Not Even a Smidgen of Corruption


.

Yawn. For all his flaws, Obama will be hard pressed to trump the disastrous quagmire of the 2003 Iraq War. I’m sure you were gung ho about that ill advised endeavor though.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Yawn. For all his flaws, Obama will be hard pressed to trump the disastrous quagmire of the 2003 Iraq War. I’m sure you were gung ho about that ill advised endeavor though.[/quote]

Concur, Other than Carter where is this moral President of make believe

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Yawn. For all his flaws, Obama will be hard pressed to trump the disastrous quagmire of the 2003 Iraq War. I’m sure you were gung ho about that ill advised endeavor though.[/quote]

for someone who must get his world politics from watching “The View” that may sound witty.

how about the assassination of US citizens in the name of obama’s national security?

when did the executive branch become a DICKtatorship and primary maker of legislation?

judge Leon doing nothing to curb the NSA’s mass spying operations, but acknowledges that they embody the methods of a police state. george orwell here we are and almost ready for the next world war.

prepare to have the same executive control of legislation stuffed down all throats. obama has made that a lot easier for the next party that takes over at 1600 pennsylvania avenue.

would i mind a conservative picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore? most on the right would. Ecclesiastes 10:2 states… a wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left. funny how that works out today for liberals and conservatives eh?

here’s our story in two short minutes (except for the allusions to the big bang theory and evolution - stupid monkey) :

http://marcbrecy.perso.neuf.fr/history.html

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Yawn. For all his flaws, Obama will be hard pressed to trump the disastrous quagmire of the 2003 Iraq War. I’m sure you were gung ho about that ill advised endeavor though.[/quote]

i’m not picking on you bismark, i’m just insecure and have to act unsettled now and again.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Yawn. For all his flaws, Obama will be hard pressed to trump the disastrous quagmire of the 2003 Iraq War. I’m sure you were gung ho about that ill advised endeavor though.[/quote]

Yeah you don’t want to stand in a circle and yank your’s and other’s wanks

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Yawn. For all his flaws, Obama will be hard pressed to trump the disastrous quagmire of the 2003 Iraq War. I’m sure you were gung ho about that ill advised endeavor though.[/quote]
Come on, that’s ancient history by PWI standards. It has nothing to do with anything going on today.

Not a smidge eh ? Watch the video in the link I posted.

After top fundraisers were picked to serve in Argentina, Iceland, and Norway even though they had never been to the respective countries, Stewart asked, ?Is there a rule that ambassadors can?t have set foot in the country they?re going to ambassador? Would it ruin the surprise?? As it turns out, each of them helped raise at least $500,000 for the Obama campaign.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Not a smidge eh ? Watch the video in the link I posted.

After top fundraisers were picked to serve in Argentina, Iceland, and Norway even though they had never been to the respective countries, Stewart asked, ?Is there a rule that ambassadors can?t have set foot in the country they?re going to ambassador? Would it ruin the surprise?? As it turns out, each of them helped raise at least $500,000 for the Obama campaign.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/371066/jon-stewart-mocks-obama-ambassador-picks-andrew-johnson[/quote]

…well some countries deserve an ambassador who can’t do shit.

and some of them just throw parties and screw the boys:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Yawn. For all his flaws, Obama will be hard pressed to trump the disastrous quagmire of the 2003 Iraq War. I’m sure you were gung ho about that ill advised endeavor though.[/quote]

Lame response. Very, very lame.

Bissy, ol’ buddy, ol’ pal, a post likes this indicates you’re a lightweight.[/quote]

I’d love to hear a substantiated argument that the Iraq War served American interests in south west Asia. The disastrous consequences of the preventative (as opposed to preemtive) invasion far outweigh any normative reasons given for making Iraq a priority of U.S. grand strategy. The Bush administration’s expectation of a cheap victory that would turn Iraq into a beacon of radiating democracy in the Middle East hardly materialized. Oh wait, was it “WMDs?” Or liberating the Iraqi people from a despotic leader?

Would any supporter of the war in Iraq care to address this?

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Would any supporter of the war in Iraq care to address this?[/quote]

A better question is why you make the lazy assumption that those of us who dislike Obama’s lackluster performance instantly approve of Bush’s?

Not only is Bush and his Iraq war completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread and first post, it is a boring tactic to bring them up. I expected more of someone who appears as thoughtful of as you.

Trying to turn a thread about the corruption the current administration is wallowing in to a conversation about a former president’s action a decade ago is something I would expect from OFA.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Would any supporter of the war in Iraq care to address this?[/quote]

A better question is why you make the lazy assumption that those of us who dislike Obama’s lackluster performance instantly approve of Bush’s?

Not only is Bush and his Iraq war completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread and first post, it is a boring tactic to bring them up. I expected more of someone who appears as thoughtful of as you.

Trying to turn a thread about the corruption the current administration is wallowing in to a conversation about a former president’s action a decade ago is something I would expect from OFA. [/quote]

The reason people do this is because they cannot, with any shred of honesty, defend anything Obama has done. Benghazi, his support of the Arab Spring, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, Obamacare, NSA scandal, rising unemployment and inflation, along with innumerable others have all been disasters.

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Would any supporter of the war in Iraq care to address this?[/quote]

A better question is why you make the lazy assumption that those of us who dislike Obama’s lackluster performance instantly approve of Bush’s?

Not only is Bush and his Iraq war completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread and first post, it is a boring tactic to bring them up. I expected more of someone who appears as thoughtful of as you.

Trying to turn a thread about the corruption the current administration is wallowing in to a conversation about a former president’s action a decade ago is something I would expect from OFA. [/quote]

The reason people do this is because they cannot, with any shred of honesty, defend anything Obama has done. Benghazi, his support of the Arab Spring, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, Obamacare, NSA scandal, rising unemployment and inflation, along with innumerable others have all been disasters.
[/quote]

I don’t bring the Iraq War up when somebody starts criticizing Obama. I criticize him myself. He deserves a great deal of criticism. (As does any president, really.)

That said, priorities are important. Not a single thing you listed comes within a hundred thousand miles of the ludicrously unnecessary assfucking the American people took in Bush’s Iraq. Fuck him–fuck him and his cabal of assholes and idiots as hard as possible, with as many dicks as can be gathered on such short notice.

Which is to say that our priority, right now, should be to make sure that we don’t elect another Bush, even if that means we have to elect another Obama. That’s my feeling, anyway.

In other words, Presidents exist within context. They are chosen as worthy not on their merits alone, but as one half of an offering. They are preceded and followed by other Presidents, and the issues bleed across terms freely. While nothing about Bush excuses anything about Obama, let’s not forget the big picture either.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Would any supporter of the war in Iraq care to address this?[/quote]

Let’s look at the objective results :

a secular dictaror, from sunni origins, with a nationalist ba’athist ideology has been replaced by a Prime Minister who is a shi’a islamist with pro-iranian tendencies.

It created a soon-to-be-filled power vaccuum, a regional chaos, and a resurgence of old ethnical and religious conflicts.

Which is a perfectly brilliant “divide and don’t even bother to conquer” move.

Especially if you consider that the oil market was left pretty much undisturbed.

The region is now like Yugoslavia after Tito’s death :
The various factions will fight between themselves for a decade or two, instead of trying to terrorize us.

Then they will redraw the map and be ready to join the rest of the civilized world.
Just like the countries of ex-yugoslavia today.

But that’s not even the whole story :

A few years after bush’s war in Irak, other (ex-)ba’athist, nationalist rulers suddenly started to fall. One after the other.

And each and everytime, it produced the same vacuum, the same local chaos, the same internal struggles, the same divisions among islamist groups, the same generational “age war”.

So Bush’s irakian move was not only a brilliant move, it’s was a perfect domino “strike”.

You just have to wait a few more years to see its final result

disclaimer : the above post is mainly an “exercice in style”.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Which is to say that our priority, right now, should be to make sure that we don’t elect another Bush, even if that means we have to elect another Obama. That’s my feeling, anyway.

[/quote]

Obama really isn’t materially different than Bush in terms of Foreign Policy.

Congress voted “yea” on Iraq. Bam wanted Syria, and will likely (as it is tracking now) have our boots on the ground in Ukraine…

All I’m saying is I’d like someone vastly different than the two of them. Because if Bush ordered the drone strike of citizens and their teenage sons, void of due process, please point it out to me.

They are both deplorable, and we deserve better.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

I don’t bring the Iraq War up when somebody starts criticizing Obama. I criticize him myself. He deserves a great deal of criticism. (As does any president, really.)

That said, priorities are important. Not a single thing you listed comes within a hundred thousand miles of the ludicrously unnecessary assfucking the American people took in Bush’s Iraq. Fuck him–fuck him and his cabal of assholes and idiots as hard as possible, with as many dicks as can be gathered on such short notice.

Which is to say that our priority, right now, should be to make sure that we don’t elect another Bush, even if that means we have to elect another Obama. That’s my feeling, anyway.

In other words, Presidents exist within context. They are chosen as worthy not on their merits alone, but as one half of an offering. They are preceded and followed by other Presidents, and the issues bleed across terms freely. While nothing about Bush excuses anything about Obama, let’s not forget the big picture either.[/quote]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Obama really isn’t materially different than Bush in terms of Foreign Policy.[/quote]

Most presidents don’t follow a foreign policy all that different from their predecessor.

Kennedy was all “LESS MISSILES!!!@#!” when Eisenhower was all “MORE MISSILES!@#!@#”

But Kennedy went and built a helluva lot more missiles anyways.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Congress voted “yea” on Iraq. Bam wanted Syria, and will likely (as it is tracking now) have our boots on the ground in Ukraine…[/quote]

Seeing as how that would make Russia mighty angry, I doubt it.

Russia is an entirely different beast than compared to countries like Iran/Afghanistan/Iraq.

But I haven’t read the news since I saw the report of Russia intervening in Ukraine so, I dunno.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Because if Bush ordered the drone strike of citizens and their teenage sons, [/quote]

Maybe he did, but we just don’t know.

There could have been many more John Walker Lindhs in Afghanistan or Iraq who died to American fire, but no one knew or cared.

Just a hypothetical.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

I don’t bring the Iraq War up when somebody starts criticizing Obama. I criticize him myself. He deserves a great deal of criticism. (As does any president, really.)

That said, priorities are important. Not a single thing you listed comes within a hundred thousand miles of the ludicrously unnecessary assfucking the American people took in Bush’s Iraq. Fuck him–fuck him and his cabal of assholes and idiots as hard as possible, with as many dicks as can be gathered on such short notice.

Which is to say that our priority, right now, should be to make sure that we don’t elect another Bush, even if that means we have to elect another Obama. That’s my feeling, anyway.

In other words, Presidents exist within context. They are chosen as worthy not on their merits alone, but as one half of an offering. They are preceded and followed by other Presidents, and the issues bleed across terms freely. While nothing about Bush excuses anything about Obama, let’s not forget the big picture either.[/quote]
[/quote]

lol. Every once in a while I allow myself a rant.