Its official another Frikin war.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2011 5:27 PM GMT
    Who needs a Republican president when we have one that provides welfare for the ultra rich and starts another frikin War. He didn't even ask the congress....at least Bush got the 99 to 1 vote from the senate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2011 6:08 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Alpha13 saidWho needs a Republican president when we have one that provides welfare for the ultra rich and starts another frikin War. He didn't even ask the congress....at least Bush got the 99 to 1 vote from the senate.


    Welfare for the ultra rich.... yeah.... the view from San Francisco. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Tell Nancy Pelosi I do wish her a speedy recovery. icon_wink.gif


    lmao, "welfare for the super rich" has got to be amongst the most farcical things I've heard all year!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2011 12:18 AM GMT
    Did he not promise to end them and bring the troops home?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2011 12:23 AM GMT
    as long as the earth endures, there will always be war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2011 12:24 AM GMT
    America is not the one starting any of these wars.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2011 1:21 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    southbeach1500 said
    Alpha13 saidWho needs a Republican president when we have one that provides welfare for the ultra rich and starts another frikin War. He didn't even ask the congress....at least Bush got the 99 to 1 vote from the senate.


    Welfare for the ultra rich.... yeah.... the view from San Francisco. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Tell Nancy Pelosi I do wish her a speedy recovery. icon_wink.gif


    lmao, "welfare for the super rich" has got to be amongst the most farcical things I've heard all year!


    it would be farcical if it wasn't a) true and b) so damaging to the country. Remember, if you support extend the Bush tax cuts you can't complain about the deficit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2011 5:00 AM GMT
    Alpha13 saidWho needs a Republican president when we have one that provides welfare for the ultra rich and starts another frikin War. He didn't even ask the congress....at least Bush got the 99 to 1 vote from the senate.


    Jeez. Why are so many Americans so fucking dumb in their disconnectedness from international affairs? Anyone with even a modicum of nous who had read even a couple of quality newspapers over the last few weeks would have grasped the idiocy of this statement.

    Gah!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2011 5:28 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Alpha13 saidWho needs a Republican president when we have one that provides welfare for the ultra rich and starts another frikin War. He didn't even ask the congress....at least Bush got the 99 to 1 vote from the senate.


    Jeez. Why are so many Americans so fucking dumb in their disconnectedness from international affairs? Anyone with even a modicum of nous who had read even a couple of quality newspapers over the last few weeks would have grasped the idiocy of this statement.

    Gah!



    Yup.
    Actually, there have been quite a few laugh-out-loud boneheaded threads posted recently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2011 6:08 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    TigerTim said
    Alpha13 saidWho needs a Republican president when we have one that provides welfare for the ultra rich and starts another frikin War. He didn't even ask the congress....at least Bush got the 99 to 1 vote from the senate.


    Jeez. Why are so many Americans so fucking dumb in their disconnectedness from international affairs? Anyone with even a modicum of nous who had read even a couple of quality newspapers over the last few weeks would have grasped the idiocy of this statement.

    Gah!



    Yup.
    Actually, there have been quite a few laugh-out-loud boneheaded threads posted recently.
    +1!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2011 7:06 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Alpha13 saidWho needs a Republican president when we have one that provides welfare for the ultra rich and starts another frikin War. He didn't even ask the congress....at least Bush got the 99 to 1 vote from the senate.


    Jeez. Why are so many Americans so fucking dumb in their disconnectedness from international affairs? Anyone with even a modicum of nous who had read even a couple of quality newspapers over the last few weeks would have grasped the idiocy of this statement.

    Gah!


    The comment seems to have had it's intended effect.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Mar 24, 2011 7:32 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Alpha13 saidWho needs a Republican president when we have one that provides welfare for the ultra rich and starts another frikin War. He didn't even ask the congress....at least Bush got the 99 to 1 vote from the senate.


    Jeez. Why are so many Americans so fucking dumb in their disconnectedness from international affairs? Anyone with even a modicum of nous who had read even a couple of quality newspapers over the last few weeks would have grasped the idiocy of this statement.

    Gah!





    What he said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 12:17 AM GMT
    Its official we are in other war because of "good conscience" with no military objective or foreseeable end. Just add the cost to the trillion dollar deficit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 12:19 AM GMT
    Alpha13 saidIts official we are in other war because of "good conscience" with no military objective or foreseeable end. Just add the cost to the trillion dollar deficit.


    So you objected to Iraq too? Or is this just because you hate Obama?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 12:20 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    rickrick91 said
    TigerTim said
    Alpha13 saidWho needs a Republican president when we have one that provides welfare for the ultra rich and starts another frikin War. He didn't even ask the congress....at least Bush got the 99 to 1 vote from the senate.


    Jeez. Why are so many Americans so fucking dumb in their disconnectedness from international affairs? Anyone with even a modicum of nous who had read even a couple of quality newspapers over the last few weeks would have grasped the idiocy of this statement.

    Gah!



    Yup.
    Actually, there have been quite a few laugh-out-loud boneheaded threads posted recently.
    +1!



    Well of course you support war......and that military retirement check and free medical must make thing very comfortable for you where as I have to work until I drop paying for all of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 12:23 AM GMT
    Alpha13 saidWell of course you support war......and that military retirement check and free medical must make thing very comfortable for you where as I have to work until I drop paying for all of it.


    Do you realise how monumentally offensive you're being to veterans? Isn't that unpatriotic and unamerican?!?!?!?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 12:42 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]TigerTim said[/cite]
    Alpha13 saidIts official we are in other war because of "good conscience" with no military objective or foreseeable end. Just add the cost to the trillion dollar deficit.


    So you objected to Iraq too? Or is this just because you hate Obama? [/quote


    I object to anything without concept or purpose. Wars without military objectives are illogical. I also object to anyone who cannot learn from history. And I am really pissed regarding Obamba behaving like Bush II without any outcry from the left.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 29, 2011 1:07 AM GMT
    Alpha13 saidWho needs a Republican president when we have one that provides welfare for the ultra rich and starts another frikin War. He didn't even ask the congress....at least Bush got the 99 to 1 vote from the senate.



    Alpha, you're not taking into account the huge cost to the U.S. if we were not to respond to things like what is happening in Libya. I'm not saying we have to be the world police and swoop in to save the day every time flare-ups happen in the world, but the world looks to the U.S. to a very large extent as a leader -- and with that comes responsibility. If Obama were to relinquish that responsibility, it would not be good for the U.S. What Obama has done right this time, that past Presidents did not do, is make it clear from the get-go that we were a participant among many countries participating, that we were not going to bare the brunt of responsibility for this, and that this was a joint NATO mission with the U.S. only playing a strategic role. Personally, I think he walked a very fine line, but may have succeeded in quite possibly carving out the beginnings of a new and fresh type foreign policy in which the U.S. not only shares responsibility with other NATO countries but, in fact, demands that this be the way it must be done IF the U.S. is to be involved. If this is what is to be the so-called "Obama Doctrine", then I think I like it. This is yet another example of a President having to make incredibly tough decisions that will be controversial and most likely not very popular. This could not have come at a worse time for Obama. That being said, if things go well in Libya, and this new approach to U.S. foreign policy resonates, this might be exactly what Obama needed to save him in 2012 --- but if things go badly in Libya, and we get pulled into an even bigger involvement, this will not bode well for Obama because, fair or not, it could cost him getting re-elected.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 1:08 AM GMT
    Alpha13 saidIts official we are in other war because of "good conscience" with no military objective or foreseeable end. Just add the cost to the trillion dollar deficit.


    So you are worried that military action will cost too much? What will be the cost if Gaddafi stays in power and destabilizes the entire region?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 2:41 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Alpha13 saidWho needs a Republican president when we have one that provides welfare for the ultra rich and starts another frikin War. He didn't even ask the congress....at least Bush got the 99 to 1 vote from the senate.



    Alpha, you're not taking into account the huge cost to the U.S. if we were not to respond to things like what is happening in Libya. I'm not saying we have to be the world police and swoop in to save the day every time flare-ups happen in the world, but the world looks to the U.S. to a very large extent as a leader -- and with that comes responsibility. If Obama were to relinquish that responsibility, it would not be good for the U.S. What Obama has done right this time, that past Presidents did not do, is make it clear from the get-go that we were a participant among many countries participating, that we were not going to bare the brunt of responsibility for this, and that this was a joint NATO mission with the U.S. only playing a strategic role. Personally, I think he walked a very fine line, but may have succeeded in quite possibly carving out the beginnings of a new and fresh type foreign policy in which the U.S. not only shares responsibility with other NATO countries but, in fact, demands that this be the way it must be done IF the U.S. is to be involved. If this is what is to be the so-called "Obama Doctrine", then I think I like it. This is yet another example of a President having to make incredibly tough decisions that will be controversial and most likely not very popular. This could not have come at a worse time for Obama. That being said, if things go well in Libya, and this new approach to U.S. foreign policy resonates, this might be exactly what Obama needed to save him in 2012 --- but if things go badly in Libya, and we get pulled into an even bigger involvement, this will not bode well for Obama because, fair or not, it could cost him getting re-elected.

    There is no issue with the US being part of a coalition, which is not as novel as you seem to suggest. Our role as a player within NATO is consistent with the command structure that has been in existence for decades. The point many here probably do not realize, is while our role in the Libya may be considered appropriate, how we got there did nothing but demonstrate the inconsistent statements of administration leaders over an extended period. The international view from friends and foes alike is this president is considered weak. That creates the potential for other issues down the road, and is not something we should be rejoicing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 2:48 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Alpha13 saidWho needs a Republican president when we have one that provides welfare for the ultra rich and starts another frikin War. He didn't even ask the congress....at least Bush got the 99 to 1 vote from the senate.



    Alpha, you're not taking into account the huge cost to the U.S. if we were not to respond to things like what is happening in Libya. I'm not saying we have to be the world police and swoop in to save the day every time flare-ups happen in the world, but the world looks to the U.S. to a very large extent as a leader -- and with that comes responsibility. If Obama were to relinquish that responsibility, it would not be good for the U.S. What Obama has done right this time, that past Presidents did not do, is make it clear from the get-go that we were a participant among many countries participating, that we were not going to bare the brunt of responsibility for this, and that this was a joint NATO mission with the U.S. only playing a strategic role. Personally, I think he walked a very fine line, but may have succeeded in quite possibly carving out the beginnings of a new and fresh type foreign policy in which the U.S. not only shares responsibility with other NATO countries but, in fact, demands that this be the way it must be done IF the U.S. is to be involved. If this is what is to be the so-called "Obama Doctrine", then I think I like it. This is yet another example of a President having to make incredibly tough decisions that will be controversial and most likely not very popular. This could not have come at a worse time for Obama. That being said, if things go well in Libya, and this new approach to U.S. foreign policy resonates, this might be exactly what Obama needed to save him in 2012 --- but if things go badly in Libya, and we get pulled into an even bigger involvement, this will not bode well for Obama because, fair or not, it could cost him getting re-elected.

    There is no issue with the US being part of a coalition, which is not as novel as you seem to suggest. Our role as a player within NATO is consistent with the command structure that has been in existence for decades. The point many here probably do not realize, is while our role in the Libya may be considered appropriate, how we got there did nothing but demonstrate the inconsistent statements of administration leaders over an extended period. The international view from friends and foes alike is this president is considered weak. That creates the potential for other issues down the road, and is not something we should be rejoicing.





    "The international view from friends and foes alike is this president is considered weak".
    HA!
    Prove it!

    But, you can't - because it's your BS OPINION - unsupported by an actual facts.

    You listen to damn much right-wing propaganda on Fox.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 2:49 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Alpha13 saidWho needs a Republican president when we have one that provides welfare for the ultra rich and starts another frikin War. He didn't even ask the congress....at least Bush got the 99 to 1 vote from the senate.



    Alpha, you're not taking into account the huge cost to the U.S. if we were not to respond to things like what is happening in Libya. I'm not saying we have to be the world police and swoop in to save the day every time flare-ups happen in the world, but the world looks to the U.S. to a very large extent as a leader -- and with that comes responsibility. If Obama were to relinquish that responsibility, it would not be good for the U.S. What Obama has done right this time, that past Presidents did not do, is make it clear from the get-go that we were a participant among many countries participating, that we were not going to bare the brunt of responsibility for this, and that this was a joint NATO mission with the U.S. only playing a strategic role. Personally, I think he walked a very fine line, but may have succeeded in quite possibly carving out the beginnings of a new and fresh type foreign policy in which the U.S. not only shares responsibility with other NATO countries but, in fact, demands that this be the way it must be done IF the U.S. is to be involved. If this is what is to be the so-called "Obama Doctrine", then I think I like it. This is yet another example of a President having to make incredibly tough decisions that will be controversial and most likely not very popular. This could not have come at a worse time for Obama. That being said, if things go well in Libya, and this new approach to U.S. foreign policy resonates, this might be exactly what Obama needed to save him in 2012 --- but if things go badly in Libya, and we get pulled into an even bigger involvement, this will not bode well for Obama because, fair or not, it could cost him getting re-elected.

    There is no issue with the US being part of a coalition, which is not as novel as you seem to suggest. Our role as a player within NATO is consistent with the command structure that has been in existence for decades. The point many here probably do not realize, is while our role in the Libya may be considered appropriate, how we got there did nothing but demonstrate the inconsistent statements of administration leaders over an extended period. The international view from friends and foes alike is this president is considered weak. That creates the potential for other issues down the road, and is not something we should be rejoicing.


    Only in the mind of America's right wing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 2:53 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said"The international view from friends and foes alike is this president is considered weak".
    HA!
    Prove it!

    But, you can't - because it's your BS OPINION - unsupported by an actual facts.

    You listen to damn much right-wing propaganda on Fox.

    What I listen to is international sources from several countries, both print and television. I have neither the time nor interest in providing links or recording and translating from German and Russian political discussion programs. I have absolutely no interest in spoon-feeding you anything. That you consider something almost common knowledge abroad to be my opinion is, to me, proof of your total ignorance of the subject.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 3:04 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 said"The international view from friends and foes alike is this president is considered weak".
    HA!
    Prove it!

    But, you can't - because it's your BS OPINION - unsupported by an actual facts.

    You listen to damn much right-wing propaganda on Fox.

    What I listen to is international sources from several countries, both print and television. I have neither the time nor interest in providing links or recording and translating from German and Russian political discussion programs. I have absolutely no interest in spoon-feeding you anything. That you consider something almost common knowledge abroad to be my opinion is, to me, proof of your total ignorance of the subject.




    LOL!
    I don't need to be spoon-fed the right-wing BS you deem to be credible "common knowledge".
    And it's revealing that you don't even attempt to try to prove the ridiculous claim you made.
    That's a tacit acknowledgement that you cannot prove it.

    And how sad that you can't respond and discuss the issues without stooping to a pointless and ugly attempted personal attack.
    It just hightlights your intolerance of opposing viewpoints.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Mar 29, 2011 3:12 AM GMT
    socalfitness The international view from friends and foes alike is this president is considered weak. That creates the potential for other issues down the road, and is not something we should be rejoicing.


    Well the international view from friends and foes alike was that your last president was stupid, and some of the would be candidates for the Republicans in the 2012 vote are even less intelligent than THAT President.

    How does that work for ya?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 3:30 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 said"The international view from friends and foes alike is this president is considered weak".
    HA!
    Prove it!

    But, you can't - because it's your BS OPINION - unsupported by an actual facts.

    You listen to damn much right-wing propaganda on Fox.

    What I listen to is international sources from several countries, both print and television. I have neither the time nor interest in providing links or recording and translating from German and Russian political discussion programs. I have absolutely no interest in spoon-feeding you anything. That you consider something almost common knowledge abroad to be my opinion is, to me, proof of your total ignorance of the subject.




    LOL!
    I don't need to be spoon-fed the right-wing BS you deem to be credible "common knowledge".
    And it's revealing that you don't even attempt to try to prove the ridiculous claim you made.
    That's a tacit acknowledgement that you cannot prove it.

    And how sad that you can't respond and discuss the issues without stooping to a pointless and ugly attempted personal attack.
    It just hightlights your intolerance of opposing viewpoints.

    If you think that stating you are ignorant on a specific subject is an ugly personal attack, then you really have a thin skin. You are always claiming personal attacks, but you can certainly dish it out. You can state I cannot prove something because I don't care to prove it to you. You are entitled to your opinion, but the point is there is much information and it serves me no purpose trying to educate you. No purpose and no interest, so think what you want.