Wow, Benny Netanyahu puts it to Barry

[bigrebnc1775]

But only folks who ignore what the President actually said think he was schooled.

Those people are an embarssesment to America.

He made the comment then two days later he reafrimed his postion then a short time later he backed tracked. Not a very good sign of leadership.

Backtracked?

“Let me reaffirm what ‘1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps’ means,"

Yeah that's backtracking......

He certainly is much more honest than the opposition.

If he had not had made two announcements on the same subject
The first what he wanted and the second reafriming his position you might would have an argument. You don't his last announcement was a backtrack on his position.

 

[BlindBoo]

He made the comment then two days later he reafrimed his postion then a short time later he backed tracked. Not a very good sign of leadership.

Backtracked?

“Let me reaffirm what ‘1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps’ means,"

Yeah that's backtracking......

He certainly is much more honest than the opposition.

If he had not had made two announcements on the same subject
The first what he wanted and the second reafriming his position you might would have an argument. You don't his last announcement was a backtrack on his position.

How about some exact quotes of what the man said?

 

[idb]

The attempts of the left following this joint appearance between Obama and Netanyahu to spin this as a positive for Obama is laughable.

The strained relationship between this administration and Israel is due to one thing: this president's contempt for perceived American abuses and imperialistic actions in the Middle East. This president as expressed a resentment of the actions of Israel, and has given credibility to a fictitious 'Palestinian' state. He has given credibility to HAMAS, he has given credibility to the propaganda of hate that has come to define the 'Palestinian' argument against the Jewish state. The far left's mantra on America's role in the Middle East is reflected in Obama's actions.

OMG! totally. I've seen like 10 denials that Obama ever even suggested that. And they wonder why they are given no credibility.

O...M...G...are you, like Paris Hilton...?

 

[idb]

Everybody heard Obamush's words if it was anything like what Bush said why didn't Ehud Olmert say no Mr. Bush Israel is not going to move it's borders?

The quotes look awfully similar to me. Bush calling for Israel to concede land and referencing the 1967 borders as well.

No reaction from him was necessary because there was no hysterical media reaction, as there is this time.

Time will pass, this non-issue will blow over, and we'll find some other meaningless scenario to hyperventilate about very soon.

Bush calling for Israel to concede land and referencing the 1967 borders as well.

Your words not Bushes. If the quotes were close t the same meaning Ehud Olmert would have sias the same thing

Where did your unquestioning faith in Lord Netanyahu come from?

 

[Cal]

Funny thing.. Even the majority of Israelis support the idea of the pre-67 borders.. with land swaps:

[...]

Despite the fact that Obama’s declaration was nothing new, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blasted the idea of pre-1967 borders, even using a news conference with Obama to call the proposal “indefensible.” His chief political rival, Kadima’s Tzipi Livni, disagreed, noting that the pre-1967 borders is already American policy.

[...]

Yet what Hatch, Netanyahu, and their allies in the U.S. Congress are not saying is that most Israelis and Palestinians actually support a settlement based around 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps that result in a safe, secure, free, and prosperous independent Palestinian and Israeli states. Here is a roundup of some of the recent polling on the issue:

[...]

ThinkProgress » As Congress And Netanyahu Line Up Against 1967 Borders, Most Israelis And Palestinians Support Them

 

[idb]

Bush wouldn't have been thoroughly schooled by a foreign leader.

Obama's a friggin' embarrassment.

How many more times does he have to embarrass himself before you bootlicking sheep get a friggin' clue?

Typical WHITE person.
They cling to guns and religion.
Accusing an innocent WHITE cop without evidence or facts.
William Jethro taking over the podium to do his talking for him.
Netanyahu making a friggin' mockery of him.
And on and on and on.

But only folks who ignore what the President actually said think he was schooled.

Those people are an embarssesment to America.

He made the comment then two days later he reafrimed his postion...a very good sign of leadership.

Yep, at last you get it.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

How quickly you have forgotten who he was running against: a 72 years old political chameleon who has proven that he will be anything, say anything, do anything to further his personal ambition, regardless of the country.

A man who stated and ran on the fact that he was going to continue Bush's failed policies - you must remember 'McBush' and 'McSame'.

A man who ran on experience and maturity, then picked an immature, inexperienced idiot as his running mate, scaring sensible Americans, due to his advanced age and questionable health.

You guys fucked yourselves by first not putting up anyone to follow Bush except for clowns, and second by choosing the candidate who least represented your views. Don't blame us for your clusterfucks.

And it was all because none of you, or your candidates had the balls to tell the truth about what a disaster Bush was. Except for Ron Paul.

Pathetic.

I didn't choose crap, so quite lumping every Conservative together. You still don't get it do yuh bro? Hey? This just in! I didn't vote for McCain, I voted for Ron Paul. Why don't you quit with the bullshit, and read between the lies? That was my entire point, but then you retort with the same old sheople arguement of pointing the finger towards your hero Obama's foe back in 2008. Tell yuh what, it sounded good for all the dumbshits that swallowed it, but those who understand this game of division on both sides get it. Apparently you don't my friend. ~BH

I'm assuming that you voted for Paul in the primaries. But he didn't win. McCain did, because - obviously - not enough Republicans wanted Paul, because - again, obviously - there aren't enough conservatives to even be able to determine the Republican nominee, never mind win the general election.

Please address that paragraph as separate from the next.

If you voted for Paul in the general, as a write-in, then that's fine. But it's a protest vote, nothing more. Either you didn't care (I dismiss that), or you hated McCain (possibly), or you saw that Obama was inevitable (likely), but in any case, you threw away your vote. If Paul had been running on the Libertarian ticket like he was in 1988, then you could say that you didn't want to help perpetuate the failed two-party system. But he wasn't. So it's a wasted vote.

As for me supporting Obama, hell yeah I did! I was proud to, I'm glad I did, and I would do it again in a heartbeat against McCain, or any of the other conservatives. Only Paul or perhaps Bloomberg would have made me hesitate voting for Obama, Hillary, or even Edwards. Why? Because I'm a Liberal! Duh! I would have supported Dennis Kucinich against anyone on the Right, with their pandering to the Rapture Right, Big Corporations, and their 'war as a first choice' mentality. It has nothing to do with Obama being my hero, or being Black, or any of that other bullshit. It has to do with who is looking out for me, not billionaires who happily move their money overseas if they can get a half point more return. They don't give a **** about you or me.

Well, we can atleast agree on the fact that "they don't give a **** about any of us", which "they" includes your hero Obama. Goldman Sachs was Obama's number 1 contributor. So thank you for making my point again. Yeah, I wrote in Paul as a protest vote, you got that correct. First time I have ever done that actually. McCain? I don't hate him, he served our Country, but he's too Liberal for me with the borders and other issues, and I am done voting for fake Conservatives. ~BH

 

[The T]

I didn't choose crap, so quite lumping every Conservative together. You still don't get it do yuh bro? Hey? This just in! I didn't vote for McCain, I voted for Ron Paul. Why don't you quit with the bullshit, and read between the lies? That was my entire point, but then you retort with the same old sheople arguement of pointing the finger towards your hero Obama's foe back in 2008. Tell yuh what, it sounded good for all the dumbshits that swallowed it, but those who understand this game of division on both sides get it. Apparently you don't my friend. ~BH

I'm assuming that you voted for Paul in the primaries. But he didn't win. McCain did, because - obviously - not enough Republicans wanted Paul, because - again, obviously - there aren't enough conservatives to even be able to determine the Republican nominee, never mind win the general election.

Please address that paragraph as separate from the next.

If you voted for Paul in the general, as a write-in, then that's fine. But it's a protest vote, nothing more. Either you didn't care (I dismiss that), or you hated McCain (possibly), or you saw that Obama was inevitable (likely), but in any case, you threw away your vote. If Paul had been running on the Libertarian ticket like he was in 1988, then you could say that you didn't want to help perpetuate the failed two-party system. But he wasn't. So it's a wasted vote.

As for me supporting Obama, hell yeah I did! I was proud to, I'm glad I did, and I would do it again in a heartbeat against McCain, or any of the other conservatives. Only Paul or perhaps Bloomberg would have made me hesitate voting for Obama, Hillary, or even Edwards. Why? Because I'm a Liberal! Duh! I would have supported Dennis Kucinich against anyone on the Right, with their pandering to the Rapture Right, Big Corporations, and their 'war as a first choice' mentality. It has nothing to do with Obama being my hero, or being Black, or any of that other bullshit. It has to do with who is looking out for me, not billionaires who happily move their money overseas if they can get a half point more return. They don't give a **** about you or me.

Well, we can atleast agree on the fact that "they don't give a **** about any of us", which "they" includes your hero Obama. Goldman Sachs was Obama's number 1 contributor. So thank you for making my point again. Yeah, I wrote in Paul as a protest vote, you got that correct. First time I have ever done that actually. McCain? I don't hate him, he served our Country, but he's too Liberal for me with the borders and other issues, and I am done voting for fake Conservatives. ~BH

*I* am done with the media, and the parties defining what Conservatism means to me bro.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

But since, they've discovered that Obie doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. And like YOU, THEY never will admit it!

B.Kidd, Allow me to add to your response if I may?

Not only that, but the dumbshits can't stand the fact that Obama is just another tool on the strings of the international banking puppet masters. We seen that with the bail out, we have all seen it With still being in Iraq and Afganistan (thought he was gonna send the toops home eh?). and we without a doubt have seen it with Lybia.

The bailout was BUSH/PAULSON. What the ****?

He campaigned on re-concentrating the effort on Afghanistan and destroying al Qaeda and bin Laden, while drawing down the troops in Iraq. He has done exactly that.

So both of those are huge fails on your part.

As for the international bankers part, was Bush? Clinton? Every president before them? When did presidents become puppets of bankers?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, that bankers have a stranglehold on politicians, but it didn't start with Obama. And I don't believe it starts until they have taken office. I think they all believe they can change the system until they actually get in and find out that they can't.

YES WE CAN? I guess that means, YES WE CAN Continue to bend you over, ball sack and all! How about CHANGE? LMAO!!! I guess CHANGE translated = Business as usual you easily fooled weak minded leftist robots. All you need do is realize that he was groomed by manipulators in order to accomplish exactly what he has done, Which was to bullshit you into believing in him. ~BH

All this is just more hyper-partisan blah, blah, blah.

The only one delusional here is you bro. You completely want to ignore the fact that Obama is controlled by the same puppet masters that back those on the right who you detest. You're a hypocrite. No, Obama didn't come in with good intentions, he was groomed for this job. You need to wake up.

Yeah Bush / Paulson did the bail out, they tried to beat you guys to the punch. I was 100% against that too. The lunatic Obama bailed out the banks too, are you blind? You say "hyper-partisan blah, blah, blah" because that's all of a response that you got. Funny thing is guy, You are the one who originally addressed me with the exact type of partisan blah, blah, blah when you ignorantly assumed that I voted for McCain. So at the end of the day, you argument here is weak and nothing more than a spin job and retreat from the reality of the fact that Obama is a corrupt ************ and that you would gladly vote for him again. = Just another sheoplized robot. ~BH

 

[Mustang]

You lib's just can't stand the fact that Obama was thoroughly schooled......No doubt wishing it would just go away......It ain't happening.

The GOP should put that footage in every campaign ad from now until the election........Just to show what an abject embarrassment he truly is.

I'm ALL for Democrats making a few ads which show the immaturity level and flat out bad behavior of conservatives and the people who conservatives admire.

In my experience, that type of behavior only serves to discredit the source.

With that said, frankly, I think that Netenyahu did himself a disservice with his public behavior since it's considered bad form for anyone to publically be seen as less than gracious to someone (in this case, our president) who is his and his country's benefactor.

OFFICIAL TRANSLATION:

Look, I know Obama was schooled by a true leader. I just don't want to accept it. So, i'm going to close my eyes to reality, and desperately try and blame conservatives and Netanyahu himself because, well, that's all I have. In my mind, Obama farts rose scented fairy dust, and shits ribbons of lilac scented rainbows, while galloping away on his unicorn through pastel colored prairies.....He's the bestest President I ever did see......Really, he is!

END OF OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

You need to stop doing what conservatives too often do on this forum. You start with a conclusion, and then you formulate an argument (and not a very good one, I might add) to reach it. Namely, the conclusion you start with is that Obama is bad, or got schooled, or failed in some way. Then you formulate your argument or interpret events in such a way as to make it appear <cough, cough> as if you reached the conclusion last.

Here's a fact: When it comes to diplomacy, if and when you lose your temper, or your composure, or your calm demeanor, you lose, PERIOD. The same is true with this forum. The language of diplomacy is supposed to be one of carefully crafted words which are meant to clearly express a position without undue emotion. Once your reason (and apparent reasonableness) have disappeared in a flurry of emotion, without intending to, you may very well end up betraying your true feelings on matters of state.

What Netenyahu ended up showing to the WORLD is that he's not really serious when it comes to negotiations on the West Bank with the Palestinians AND the Americans. It also shows that George Mitchell (the US envoy) really quit for good reasons. Israel is not negotiating in good faith.

Kudos to President Obama for showing to the world that Netenyahu was not an honest "partner" in the Israel/Palestinian talks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Backtracked?

“Let me reaffirm what ‘1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps’ means,"

Yeah that's backtracking......

He certainly is much more honest than the opposition.

If he had not had made two announcements on the same subject
The first what he wanted and the second reafriming his position you might would have an argument. You don't his last announcement was a backtrack on his position.

How about some exact quotes of what the man said?

How about some exact quotes of what the man said

IN the order the announcements were reported.
1. On 5/19/2011 Obamush tells Israel they must go back to the 1967 borders

From the First link
Obama's urging that a Palestinian state be based on 1967 borders — those that existed before the Six-Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza — marked a significant shift in U.S. policy and seemed certain to anger Israel.
Obama tells Israel: 1967 borders key to peace - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

2.On 5/19/2011 Netanyahu Rejects Obama Call for Palestinian State Based on 1967 Borders
From the second link
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu swiftly rejected President Obama's call Thursday for Israel to pull back to the borders that existed before the 1967 Six-Day War, calling those lines militarily "indefensible."
Netanyahu Rejects Obama Call for Palestinian State Based on 1967 Borders - FoxNews.com

3. Then on 5/22/11 Obamush reaffirms his stance of the 1967 border lines

From the third link
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama defended his endorsement of Israel's 1967 boundaries as the basis for a future Palestine, telling America's pro-Israel lobby Sunday that his views reflected longstanding U.S. policy that needed to be stated clearly.

He also said the Jewish state will face growing isolation without "a credible peace process."
Obama: '67 borders reflect longstanding policy - Yahoo! News


4. And then a short time later he said his words were misrepresented

From he fourth link
WASHINGTON -- Claiming his remarks earlier this week on borders for Israel and a future Palestinian state had been misrepresented, President Obama said Sunday that "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" means the two sides will "negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967."
Obama: 1967 Lines With &#39;Swaps&#39; Means Different Israeli Border Than in 1967 - FoxNews.com

Obamush's words were not misrepresented because if they were he would never have defended his endorsement of Israel's 1967 boundaries from his first statement about Israel going back to the 1967 borders. As soon as Netanyahu rejects Obamush suggestion for the 1967 borders change Obamush should have said his statement was missunderstood and he did not mean it like it was said.

 

[idb]

If he had not had made two announcements on the same subject
The first what he wanted and the second reafriming his position you might would have an argument. You don't his last announcement was a backtrack on his position.

How about some exact quotes of what the man said?

How about some exact quotes of what the man said

IN the order the announcements were reported.
1. On 5/19/2011 Obamush tells Israel they must go back to the 1967 borders

From the First link
Obama's urging that a Palestinian state be based on 1967 borders — those that existed before the Six-Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza — marked a significant shift in U.S. policy and seemed certain to anger Israel.
Obama tells Israel: 1967 borders key to peace - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

2.On 5/19/2011 Netanyahu Rejects Obama Call for Palestinian State Based on 1967 Borders
From the second link
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu swiftly rejected President Obama's call Thursday for Israel to pull back to the borders that existed before the 1967 Six-Day War, calling those lines militarily "indefensible."
Netanyahu Rejects Obama Call for Palestinian State Based on 1967 Borders - FoxNews.com

3. Then on 5/22/11 Obamush reaffirms his stance of the 1967 border lines

From the third link
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama defended his endorsement of Israel's 1967 boundaries as the basis for a future Palestine, telling America's pro-Israel lobby Sunday that his views reflected longstanding U.S. policy that needed to be stated clearly.

He also said the Jewish state will face growing isolation without "a credible peace process."
Obama: '67 borders reflect longstanding policy - Yahoo! News


4. And then a short time later he said his words were misrepresented

From he fourth link
WASHINGTON -- Claiming his remarks earlier this week on borders for Israel and a future Palestinian state had been misrepresented, President Obama said Sunday that "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" means the two sides will "negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967."
Obama: 1967 Lines With 'Swaps' Means Different Israeli Border Than in 1967 - FoxNews.com

Obamush's words were not misrepresented because if they were he would never have defended his endorsement of Israel's 1967 boundaries from his first statement about Israel going back to the 1967 borders. As soon as Netanyahu rejects Obamush suggestion for the 1967 borders change Obamush should have said his statement was missunderstood and he did not mean it like it was said.

Obamush's words were not misrepresented because if they were he would never have defended his endorsement of Israel's 1967 boundaries from his first statement about Israel going back to the 1967 borders. As soon as Netanyahu rejects Obamush suggestion for the 1967 borders change Obamush should have said his statement was missunderstood and he did not mean it like it was said.

It was no defence, it was an explanation for partisan headline readers like yourself and Netanyahu.
If I have one criticism though, it's that he used too many big words for you to understand.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

But only folks who ignore what the President actually said think he was schooled.

Those people are an embarssesment to America.

He made the comment then two days later he reafrimed his postion then a short time later he backed tracked. Not a very good sign of leadership.

Backtracked?

“Let me reaffirm what ‘1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps’ means,"

Yeah that's backtracking......

He certainly is much more honest than the opposition.

....And....as usual......

.....more-knowledgable!!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

But only folks who ignore what the President actually said think he was schooled.

Those people are an embarssesment to America.

He made the comment then two days later he reafrimed his postion then a short time later he backed tracked. Not a very good sign of leadership.

Backtracked?

“Let me reaffirm what ‘1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps’ means,"

Yeah that's backtracking......

He certainly is much more honest than the opposition.

Mutually agreed swaps. Like the Jews give them their land back and the Arabs agree not to kill them for awhile.

Forget the 1967 lines because it's a non-starter.

 

[The T]

He made the comment then two days later he reafrimed his postion then a short time later he backed tracked. Not a very good sign of leadership.

Backtracked?

“Let me reaffirm what ‘1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps’ means,"

Yeah that's backtracking......

He certainly is much more honest than the opposition.

Mutually agreed swaps. Like the Jews give them their land back and the Arabs agree not to kill them for awhile.

Forget the 1967 lines because it's a non-starter.

So is 'Right of RETURN' a non-starter. It doesn't exist.

 

[Spoonman]

Obama will have a war going between them before you know it.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm assuming that you voted for Paul in the primaries. But he didn't win. McCain did, because - obviously - not enough Republicans wanted Paul, because - again, obviously - there aren't enough conservatives to even be able to determine the Republican nominee, never mind win the general election.

Please address that paragraph as separate from the next.

If you voted for Paul in the general, as a write-in, then that's fine. But it's a protest vote, nothing more. Either you didn't care (I dismiss that), or you hated McCain (possibly), or you saw that Obama was inevitable (likely), but in any case, you threw away your vote. If Paul had been running on the Libertarian ticket like he was in 1988, then you could say that you didn't want to help perpetuate the failed two-party system. But he wasn't. So it's a wasted vote.

As for me supporting Obama, hell yeah I did! I was proud to, I'm glad I did, and I would do it again in a heartbeat against McCain, or any of the other conservatives. Only Paul or perhaps Bloomberg would have made me hesitate voting for Obama, Hillary, or even Edwards. Why? Because I'm a Liberal! Duh! I would have supported Dennis Kucinich against anyone on the Right, with their pandering to the Rapture Right, Big Corporations, and their 'war as a first choice' mentality. It has nothing to do with Obama being my hero, or being Black, or any of that other bullshit. It has to do with who is looking out for me, not billionaires who happily move their money overseas if they can get a half point more return. They don't give a **** about you or me.

Well, we can atleast agree on the fact that "they don't give a **** about any of us", which "they" includes your hero Obama. Goldman Sachs was Obama's number 1 contributor. So thank you for making my point again. Yeah, I wrote in Paul as a protest vote, you got that correct. First time I have ever done that actually. McCain? I don't hate him, he served our Country, but he's too Liberal for me with the borders and other issues, and I am done voting for fake Conservatives. ~BH

*I* am done with the media, and the parties defining what Conservatism means to me bro.

Bullshit. You'll be listening to Rush and Sean and LEVin tomorrow, and watching FOX in between.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Man, the Obamabots sure are defensive........Their boy fucked up. He was thoroughy and rightfully schooled by a TRUE leader.

The arrogance and amateur style of this idiot President and administration is friggin' comical.

On wednesday, Obama's talking head said it would not be addressed in his speech.......Obama then blindsides Netanyahu the night before their meeting by mentioning it in his speech........Netanyahu then phoned Hillary and put a boot in her ass immediately after the speech (No wonder Obama loooked ashen before the meeting started. He knew he stepped in it, big time)......It's quite clear that those arrogant, ameuturish ***** fully expected Netanyahu to just go along with the program. Oh how wrong those morons were.

And, it's quite interesting that China's leader was given red carpet treatment complete with a state dinner......What did Netanyahu get?.........a disrespectful slap in the face.

Obama's a douchebag.......Pure and simple.

 

[TheBrain]

Well, we can atleast agree on the fact that "they don't give a **** about any of us", which "they" includes your hero Obama. Goldman Sachs was Obama's number 1 contributor. So thank you for making my point again. Yeah, I wrote in Paul as a protest vote, you got that correct. First time I have ever done that actually. McCain? I don't hate him, he served our Country, but he's too Liberal for me with the borders and other issues, and I am done voting for fake Conservatives. ~BH

*I* am done with the media, and the parties defining what Conservatism means to me bro.

Bullshit. You'll be listening to Rush and Sean and LEVin tomorrow, and watching FOX in between.

Do you morons really think that all conservatives listen to/watch those guys?

I have NEVER listened to Rush except a few odd clips here and there, I think Hannity is a whack case, and I don't even know who Levin is. Oh, I don't particularly care for Beck either.

You guys and your generalizations are ridiculous.

 

[Dr Grump]

This is why the rest of world laughed when Obama was elected.

Er no. The rest of us did not laugh. We thought sanity had returned to the US.

You want laughing from the rest of the world? Try November 2000 and 2004....there was much mirth and laughter (derogatory at that) after those results....