a time honored military tradition when the enemy is not succumbing to your efforts. Even the surge in Iraq wasn't Bush's idea, it was McCain's.
Who cares who's idea it was...Bush was the CinC and gave the order to deploy...and won the Iraq war.
Actually, it does make a difference whose idea it was if you're giving credit for the idea. And you act as if the Iraq war is over.
There is/was NO bush playbook. Increasing troop levels is a time honored military tradition when the enemy is not succumbing to your efforts. Even the surge in Iraq wasn't Bush's idea, it was McCain's.
Who cares who's idea it was...Bush was the CinC and gave the order to deploy...and won the Iraq war.
Actually, it does make a difference whose idea it was if you're giving credit for the idea. And you act as if the Iraq war is over.
* * * *
Please tell me that you're it's your partisianship that's blinding you. It is INCOMPETENT to wage a war against a nation that had done nothing to you (Iraq). That's the height of incompetence ---- hitting the wrong target.
The people who issued the orders and did the planning for 9-11 were sheltered in Afghanistan. Unless you're arguing that we should have taken that 'punch in the nose' and sat quietly.
"Please tell me that you're it's your partisianship . . . ." WTF?
Sorry, beobitch, but I don't care to take the time to translate your incoherent babble into English. Try again. Consider editing before submitting. Get an adult to help you out.
Go.
So, when your pea brain can't comprehend you resort to profanities. Par for the course for a mental midget. BTW, you post proves that you got the point. But if you didn't, they always have adult ed courses so you can improve your reading comprehension to a point where a typo doesn't cause you such obvious frustration.