Hitting it over the fence in cricket is worth 6 runs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Printable View
Hitting it over the fence in cricket is worth 6 runs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Ah, thanks :)Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I once really, really did my best to appreciate a good ol' game of cricket to please a girlfriend... But only some 10 minutes into the game I found myself fiddling with my cell phone instead... And mind you, these were in the times before we had games on them!
On a personal level I like Obama more than I liked Bush. He seems more sincere.
Does this make me a bad person?
Yes. Why do you love Hugo Chavez?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Lemur, if you are going to link to Glenn Beck, a warning would be appreciated. :wall: Those subversive links are a cruel ambush to the common sense. :laugh4:
Has anyone seen one of his live shows? The ones where he thinks he's Brittney Spears and soaked in sweat? Looks nasty. :thumbsdown:
You wouldn't believe he was the most popular feature of the most trusted news channel in America though
He is also more admired than the Pope:
Since 1948, the Gallup polling organization has been asking Americans what man and woman "that you have heard or read about, living today in any part of the world, do you admire most?" This year, the polling firm stirred up more interest -- and in some circles, horror -- than in years past.:laugh4:
The reason: More people mentioned Glenn Beck, the conservative radio and television host, than the pope.
Granted, it was close: In the final tally, Beck and Pope Benedict XVI both were named by 2 percent of respondents. But Beck earned a few more mentions than the pope -- enough, by Gallup's reckoning, to edge His Holiness by a nose. The runaway winner was President Barack Obama, with 30 percent, followed by former President George W. Bush with 4 percent and former South African President Nelson Mandela with 3 percent.
Well said Mr. Beck. ~:pat:Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Beck from article
What a Mormon.
Glenn Beck is dangerously insane. I've never met anyone who watches him without turning the TV off with that eirie feeling.
I remember the first times encountering Glenn Beck while channel surfing and wondering who this hack was and marveled at his ability to grate on my nerves after 30 seconds of watching him. I thought only Al Franken could do that. Beck's got skillz. :laugh4:
BTW, one positive thing about Franken getting elected is that I haven't heard a peep from him since. Is that really the case or have I just been lucky?
Looks like the USA is going to be the top dog for a while, impressive
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1416882220100129
you can probably read it when we are done.
POTUS provides ply-by-play commentary, crowd goes wild. One of the strangest, and yet somehow coolest moments in Presidential history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaBn3cVmQo0
Obama is a way more regular guy than McCain or Bush ever were.
You'd think otherwise with all their strong moral fiber. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Want a sure-fire way to make the BCS worse? Get the government involved. :wall:
I dislike the BCS, but this is simply government overreaching.Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday to a senator who had asked for an antitrust review.
In the letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, obtained by The Associated Press, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch's request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws.
"Importantly, and in addition, the administration also is exploring other options that might be available to address concerns with the college football postseason," Weich wrote, including asking the Federal Trade Commission to review the legality of the BCS under consumer protection laws.
CR
lol
Obama
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v.../obamagreg.jpg
Wouter Bos of the Dutch social democrats
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...e642edf757.jpg
Government involvement would really improve things.[/sarcasm] Maybe with their legislating the BCS, they'll introduce the fillibuster to the polling process. The government needs to get a life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I think everyone who espouses 'hope' as a value they represent has had their picture taken with that head angle at some point or another. It is an incredibly common trope and always has been, as it is is something like "looking into the future", but also "day-dreaming of something better."Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
@ Lemur - "Can I be totally irrelevant?" "Errr, irreverant?" "Irreverant and irrelevant, thank you sir. Big moment, I couldn't handle it." :laugh4: . That was very cool though.
Obama is significantly superior to Bush Jr. so far though. That is a good thing.
That is certainly a highly debatable opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Indeed, for a certain segment of the population, Obama is Stalin cum Antichrist with a dash of Idi Amin. A mere incompetent like GWB can never compare with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...who_hates_.png
39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.
36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.
31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.
63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not
24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.
21 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55 percent are not sure, 24 percent said the community organizing group did not steal the election.
23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.
53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.
Further polling data here, level-headed analysis here.
Yep, its just those nutty Glen Beck Republicans who are turning against this president and his agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I didn't see some of those results coming (31% want to outlaw contraceptive use and 73% think that gay people shouldn't teach in schools!). The full set of questions and answers are here - and before people criticise it for being DailyKos, they didn't do the polling, Research 2000 did. Further, the DailyKos daily tracking poll has only a few points better for Obama than the other tracking polls do, so even if ytou cry bias that is quite a baseless idea.
That poll is so obviously bogus that I'm amazed people are even discussing it seriously.
I'm not a bit surprised that self-identified republicans will tell a pollster that ACORN stole the election and that they believe the should secede from the union, what's disturbing is that it gets reported as "21% of Republicans believe".
Some further reading you may be interested in.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Voting intentions are:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
1) Useless this far out from an election
2) Pointless when you don't name the "someone else" because people are able to put in place the name of their favourite dream candidate. I'd be interested to see how many Democrats said someone else, because they could well be causing those numbers. Also I'm not sure I like the fact that 21% of respondents to that poll are from the "Deep South". I think the partisan identification probably should have been 2 or 3 points fewer Republicans and 2 or 3 more Democrats. Plus the questions are really quite skewed if you ask me and that makes me think that I'm missing something. Financial Dynamics is not a particularly reknowned pollster either.
Yep I know that, and I'm not surprised, but seriously 63% call him a Socialist? 53% think Palin is more qualified to be President? 73% think gays shouldn't be allowed to teach? 77% believe creationism should be taught?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Oh and note that I also think parts of the poll are off - the heavily gender-skewed nature of respondents and the high proportion of elderly for example.
Well, theres this from back in July when Obama was just beginning his implosion..Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
And more recently, this. Apparently, even the likes of Sarah Palin is polling significantly better than earlier in Obama's term.
Finally, a few weeks ago, there was this. Take from it what you will.
Palin and Romney are out of the news much more than Obama is. Obama faces constant attacks from all sides, which drags his numbers down. Rather than responding against an individual such as Palin or Romney, he has to respond to a Party, dragging the Party's numbers down rather than these individuals. Under the rigours of a campaign poll numbers change as approval ratings rise and fall and people become more interested in politics. This becomes very obvious if you look at the favourability ratings of both Palin and Romney (With Romney's data you must look towards the high number of undecideds to see that people are switched off and that, outside of the partisans on both sides, people rely on a campaign narrative to help shape opinions).Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
While that certainly applies to Romney, the same cannot be said for Palin. Besides Obama, I cannot think of another politician that has been in the news, consistently, more that Palin. That includes Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who are supposedly in charge of this fiasco the Democrats call a government and Scott Brown, the new conservative hero.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
More worrying for Obama's team is that the coverage of Palin has been almost completely negative in the MSM except on Fox News, while the opposite is true of Obama - with positive coverage (excuses) in much of the media, with the only exception being Fox. Yet her numbers continue to rise.
The fact that a woman who continues to be so roundly mocked and villified at the same time is polling very well against O makes quite a point.
Honestly she's just a symbol of opposition. I find it difficult to believe that any sensible and responsible individual would actually trust her in a high office.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Also, I like how Fox News cut from the Q&A session and made a rather unflattering "summary" of what transpired.
That's what is so scary. Imagine the numbers a more qualified, less tainted and polarizing Republican with her name recognition would get. There are already a few such Republicans setting up PACs for 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Eh, you gotta know Obama is going to win reelection. His base is disaffected now, wait until full political season. The incumbent always has the advantage.
Obama continues his attack on the working class people of Las Vegas.
CR
Couple that with the fact that the economy is likely to come out of recession in the coming year and it seems quite likely. I'm not 100% sure on him winning re-election, but I'd put my money on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I'm loving that mayor! With the 2010 election season rolling around, I'm sure he won't be the last Democrat to tell the Failure in Chief to stay the hell away...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
The economy is already out of recession. And the Republican Party has spent the duration of that recession opposing the measures which ended it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
You reap what you sow, RNC.
I'm surprised that the people of Las Vegas, the "Entertainment Capital of the World", are offended by what Obama said. It wasn't even an insult. Of course, the Republican Party is just in a froth about it because they can smell blood on Harry Reid's Seat in the Senate. No real politics to see here folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Although I did lol when I saw
As if that was his sole purpose in life :laugh4:Quote:
NEIL PETERSON
Disappointed in the President
That's fair, and a lot of very smart people would agree with you. However, until unemployment drops, it's going to feel like a recession in full swing. And nobody is sure when hiring will pick back up. So how the recent recession is going to impact the '10 and '12 elections is ... questionable. Nobody really knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
It was saying companies should not go to Las Vegas and waste their money there. That means the people who work their have a lot less work to do, and so people get fired or laid off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
They're are quite understandably offended because Obama is saying it's bad for companies to employ their services; it's bad for those workers to have jobs in that industry.
CR
Yikes. That line is so completely divorced from reality, even for a master salesman like O, it may just be a talking point too far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Its usually pretty easy for politicians to confuse the unwashed over complex economics, but promising 8% and delivering 10% isn't hard to comprehend.
Just our of curiosity, PJ, do you believe America has had a worse president than Obama? If so, who?
Rhetorical? :smiley:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
No, a serious question. Your rhetoric on Obama is so negative, I'm wondering if you think him the absolute worst, or if there is room for lower. You're not required to answer anything you don't want to, of course.
-edit-
To clarify -- knowing just how low you rank Obama would be instructive. Worse than Harrison? Worse than Buchannan? Or is he more mid-list? It's impossible to get a sense of what you actually think of him, since your points about him are universally negative. Not much information there. And based on your posts in the Liberal Fascism thread, you appear to believe that rhetorical extremity is perfectly legitimate as a corrective, so I can't begin to get a sense of what you actually believe.
Hey, it's that German! Never saw the euro post around for a long time. Mindi moonyaqueh animush.
How would it matter? How he ranks Obama shouldn't be relevant to the merit of any criticism made. It sounds more like you're trying to set up some kind of ad hominem. ie: He thinks Obama is the worst president ever, therefore his criticism is invalid. That doesn't follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
But maybe I'm just missing what the relevance is.
It is pretty rare for someone to only say negative things about a politician.
Thank you for inventing an entire argument for me. Why, I barely need post with you putting all kinds of interesting words in my future self's mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
PJ postures, and he is the first to admit he postures. Is it so freakish and diabolical to want to know how he ranks the current President when he isn't forming a specific line of argument?
By way of contrast, while I thought George W. Bush was a very bad president, I always took issue with people who made the argument that he was the worst ever. To me that showed a real, palpable lack of history. I wouldn't even put GWB in the bottom ten. Our republic has survived some pretty terrible chief executives in its time.
Sasaki, if you need any help stuffing your straw man, please let me know, I'm free after the kids' bathtime.
Obama unquestionably represents the worst elements of contemporary American politics, but is he the worst president in United States history? It’s way too early to tell; or to issue him a rank. He certainly hasn’t done as much damage to the fabric of the nation as FDR or LBJ, for example. Actually he hasn't done much at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Ironically, that dismal failure in actually executing his job as president– despite a rare supermajority ensuring a powerless opposition – may just have saved him from the full fury of future history books. The profligate spending ensures he won’t go down as a “good” president, but had he passed that massive unfunded liability that was (is) healthcare “reform” and the penalty on industry, based on crumbling science, that was (is) Cap and Trade, things would look far worse for him.
Who knows, though? Despite being roundly rejected by the populace time and again, Obama’s agenda continues to rear its ugly head. He’s still got plenty of time to fall even further down the list. :beam:
Hey man. Good to see you are still around. The posturing and rhetorical flourish that Lemur speaks of got the best of me one too many times and I wound up on the wrong side of the ban-stick. Lesson learned the hard way. :smug2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas
That's a fair answer, PJ. Thanks for satisfying my prosimian curiosity. (And while I understand why you single out FDR and LBJ as baddies, you'd have to agree that no chief executive has ever done more to tear the United States apart than James Buchanan. I believe he sets the bar so low that no president past or future will ever get under it.)
-edit-
Bit of a side note, but while thumbing through Wiki, I ran across this article about president rankings. I had no idea it was such a sport.
Well, I believe the Governor of Texas threatened secession last year, and several other states have reasserted their rights under the 10th amendment, so you never know. :laugh2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
All kidding aside, I can agree that Obama has a long way to fall before he gets anywhere close to the bottom of the list.
Yeah. Look at the sea of red in the mid-1800's, with Lincoln the only green island.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
-edit-
aw, heck. I didn't address "Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration". How about this:
(my bolded underline).Quote:
A Tibet Freedom Movement activist makes a portrait of U.S. President Barack Obama with his blood in Shimla, India as he thanks him for agreeing to meet the Dalai Lama, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2010. China on Wednesday again urged Obama not to hold a planned meeting with Dalai Lama, saying it would further hurt already strained bilateral relations. According to Chhime R. Chhoekyapa, the Dalai Lama's secretary, the Dalai Lama will be in Washington on Feb 17-18.
from this story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020500566.html
Q: Should Obama meet with the Dali Lama?
A: Sure. Gonna meet with the pope, dinner-jacket, and (maybe) 김정일,... what harm can the Dali do? How many Divisions has he?
In a coming-full-circle moment, the current administration accuses its critics of helping the terrorists. Ironic.. hypocritical.. hilarious?
Quote:
In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism -- responds to critics of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies by saying "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."
Haha, even as a strong Obama backer and Dem I can see all three things you say it is... :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Yeah, I think 'helping the terrorists' is the new 'He is a damn Red!' or 'he is a damn Fascist'... Unfortunately this is a tactic that does not work well on GOP whose credentials of being tough with 'terrorists' is not to be questioned.
Can someone explain to me how Obama is any different than Clinton or Bush?
The last 20 years we've had the same president, the only difference being one liked fat chicks, one liked Jesus, and one likes black people.
Can someone explain to me how;
Bush's medicare expansion is anydifferent than Obamas healthcare expansion?
Clinton's welfare reform is any different than Bush's compassionate consevativism?
How interveinig in the former Yougo, the ME, and ramping up troops in Afghan are any different?
We've been governed buy lame ducks since I've been born.
Since Obama has gotten into office he has been center left at best, while I don't agree with some of his ideas I believe he has a few good nuggets, however these want get any attention because he's a forigen born muslim communist who wants to eat beautifual blonde infants.
Quite simple, SFTS. Or as Watson would say, 'elementary!' - NO, I loathe sherlock holmes, as did Conan Doyle, who hated him with all his heart and wrote about Holmes only because they paid him several pounds for every friggin' sentence of the detective story (true fact)
Anyhow, nice intro :laugh:, but Obama and Clinton both are pushing/pushed for a healthcare reform, but both bills got mired with the natural Republican opposition. Except that right now the Republicans are being pure pigs, while back in Clinton's time they were about average in their opposition - hey, Clinton passed NAFTA.
Bush did not do much for healthcare. He merely dumped more money on the seniors. Dumping money is easy. Actually fixing the workings of the sytem is a Herculean labour. The American model is setting new high for inefficiency and this must be addressed. Even without medical insurance, US could have decent healthcare if the service was cheaper. Cap the spending on terminally ill, stop the doctor-gets-paid-per-procedure, stop the drug-company-paying-the-doctor, tone down the malpractice lawsuits, take the British approach by approving drugs only after a stringent cost:benefit ratio, tax the wealthy a tad to subsidise certain forms of healthcare, do something about the great gov't Ponzi scheme, a.k.a Social Security. All these are solutions, with varying difficulty of implementation. All these are more than just simple throwing-money-at-the-problem-approach.
'Compassionate conservatism'? Haha, nice buzzword there, I have heard of it... How about 'Tax-and-spend libertarian'? Either makes about the same amount of sense. US conservatives generally favour the wealthy and the liberals favour the working-class. Deregulation and small government is naturally hostile to the poor. I'd like a conservative in the Backroom to try to argue against this.
Kosovo was Clinton's folly, yes, it is true. But that was still Cold War politics speaking there, before the current situation. Dems and the GOP intervened in other nations' affairs nearly equally. Russia had interests in the Yugo wars, and where there is Russia, there is sure to be US, whether US likes it or not. Ramping up troops in Afghanistan? You cannot leave once you come in. The point is to not stick your nose into horsedung in the first place. But Iraq would be a better example for this purpose.
Lame ducks? Blame the 'No' strategy of the Republicans today. Now, Clinton, Clinton does not have an excuse, and neither does Bush. Both faced about average opposition. But hey, chew on this: who was the fiscal conservative? The surplus Clinton or the OMFG-WTF-deficit, and recession President Bush? You decide...
Both use lots of money, but I think Obama's would require more taxes in the end. It also effects many more people, usually in the way of limiting what options they have or freedom to choose the health insurance they desire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
And now; the Obama administration says federal agencies should be able to track anyone's cell phone, at any time, with no warrant.
So much for Obama being good on civil liberties.Quote:
Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.
In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.
"This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century," says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. "If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment."
CR
52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.
2012 is eons away, but man, has the lipstick worn off this pig or what?
An incumbent polls slightly below "someone else," an undefined anyman? Heavens! That's never happened in the history of polling! It's as though the entire people of Earth have turned on the false Obamessiah! And you were there first, PJ!
And all I got was this crappy t-shirt... :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Let's see... 500bn remaining of 'stimulus' money. 132,618,580 voters last election (= people who cared enough to show up and be heard). Doing long division......
$3,770.21 per voter. Start cutting checks, I say. Wanna help pay down the Nat'l Debt? Endorse the check and send it back. Wanna pay off a credit card? OK, too. Throw it into your dismal 401(k)? No problem. Let the voters decide.
You just can't win with some people: Bush Official Criticizes Obama for Killing Too Many Terrorists
At a panel on national security policy at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday, a prominent lawyer from the Bush administration's Department of Justice said he was concerned that the higher number of terrorist executions taking place under Obama was compromising U.S. intelligence operations.
"Why have executions increased?" asked Viet Dinh, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and one of the authors of the USA Patriot Act. Citing a recent Washington Post article on the increased targeted killing of terrorists, Dinh complained that "the president and vice president expound this fact as a fact that they are actually successful in war."
"That doesn't mean I think they are not illegitimate," he added. "No, we have every right to kill the other side's warriors. But at what cost? When we do not have an effective detention policy the only option we have is to kill them before we can detain them. And if we don't detain them, we don't know what they know and what they are up to."
The crowd applauded. Though, it should be noted, Dinh got a scattering of hisses and boos when he defended the Patriot Act.
No can do Kukri, they might remember that it IS their money.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
The Washington Post covered this a while back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The concern is that assassination may be getting favored over detention/interrogation because the administration has no clear policy on how to detain/interrogate. Killing terrorists is well and fine, but we should also be squeezing them for intelligence wherever possible.Quote:
The Nabhan decision was one of a number of similar choices the administration has faced over the past year as President Obama has escalated U.S. attacks on the leadership of al-Qaeda and its allies around the globe. The result has been dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions.
Although senior administration officials say that no policy determination has been made to emphasize kills over captures, several factors appear to have tipped the balance in that direction. The Obama administration has authorized such attacks more frequently than the George W. Bush administration did in its final years, including in countries where U.S. ground operations are officially unwelcome or especially dangerous. Improvements in electronic surveillance and precision targeting have made killing from a distance much more of a sure thing. At the same time, options for where to keep U.S. captives have dwindled.
Given your side's take on unlimited executive power, I don't think squeeze was the best verb for that sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
For a less hysterical take on Obama and the GWOT, Lexington has a nice essay this week.
An anti-Obama bumper-sticker asked: “So you’re for abortion but against killing terrorists?”
Most of these barbs are bunk. Yes, Mr Obama favours trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of September 11th 2001, in a civilian court. But that is not a sign of weakness. Several terrorists were successfully prosecuted in civilian courts under George Bush. And though Mr Obama is willing to admit his country’s failings, he is quite ruthless about blowing its enemies to scraps. American drones fired missiles at suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan’s tribal areas 55 times last year, killing hundreds of jihadists and who knows how many civilians. This year, the killing has accelerated; so far more than a dozen strikes have been reported. Mr Obama orders assassinations at a far brisker pace than George Bush ever did. For some reason, his habit of blowing up alleged terrorists and bystanders from the air causes less global outrage than the smothering of a lone Hamas operative, allegedly by Israel, in a hotel room in Dubai. But whether you think it justified or not, it is hardly evidence that the president is “against killing terrorists”.
So your response to concerns being raised that Obama is too quick to kill terrorist leaders instead of capturing them is to post a story that talks about how Obama is blowing terrorists and civillians to scraps? And then you call it "less hysterical"? Ok.... :inquisitive:
Didn't read the article, didja? And I can only imagine what you'd be saying if Obama were capturing more terrorists suspects than killing them. Your line of attack would be both obvious and well-occupied.
Face it, Xiahou, if the current President transformed water into wine you'd complain about underaged drinking. If he walked on water you'd declare that he was violating aquatic rights. There's nothing he can do that will satisfy you, short of magically transforming himself into Sarah Palin.
And if you'd actually read the piece I linked, you'd see that he's doing rather better than your boy Bush did on the GWOT front. Not that I'd expect you to admit or acknowledge that much. Ever.
It must be therapeutic for you to transfer all of your pent up blind seething rage onto me. I guess I should feel honored to be the target of so large a proportion of your ad hominems and straw men. :shrug:
Of course, because one editorial would prove beyond a doubt that Obama's been a massive foriegn policy success. :yes:Quote:
And if you'd actually read the piece I linked, you'd see that he's doing rather better than your boy Bush did on the GWOT front. Not that I'd expect you to admit or acknowledge that much. Ever.
"My boy Bush" :laugh4:
I like Obama.
Oh, so your response to a respectable editorial from The Economist is a screed from RCP? Poke your head out of the rightwing echo chamber every now and then, it'll do your mind some good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I love how no rightwinger ever supported Bush. Sure, you love the torture policies, the Patriot Act, the unlimited executive power, the Christian marketing themes, the preemptive war, the chest-thumping ally-infuriating foreign policy ... but he wasn't really one of you. No no no. Real conservatism is a Platonic ideal of purity that only exists in pre-media Palin and the fevered dream of a Fred Thompson presidency. But a guy like Bush? No, he must be some sort of liberal, 'cause we all know that bad things are liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
That's right, just let it out. It's not good to keep all that pent up inside....
Abbott and Costello
Martin and Lewis
Gawain and JAG
Lemur and Xiahou
All classics. :bow:
I'm a little late to the party but I'd just like to point out that that is not at all what they piece said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Update: I'm still liking Obama.
Will continue to update as the situation develops.
From Der Speigel: Obama Unites Israelis and Arabs in Disappointment
Quote:
Hopes were high in the Middle East when US President Barack Obama took office last year. But instead of progress toward peace, he has shown indecision and hesitancy. With many in the region united against Iran, he is in danger of letting a golden opportunity slip through his fingers.
Just be glad we don't have "my boy" Bush around to alienate our allies anymore, right? :laugh4:Quote:
Obama can hardly count on gaining the support of allies, partly because he doesn't pay much attention to them. The American president doesn't have a single strong ally among European heads of state. "The president is said to be reluctant to take time to build relationships with foreign leaders," writes the Washington Post.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Muahahaha YES WE CAN http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul...l-to-bush.html
lol@Nobel peace price commission and allllllllllllllllllll the others who judge someone on the color of his skin.
This from a man who openly admits that he admires Sarah Palin, the closest thing we have to a Bush sequel. Yikes. If Bush isn't your boy, whose is he?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I didn't know you followed some one who thinks Jews did 9/11 along with claiming to have predicted it and who said the apocolypse was coming in 2000 with Russia invading America, and all these sorts of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Neither did I, link?