My Oh My...

[TemplarKormac]

Newsflash: Every single President since FDR has been a "war time" President.

Non sequitur. If I want a history lesson, you'll be the first guy I'll ask.

And newsflash, nobody cares about the past. We're talking present here. He was supposed to be the one who ended war. He made that clear. So, such a contradiction will not go unnoticed. Being in a long list of wartime presidents does not erase the irony of Obama's words. He wanted to buck the trend, but became part of it.

No one takes campaign promises seriously, and no one actually thought Obama was going to "end war".

Pretending that Obama exists in a vacuum - that we've never had a President before him - is a really stupid way to frame an argument. No matter how much you don't "care" about it, the past is completely relevant here.

So. . . . then. . . .

The Nobel peace prize was for what? His good looks?

Fine, I'll agree. As long as he give the award back. He's a war mongering globalist, just like the rest of them.

I'm not on the Nobel committee, so I can't say for what the Prize was awarded.

But yes, he is a war-mongering globalist, just like all the rest.

Of course you aren't. But the tone of your post says that you feel betrayed.

He was awarded NPP for "promoting peace around the world." Such has not been the case here.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It just now hit me that in a roundabout way, Doc, you are defending him.

I guess you could look at it that way, but it's more of an aversion to bullshit than anything like support.

I don't agree with what he's doing in terms of Iraq, Syria and ISIS at all.

Of course you don't. Thank you for making my point. So, what do we do, sit home and hope ISIS doesn't cross the sea and hurt us? That kind of thinking and complacency cost the lives of 3000 people on 9/11. The fire will continue to burn until someone puts it out. Asking the Free Syrian Army to fight them is like giving a fire extinguisher to a child. The child will run from the fire in fear. In previous engagements with ISIS, that's exactly what the Free Syrian Army has done, they laid down their arms and surrendered at the very sight of them.

You are free to disagree, but I am also free to say that ISIS is a threat to the world, and someone has to stop them.

Why aren't you supporting Obama, then?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama's Democratic base is going to rip him apart for this bombing campaign. In that respect, yes, he will be answering to his base. This election will show you why. I remember Democrats painting Bush as Hitler... but hey, he only had to answer to his Republican base.

That should tell you something about the republican base.

As for Obama's base? They'll rip him far more for this than cons ripped Dubya for his disastrous, casualty-ridden, politically driven adventures in the middle east.

As for you prediction about this election? Remind us again about your prediction over the last election please?

A deflection. You can do nothing but impart partisan rhetoric. Spare me. I wasn't even posting here when the last election occurred. Or were you on the last board I posted on? Anywho....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Newsflash: Every single President since FDR has been a "war time" President.

Non sequitur. If I want a history lesson, you'll be the first guy I'll ask.

And newsflash, nobody cares about the past. We're talking present here. He was supposed to be the one who ended war. He made that clear. So, such a contradiction will not go unnoticed. Being in a long list of wartime presidents does not erase the irony of Obama's words. He wanted to buck the trend, but became part of it.

No one takes campaign promises seriously, and no one actually thought Obama was going to "end war".

Pretending that Obama exists in a vacuum - that we've never had a President before him - is a really stupid way to frame an argument. No matter how much you don't "care" about it, the past is completely relevant here.

So. . . . then. . . .

The Nobel peace prize was for what? His good looks?

Fine, I'll agree. As long as he give the award back. He's a war mongering globalist, just like the rest of them.

I'm not on the Nobel committee, so I can't say for what the Prize was awarded.

But yes, he is a war-mongering globalist, just like all the rest.

Of course you aren't. But the tone of your post says that you feel betrayed.

He was awarded NPP for "promoting peace around the world." Such has not been the case here.

No, you're only seeing whatever "tone" you think should be there.

What would I have to feel "betrayed" about?

I've never voted for Obama.

 

[TheOldSchool]

A deflection. You can do nothing but impart partisan rhetoric. Spare me. I wasn't even posting here when the last election occurred. Or were you on the last board I posted on? Anywho....

I like how you pretend to not use partisan rhetoric. Pass me whatever is is you're smoking

 

[Ame®icano]

Not much of a war with no troops on the ground or US deaths...and unlike the idiot Booosh, Obama hardly started this, just going help our ARAB ALLIES finish it. Brilliantly handled.

Newsflash: Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, it wasn't really a war since they had no troops on the ground.

 

[Katzndogz]

Neither McCain nor Romney would have been so stupid as to back Isis in the first place.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It just now hit me that in a roundabout way, Doc, you are defending him.

I guess you could look at it that way, but it's more of an aversion to bullshit than anything like support.

I don't agree with what he's doing in terms of Iraq, Syria and ISIS at all.

Of course you don't. Thank you for making my point. So, what do we do, sit home and hope ISIS doesn't cross the sea and hurt us? That kind of thinking and complacency cost the lives of 3000 people on 9/11. The fire will continue to burn until someone puts it out. Asking the Free Syrian Army to fight them is like giving a fire extinguisher to a child. The child will run from the fire in fear. In previous engagements with ISIS, that's exactly what the Free Syrian Army has done, they laid down their arms and surrendered at the very sight of them.

You are free to disagree, but I am also free to say that ISIS is a threat to the world, and someone has to stop them.

Why aren't you supporting Obama, then?

You can't have it both ways.

I am--- in this respect. It was a great feat to unite the Arab world against ISIS. I back this action fully. But I can't help but note the irony of his statements. That, however does not mean I don't, or won't support him if he takes the right steps in this war.

So are you saying you support him now?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Neither McCain nor Romney would have been so stupid as to back Isis in the first place.

Actually they probably would have. Reagan was enough of a dumbass to back Al Qaeda and the Taliban after all.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It just now hit me that in a roundabout way, Doc, you are defending him.

I guess you could look at it that way, but it's more of an aversion to bullshit than anything like support.

I don't agree with what he's doing in terms of Iraq, Syria and ISIS at all.

Of course you don't. Thank you for making my point. So, what do we do, sit home and hope ISIS doesn't cross the sea and hurt us? That kind of thinking and complacency cost the lives of 3000 people on 9/11. The fire will continue to burn until someone puts it out. Asking the Free Syrian Army to fight them is like giving a fire extinguisher to a child. The child will run from the fire in fear. In previous engagements with ISIS, that's exactly what the Free Syrian Army has done, they laid down their arms and surrendered at the very sight of them.

You are free to disagree, but I am also free to say that ISIS is a threat to the world, and someone has to stop them.

Why aren't you supporting Obama, then?

You can't have it both ways.

I do, in this respect. It was a great feat to unite the Arab world against ISIS. I back this action fully. But I can't help but note the irony of his statements. That, however does not mean I don't, or won't support him if he takes the right steps in this war.

So are you saying you support him now?

No, I think I'm being pretty clear in stating that I don't support him, nor do I support intervening (yet again) in the Middle East.

I do have to say that starting a thread to attack Obama on an issue that you actually agree with him on takes a level of cognitive dissonance that I didn't expect from you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

People that wear a uniform for this country, when they feel this country’s in danger, they want to do something about it. […] The pilots that are striking tonight, and knowing they’re protecting America, protecting their families, protecting what this country stands for – there is no better feeling.”

—Gen. Jack Keane

 

[Katzndogz]

Neither McCain nor Romney would have been so stupid as to back Isis in the first place.

Actually they probably would have. Reagan was enough of a dumbass to back Al Qaeda and the Taliban after all.

If a liberal ever told the truth its head would fall off.

 

[TheOldSchool]

If a liberal ever told the truth its head would fall off.

Oh you don't like liberals? Tell us all again, please, about how much you love Putin?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It just now hit me that in a roundabout way, Doc, you are defending him.

I guess you could look at it that way, but it's more of an aversion to bullshit than anything like support.

I don't agree with what he's doing in terms of Iraq, Syria and ISIS at all.

Of course you don't. Thank you for making my point. So, what do we do, sit home and hope ISIS doesn't cross the sea and hurt us? That kind of thinking and complacency cost the lives of 3000 people on 9/11. The fire will continue to burn until someone puts it out. Asking the Free Syrian Army to fight them is like giving a fire extinguisher to a child. The child will run from the fire in fear. In previous engagements with ISIS, that's exactly what the Free Syrian Army has done, they laid down their arms and surrendered at the very sight of them.

You are free to disagree, but I am also free to say that ISIS is a threat to the world, and someone has to stop them.

Why aren't you supporting Obama, then?

You can't have it both ways.

I do, in this respect. It was a great feat to unite the Arab world against ISIS. I back this action fully. But I can't help but note the irony of his statements. That, however does not mean I don't, or won't support him if he takes the right steps in this war.

So are you saying you support him now?

No, I think I'm being pretty clear in stating that I don't support him, nor do I support intervening (yet again) in the Middle East.

I do have to say that starting a thread to attack Obama on an issue that you actually agree with him on takes a level of cognitive dissonance that I didn't expect from you.

You missed the entire point of my thread. I attack him on the complete 180 he pulled with the airstrikes tonight. He made a promise to America to end war, yet here he is starting them. I hate liars. I also have a bad habit of keeping people to their word. And for that, I can only say his actions are diluted purely because of what he claimed to be. He had utopian dreams, with dystopian results.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just remember that rightwing rule,

you can't oppose the war and support the troops...

 

[NYcarbineer]

I guess you could look at it that way, but it's more of an aversion to bullshit than anything like support.

I don't agree with what he's doing in terms of Iraq, Syria and ISIS at all.

Of course you don't. Thank you for making my point. So, what do we do, sit home and hope ISIS doesn't cross the sea and hurt us? That kind of thinking and complacency cost the lives of 3000 people on 9/11. The fire will continue to burn until someone puts it out. Asking the Free Syrian Army to fight them is like giving a fire extinguisher to a child. The child will run from the fire in fear. In previous engagements with ISIS, that's exactly what the Free Syrian Army has done, they laid down their arms and surrendered at the very sight of them.

You are free to disagree, but I am also free to say that ISIS is a threat to the world, and someone has to stop them.

Why aren't you supporting Obama, then?

You can't have it both ways.

I do, in this respect. It was a great feat to unite the Arab world against ISIS. I back this action fully. But I can't help but note the irony of his statements. That, however does not mean I don't, or won't support him if he takes the right steps in this war.

So are you saying you support him now?

No, I think I'm being pretty clear in stating that I don't support him, nor do I support intervening (yet again) in the Middle East.

I do have to say that starting a thread to attack Obama on an issue that you actually agree with him on takes a level of cognitive dissonance that I didn't expect from you.

You missed the entire point of my thread. I attack him on the complete 180 he pulled with the airstrikes tonight. He made a promise to America to end war, yet here he is starting them. I hate liars. I also have a bad habit of keeping people to their word. And for that, I can only say his actions are diluted purely because of what he claimed to be.

Did he promise never to use American military force no matter what circumstance might arise?

 

[TemplarKormac]

A deflection. You can do nothing but impart partisan rhetoric. Spare me. I wasn't even posting here when the last election occurred. Or were you on the last board I posted on? Anywho....

I like how you pretend to not use partisan rhetoric. Pass me whatever is is you're smoking

You need to pass me the bong first. Quit hogging it all.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I guess you could look at it that way, but it's more of an aversion to bullshit than anything like support.

I don't agree with what he's doing in terms of Iraq, Syria and ISIS at all.

Of course you don't. Thank you for making my point. So, what do we do, sit home and hope ISIS doesn't cross the sea and hurt us? That kind of thinking and complacency cost the lives of 3000 people on 9/11. The fire will continue to burn until someone puts it out. Asking the Free Syrian Army to fight them is like giving a fire extinguisher to a child. The child will run from the fire in fear. In previous engagements with ISIS, that's exactly what the Free Syrian Army has done, they laid down their arms and surrendered at the very sight of them.

You are free to disagree, but I am also free to say that ISIS is a threat to the world, and someone has to stop them.

Why aren't you supporting Obama, then?

You can't have it both ways.

I do, in this respect. It was a great feat to unite the Arab world against ISIS. I back this action fully. But I can't help but note the irony of his statements. That, however does not mean I don't, or won't support him if he takes the right steps in this war.

So are you saying you support him now?

No, I think I'm being pretty clear in stating that I don't support him, nor do I support intervening (yet again) in the Middle East.

I do have to say that starting a thread to attack Obama on an issue that you actually agree with him on takes a level of cognitive dissonance that I didn't expect from you.

You missed the entire point of my thread. I attack him on the complete 180 he pulled with the airstrikes tonight. He made a promise to America to end war, yet here he is starting them. I hate liars. I also have a bad habit of keeping people to their word. And for that, I can only say his actions are diluted purely because of what he claimed to be. He had utopian dreams, with dystopian results.

I understand your point, but perhaps not in the same way you do.

Had Obama not gone in against ISIS, you would have (actually, I think you already have) attacked him for not going in.

Now that he is, you can't bring yourself to voice your agreement, so you come up with some other way to attack him. From your perspective, he literally can't win.

 

[TheOldSchool]

You need to pass me the bong first. Quit hogging it all.

Ah finally some non-partisan common ground. Next time I'll roll a joint!

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Newsflash: Every single President since FDR has been a "war time" President.

Non sequitur. If I want a history lesson, you'll be the first guy I'll ask.

And newsflash, nobody cares about the past. We're talking present here. He was supposed to be the one who ended war. He made that clear. So, such a contradiction will not go unnoticed. Being in a long list of wartime presidents does not erase the irony of Obama's words. He wanted to buck the trend, but became part of it.

No one takes campaign promises seriously, and no one actually thought Obama was going to "end war".

Pretending that Obama exists in a vacuum - that we've never had a President before him - is a really stupid way to frame an argument. No matter how much you don't "care" about it, the past is completely relevant here.

Agreed. Those who ignore history...well, you know the rest of that portent. This is a small world anymore. It's getting more and more difficult for isolationists to stay uninvolved. If the world's boogeymen don't bite you abroad, they'll probably bite you at home.