My Oh My...

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Of course I attacked him for not going in. I attacked him for spouting his red line rhetoric at Syria and running with his tail tucked in between his legs. If he's going to utter those fightin' words, he needs to be ready for the consequences. He is like a firefighter fighting fires with an empty hose. Of course he can't win, he is his own worst enemy. From my perspective, he shouldn't make promises he can't keep. He backed himself in a corner the moment he said what he said, now, he's having to break yet another promise; although he is doing the right thing now, despite his failings.

Of course, I think politicians should make action, not promises.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Of course I attacked him for not going in. I attacked him for spouting his red line rhetoric at Syria and running with his tail tucked in between his legs. If he's going to utter those fightin' words, he needs to be ready for the consequences. He is like a firefighter fighting fires with an empty hose. Of course he can't win, he is his own worst enemy. From my perspective, he shouldn't make promises he can't keep. He backed himself in a corner the moment he said what he said, now, he's having to break yet another promise, although he is doing the right thing now, despite his failings.

Of course, I think politicians should make action, not promises.

When you've got an attack ready for either side of a binary decision, it's usually a good sign your criticism has it's roots in something other than the issue itself.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As a side note, the most recent polling has support for intervention in Syria at around 12%.

This might be the first time in my life that such a large majority of Americans has agreed with me on a foreign policy issue.

 

[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.

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.

There's a big chicken-or-egg issue here, but I don't disagree with your conclusions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 were alone in this regard.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Of course I attacked him for not going in. I attacked him for spouting his red line rhetoric at Syria and running with his tail tucked in between his legs. If he's going to utter those fightin' words, he needs to be ready for the consequences. He is like a firefighter fighting fires with an empty hose. Of course he can't win, he is his own worst enemy. From my perspective, he shouldn't make promises he can't keep. He backed himself in a corner the moment he said what he said, now, he's having to break yet another promise, although he is doing the right thing now, despite his failings.

Of course, I think politicians should make action, not promises.

When you've got an attack ready for either side of a binary decision, it's usually a good sign your criticism has it's roots in something other than the issue itself.

And what would that be? Hatred? Racism? Hardly. I am above such childishness.

So why does he say one thing but do another? "I will not make war, but alas, I must wage it." My issue is that if he does things like this regarding war, will he engage in this type of indecisiveness in other things involving the fate of this country? You are right, of course my criticism has it's roots elsewhere. He shows how indecisive he can be, with people's lives on the line.

Clear?

 

[TemplarKormac]

As a side note, the most recent polling has support for intervention in Syria at around 12%.

This might be the first time in my life that such a large majority of Americans has agreed with me on a foreign policy issue.

That might have been true, LAST YEAR.

This might be the first time such a majority of Americans have agreed with me on a foreign policy issue. It appears 71% of Americans say they support airstrikes on Iraq and Syria.

Poll Public supports strikes in Iraq Syria Obama s ratings hover near his all-time lows - The Washington Post

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Of course I attacked him for not going in. I attacked him for spouting his red line rhetoric at Syria and running with his tail tucked in between his legs. If he's going to utter those fightin' words, he needs to be ready for the consequences. He is like a firefighter fighting fires with an empty hose. Of course he can't win, he is his own worst enemy. From my perspective, he shouldn't make promises he can't keep. He backed himself in a corner the moment he said what he said, now, he's having to break yet another promise, although he is doing the right thing now, despite his failings.

Of course, I think politicians should make action, not promises.

When you've got an attack ready for either side of a binary decision, it's usually a good sign your criticism has it's roots in something other than the issue itself.

And what would that be? Hatred? Racism? Hardly. I am above such childishness.

So why does he say one thing but do another? "I will not make war, but alas, I must wage it." My issue is that if he does things like this regarding war, will he engage in this type of indecisiveness in other things involving the fate of this country? You are right, of course my criticism has it's roots elsewhere. He shows how indecisive he can be, with people's lives on the line.

Clear?

First off, I don't think you're a racist, and haven't ever said anything that would imply that I did. Don't try to play the race-card-card on me.

As for "hatred", that's not the word I would use - nor do I think your reaction is based in "childishness". But it's pretty clear that you don't like Obama. Perhaps even strongly dislike.

And because of that, on a certain level you refuse to accept that anything he could possibly do would be "good" in your eyes. It's not an uncommon thing, everyone does it. It's the way our brains work.

That doesn't mean that you're right to do it, though - and I'm going to continue to call you on it when I see it. I would expect you to do the same for me.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As a side note, the most recent polling has support for intervention in Syria at around 12%.

This might be the first time in my life that such a large majority of Americans has agreed with me on a foreign policy issue.

That might have been true, LAST YEAR.

This might be the first time such a majority of Americans have agreed with me on a foreign policy issue. It appears 71% of Americans say they support airstrikes on Iraq and Syria.

Poll Public supports strikes in Iraq Syria Obama s ratings hover near his all-time lows - The Washington Post

Whoops, you're right. Sorry, for whatever reason Google gave me old results. I spoke too soon.

I guess I'll keep on being in the tiny minority.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Of course I attacked him for not going in. I attacked him for spouting his red line rhetoric at Syria and running with his tail tucked in between his legs. If he's going to utter those fightin' words, he needs to be ready for the consequences. He is like a firefighter fighting fires with an empty hose. Of course he can't win, he is his own worst enemy. From my perspective, he shouldn't make promises he can't keep. He backed himself in a corner the moment he said what he said, now, he's having to break yet another promise, although he is doing the right thing now, despite his failings.

Of course, I think politicians should make action, not promises.

When you've got an attack ready for either side of a binary decision, it's usually a good sign your criticism has it's roots in something other than the issue itself.

And what would that be? Hatred? Racism? Hardly. I am above such childishness.

So why does he say one thing but do another? "I will not make war, but alas, I must wage it." My issue is that if he does things like this regarding war, will he engage in this type of indecisiveness in other things involving the fate of this country? You are right, of course my criticism has it's roots elsewhere. He shows how indecisive he can be, with people's lives on the line.

Clear?

First off, I don't think you're a racist, and haven't ever said anything that would imply that I did. Don't try to play the race-card-card on me.

As for "hatred", that's not the word I would use - nor do I think your reaction is based in "childishness". But it's pretty clear that you don't like Obama. Perhaps even strongly dislike.

And because of that, on a certain level you refuse to accept that anything he could possibly do would be "good" in your eyes. It's not an uncommon thing, everyone does it. It's the way our brains work.

That doesn't mean that you're right to do it, though - and I'm going to continue to call you on it when I see it. I would expect you to do the same for me.

If he did anything to help this country prosper, to make it a better nation, I would support him all the way. So far, I see him failing in almost every regard. I am not the type to discredit any good someone has done. But when you betray what you stand for to do something good or anything for that matter, it makes you appear indecisive. If Obama can't stick to his guns, what good is the 'good' he does?

 

[WelfareQueen]

I love the Obama talking point about "no troops on the ground." Yep...all we have now is several thousand "military advisers" in Iraq and Syria.

Now didn't we have "military advisers" in Vietnam for a while before the shit hit the fan? Wonder how that turned out?

But yeah...Obama is different....he'll save us all...right?

The amount of stupidity and bullshit Obama supporters are willing to swallow is truly amazing. Fucking morons....

 

[TemplarKormac]

As a side note, the most recent polling has support for intervention in Syria at around 12%.

This might be the first time in my life that such a large majority of Americans has agreed with me on a foreign policy issue.

That might have been true, LAST YEAR.

This might be the first time such a majority of Americans have agreed with me on a foreign policy issue. It appears 71% of Americans say they support airstrikes on Iraq and Syria.

Poll Public supports strikes in Iraq Syria Obama s ratings hover near his all-time lows - The Washington Post

Whoops, you're right. Sorry, for whatever reason Google gave me old results. I spoke too soon.

I guess I'll keep on being in the tiny minority.

Don't worry, none of us are perfect.

 

[Physics Hunter]

As a side note, the most recent polling has support for intervention in Syria at around 12%.

This might be the first time in my life that such a large majority of Americans has agreed with me on a foreign policy issue.

That might have been true, LAST YEAR.

This might be the first time such a majority of Americans have agreed with me on a foreign policy issue. It appears 71% of Americans say they support airstrikes on Iraq and Syria.

Poll Public supports strikes in Iraq Syria Obama s ratings hover near his all-time lows - The Washington Post

Whoops, you're right. Sorry, for whatever reason Google gave me old results. I spoke too soon.

I guess I'll keep on being in the tiny minority.

Yes.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I believe the classic expression is "war is hell."

No nation should engage military force without the pure intent to exterminate the enemy. You should never kill people out of a sense of indecision or ambivalence. Either wipe them out or stay the fuck out of it.

Obama...as usual...wants it both ways. In war...that mind set has never been successful.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The OP illustrates well the idiocy of the partisan right and its inane, untenable mantra of “Obama: always wrong, all the time.”

 

[WelfareQueen]

The OP illustrates well the idiocy of the partisan right and its inane, untenable mantra of “Obama: always wrong, all the time.”

Sorry you're disappointed... but the facts are the facts.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

This is why you are ignorant,

 

[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.

This is why you are ignorant,

"Bush did it"

That is why you remain ignorant. You Democrats seem to care about the past a great deal.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

How many were elected to end wars and got a Nobel for their intentions?
Yeah, truth hurts.

 

[The Rabbi]

It could be worse. McCain or Romney could be president.

"If Romney wins we'll be at war in Syria." -Joe Biden.