A Tragic Mistake

And yet you've remained ever so silent about ASUR & ALWAYS {the insanity Siamese twins} :confused:
Spread your 'FEELINGS AROUND' a little more;)

This post has some actual merit and a firm substantial mind behind it too...isn't this an opinion forum after all?

I didn't realize those posters posted in a discernable language.
 
Werbung:
I doesn't take a lot of intelligence to realize
that telling your enemy when you are going to stop fighting
them is plain dumb.

I think most grade schoolers could understand this is a dumb policy!

It's called CHANGE!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sihouette
Look, no matter what, Obama knew going into any decision would be met with resounding criticism. His choice was one either hitting your thumb, your big toe or your kneecap with a hammer. No matter what, it's gonna sting afterwards. I suggest a fourth and less painful option: hitting Cheneyco on the head with a grand piano.

Very important to remember that if it weren't for Bush/Cheney trashing our world standing, Obama would not have to feel the pressure of trying to win at least one large world ally like India. The Brits, the Aussies and India...all the former British colonies including us and Canada. That's what has to come together ro reknit all that was lost on behalf of Cheneyco. That is why we are in Af/Pak.

Those stupid greedy fools will go down in history as some of the worst villians the US has ever known, in fact the world has ever known; considering how many have died as a direct result of their lies, machinations and greed. I still offer that we could win more allies by trying that regime in a world court with our full blessings of extradition than we'd ever get by snuggling up to India right now...spending more enlisteds' lives to accomplish less than what could be by raking those bastards through the coals.

The cat is out of the bag. Everyone knows that they are guilty and what they are guilty of: lying and killing for greed. Our negilgence in bringing them to justice is HUGELY undermining the thrust of our promises to our allies. As long as we harbor the moral equivalent of the nazi war criminals in Germany, we tell the world we are giving a silent assent, our nod to the atrocities committed.

Put yourselves in the shoes of our potential "enemies" like Iran, Russia and China. If we were them and were watching what the US is doing, we would be utterly DONE with the US and ready to topple it for the sheer pleasure of dethroning the worst malignant hypocrites. If we brought our war criminals to justice, we may not have warm fuzzies with these folks for many years, but at least the rebuilding of trust would start and a de-escalation of hostilities would be well underway. Imagine healthy trade and reducing arms instead of having to fall to our knees for other countries and beg for their charity? AND ALL THIS FOR ONE SMALL GROUP OF EVIL MEN who could easily be brought to justice for a tiny fraction of the expense of what we're commiting to now...on so many levels..

Basically we're screwed. We could send 100,000 troops today and every day for the next ten years and if they all died valiantly fighting for our honor, it still wouldn't make as much a difference as trying Cheneyco. Ironic that those responsible for plunging our economy on the brink of a national emergency now "require" us to plunge ourselves even closer to the brink in order to regain our national standing. The real hard decision that you're not hearing about is Obama wrestling with taking on these cutthroat bastards vs sending those who won't complain out to do janitorial work for India. That's the compromise I won't forgive him for. If you think about it, Michael Moore has more balls.

There's a cheaper way folks. So what if Tony Blair et al go down too? Make backroom deals, cover important names but by God bring a few token heads to roll. [Dick Cheney and "the Decider" for starters, and Blair] Cheneyco sacraficed so many fallguys and gals at the altar of greed and unjustly so. Why would we hesitate for a nanosecond to not do so with them in the name of world peace and prosperity?
No offense, but this has to be the single biggest load of crap I have ever read. It is not really even worth bothering to respond to. ~BigRob

No offense but considering the source, I thank you for the compliment! :p

And thanks to you too ASPCA4.
 
My original Statement:[QUOTE]Never in my lifetime has any president faced the plethora of difficult decisions that we currently face; which does he ignore and stay focused upon, which does he cut and avoid because there isn't a SIMPLE/EASY way to fix it, which does he force upon those that don't want his options/plan, which does he cut the losses for and say it's time to just pull out and walk away:confused:

To which you typed up a list of Holocaust/mother nature events/incidents that track back before he was even born...WTH



HERE GET A CLUE...I can either point out the obvious {with my usual effervescent smart a$$ed normal reply} OR I CAN JUST SIMPLY STATE...WELL OF COURSE ALL KNOWING ONE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE HELL I MEANT:rolleyes:

Let me write it down again in my best crayola colors...THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE...NAY, NOT ONE OTHER PRESIDENT IN MY LIFETIME THAT HAS FACED ALL OF THE HIGH PRIORITY ISSUES THAT OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT HAS FACED IN HIS BRIEF TIME IN OFFICE ;) IMO[/quote]


What does Obama's age have to do with it. You said, "...in your lifetime..." That is why I made the joke about being young.

My point is simple...just because it's current doesn't mean it's the worst of times...there have been many more difficult years for Presidents than 2009.

1968 almost killed Lyndon Johnson

http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/1968/reference/timeline.html

1973 should have killed Richard Nixon

Ending the Vietnam War, Watergate, Oil Embargo, soring unemployment, stock market crash, Soviets flexing in Eastern Europe, Vice President resigns in shame.

I could give you at least 1/2 a dozen more years that would have broken lesser men.
 
To which you typed up a list of Holocaust/mother nature events/incidents that track back before he was even born...WTH
HERE GET A CLUE...I can either point out the obvious {with my usual effervescent smart a$$ed normal reply} OR I CAN JUST SIMPLY STATE...WELL OF COURSE ALL KNOWING ONE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE HELL I MEANT
Let me write it down again in my best crayola colors...THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE...NAY, NOT ONE OTHER PRESIDENT IN MY LIFETIME THAT HAS FACED ALL OF THE HIGH PRIORITY ISSUES THAT OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT HAS FACED IN HIS BRIEF TIME IN OFFICE IMO

What does Obama's age have to do with it. You said, "...in your lifetime..." That is why I made the joke about being young.

My point is simple...just because it's current doesn't mean it's the worst of times...there have been many more difficult years for Presidents than 2009.

1968 almost killed Lyndon Johnson

http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/1968/reference/timeline.html

1973 should have killed Richard Nixon

Ending the Vietnam War, Watergate, Oil Embargo, soring unemployment, stock market crash, Soviets flexing in Eastern Europe, Vice President resigns in shame.

I could give you at least 1/2 a dozen more years that would have broken lesser men.

Discussing a topic with you becomes as convoluted as with that insane character that I mentioned several posts back :rolleyes: Do you obfuscate on purpose or are you totally unaware of the way in which you continually pull more fragmented items into ONE JUST ONE DISCUSSION:confused:
1. I didn't say our current Presidents AGE HAD ANYTHING to do with this topic
2. you keep referring to your list that covers a huge/wide variety of years
3. your list is also so filled with minuta of simplistic historic bumps and mental hiccups as to be laughable compared to the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009...but I'll leave that to the historians to write it all up for you and then you'll be HAPPY!
4. your list is just that - YOUR LIST - so you feel like YOUR LIST MATTERS and I say it DOES NOT, that you aren't comparing apples to apples...but there I've said it again so that you may re-read it one more time!
5. But seriously...I believe you pretend at being obtuse on purpose!
Using words like: "almost killed and should have killed" doesn't make your point any stronger...nope not at all ;) neither one of those examples were in any direct physical danger...JEEZ LOUSIE
 
The problem I have is that too many people on this site, including yourself want to attack the person instead of the argument. I'm personally sick and tired of it. I'm open to a heated debate on an issue, but the moment someone calls me a liar or stereotypes me in a bigoted fashion then the discussion has ended and it is nothing more than electronic ignorance.
I'm thinkin' electronic ignorance is more-applicable to those who offer some whacked-out Premise....without (also) posting a link to verify the Integrity of that Premise....much like the infallibility of the WMD-intelligence.

:rolleyes:
 
Take your ignorant stereotyping and bigotry somewhere else.
Ah, yes....pointing-out The DICK's flip-floppin' Execution-Of-War-hypocrisy constitutes stereotyping and bigotry , huh??

It's no wonder you "conservatives"/Libertarians are so confused, when the subject is civil/human-rights.

:rolleyes:
"The “amazing” thing that the researchers found was that whites (and some blacks) are more wary of blacks than they are of whites — no matter how you measure or detect that. Such a finding would, however, surely surprise only a psychologist. If blacks REALLY ARE more dangerous to others, it is merely psychological good function to be more wary of them than of others. And I don’t think even Leftists attempt to deny the high rate of black crime. So to call such perfectly proper wariness in people “bigotry” is itself bigoted."

249.gif
 
Look, no matter what, Obama knew going into any decision would be met with resounding criticism. His choice was one either hitting your thumb, your big toe or your kneecap with a hammer. No matter what, it's gonna sting afterwards. I suggest a fourth and less painful option: hitting Cheneyco on the head with a grand piano.
I'm thinkin' The DICK is a little-more preoccupied with whether-or-not his name comes-up, throughout the Federal terrorist-trials, in N.Y.​
 
No offense, but this has to be the single biggest load of crap I have ever read. It is not really even worth bothering to respond to.
....But, somehow, you always manage....with nothin'!

Have you ever been diagnosed with masochistic/martyr-characteristics....'cause you surely do seem to enjoy being marginalized!!

:eek:
 
I doesn't take a lot of intelligence to realize
that telling your enemy when you are going to stop fighting
them is plain dumb.
If the Karzai Admin sees us as adversaries....rather-than their last-opportunity to straighten-up-and-fly-RIGHT....SCREW 'EM!!!!!!!!!!!

:mad:

They're NOT dealing with BU$HCO, anymore!!!
 
Werbung:
My point is simple...just because it's current doesn't mean it's the worst of times...there have been many more difficult years for Presidents than 2009.
...."difficult years" being a matter of "conservative"-perception.

:rolleyes:

"According to The Daily Princetonian, after the 2000 presidential election, "post-election polls found that, in the wake of Clinton-era scandals, the single most significant reason people voted for Bush was for his moral character."

529.gif

Check & MATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:p

(You make this toooooooooooooooo easy, Frankie!!!!!)​
 
Back
Top