What is lost to you is that the national security of this country is dependent on all the international good will and "police work" we do. To think otherwise is living with your head in the sand. You are the one that has lost touch with reality my friend. Millions were killed under Saddam. don't recall anyone saying "through war you can make the world one" Nice try JD

It doesn't take balls to speak the truth. It takes balls to lie through your teeth. Obama has huge balls.

Mega Extreme Right Wing "DITTOS" I've said about all I am going to on this, as some of these guys will never see the light. Obama shows utter disrespect for those of us serving in the military or have served in the military. Its simply amazing how he can speak out of both sides of his ass, and people only hear the bits and pieces they want.

Same as you, I heard things I agreed with, but then went apoplectic over some other things he said. But I can see the truth, he is talking both sides, counting on peoples stupidity that they will walk away remembering only the parts they liked.


I'm spending the weekend on the water and away from this section until monday as I seem to be getting angry a little too easy at the left these days.

Buck, you've really been spewing some seriously untenable arguments in this thread. Nothing new I guess...

It's funny how you think "international good will" is important when you need it to be, but write off all the arguments against policy that erodes it as necessary to our security.

You can't have it both ways.

You've said that Obama is lying and has empowered our enemies with this speech. Please post some specifics and back your argument up.

Otherwise it's just more fluff.

-spence

More than lost lives, we're going to spend nearly two trillion dollars in the process, nearly ZERO of which is going to benefit the American Taxpayer directly.

The policy that got us into Iraq was reckless at best and dishonest at worst. The tens of millions of people who we have directly impacted feel slighted at best and are responding with violence at worst.

To write off any criticism of CIVILIAN policy as disrespecting a MILITARY organization that takes its orders from said civilian leadership is ANTI-MILITARY to the core as it's placing responsibility for those orders on the troops themselves.

This is the basis for the neocon argument that infected US policy under Bush 43. The world "needs" us to lead them.

Man, that's some arrogant %$%$%$%$. In a world where 19 guys with box cutters can kill nearly 3 thousand people, one might think a little humility is in order.

Or, we could just work to piss everybody off and claim superiority. Yes, that's a recipe for success...

-spence

go fishing Spence!

Does your response have any substance? I don't seem to see any...

:eyes:

-spence

I find you saying this ironic as hell.
Spence your blinded by your love for this guy. He has accomplished nothing good for this country since he took office. He has spent trillions to save the economy yet the jobless rate is at an all time high. We are in debt beyond what we will ever be able to pay back. He has crushed the dollar value and those hens are about to roost. I feel he has weekened our security. He has created Czar afer Czar. Mishandled the Auto industry. He is a one man disaster that is doing to us, what the terrorist only dreamed they could accomplish.

Blinded by love....

Obama is by far the brightest person we have had in the white house for a very long time. How will the right wing compete?

We had an election, and the best man won.

sean

I think you forgot to read my posts :humpty:

The dollar is stronger than at this point last year, Cheney said that deficits don't matter, and Obama is practicing a reality based foreign policy that has a loooooonnnngggg way to go before he can correct all the damage that Bush did.

I have no love for Obama. This sounds just like the defense of Bush that his detractors are simply obsessed with the personalty rather than attacking the policy.

If you remember this thread was about Obama's speech in Eqypt and how you think it's made us less safe.

I've yet to hear any real analysis to back up this claim.

-spence

Murphy's Law
 

I'd feel better if he quoted from Murphy's Law as opposed to the Koran. Because if things don't change more quickly, Murphy's Law is going to be very applicable all over the country.

you people in this political forum are just plain wacky.

Not to add to the pile...
still waiting???

:rotf2::rotflmao::laugha:

Liar, liar, Brooks Brothers slacks on fire.

Spence:love:Obama

Actually I believe Spence on this..... he doesn't have love for Obama, it is more of a lustful adoration. His love is reserved for Karl Marx :rotf3:

Thats good.
insult spence. still didn't answer his question...

It's all they have. Besides...Beans doesn't even know what a Liberal is, his taunts don't mean all that much.

-spence

Not meant as an insult, just an observation.

I was trying to be nice by saying Liberal, instead of Socialist.
If you read through Spence's comments throughout this board, you can easily see he believes in more government control, he would enjoy having government health care, he would welcome more government control to "improve" local school, he would more than likely support salary caps for all, not just those under the bailout, he would support increased gun control. On almost every issue he does indeed appear to be a liberal, the only issue he may stray on is abortion (I feel he may agree with me on that, case by case, depending on risk to mother and other considerations like rape).

I enjoy reading some of his posts and do "read" them all and he does align himself with liberal beliefs.

How did I miss this thread?

:lurk:

Musta been been busy

CB, I started a new thread, not to hijack this one

Obama goes to the Cafe'
 

:rtfm:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c66/ravenob1/cb1.png
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c66/ravenob1/cb2.png
and has cool beans for breakfast...... :rotflmao:

Raven, that is so damn funny!!! :claps::claps::claps::rotf3::rotf3::rotf3:

I feel like Rush,,, "Everyone is picking on me..." Hahaha!
:btu::btu::btu:

When Obama made his long-awaited speech to the Muslim world on June 4, he was excruciatingly careful to demonize those Muslims he termed "violent extremists" and praise other practitioners of Islam. While the distinction is accurate, it is hardly insightful. While declaring Islam itself evil leads to a strategic cul de sac (what is the strategy once we declare one third of humanity our enemy); Obama's chosen path is equally dangerous. It allows the Muslim world to go on blaming their problems on "imperialism," "exploitation," or more innocuously poverty, and ratifies the consistently disastrous policy of letting those who cheer the terrorists' actions and provide them with ideological cover avoid responsibility. It lets them and the "violent extremists" off the hook in the name of political correctness.

Those same people have been engaged in a deliberate program of ethnic cleansing against Bangladesh's Hindus. Hindus were almost one in five Bangladeshis when the nation broke from Pakistan in 1971. Today, after decades of murder, rape, and forced conversion, they are less than one in ten. Using demographic models and other data, Professor Sachi Dastidar of the State University of New York, Old Westbury, estimates that 49 million Hindus are "missing" from the Bangladeshi population; that is more people than most nations have.

This is but one example of a long list

That is the danger in Obama's Cairo University speech and his policy of "outreach" to the Muslim world. Peace is nice; frank discussions are needed. But refusing to demand equal soul searching on the part of those who are in reality radical Islam's lifeline will produce neither and insure that his speeches will keep peace at a distance and create more victims.