Do we need a Liberal Administration right now?

Dixie said:
Well you won't have to worry about that with Obama and the anti-war liberals in charge, we won't have ANY wars, optional or not. Military force will be taken completely off the table, and our enemies will realize it. As I said, the big dog is getting back up on the porch, and this is what we can expect out of liberal anti-war leadership. Without any possible threat of US Military action, democracies around the world will begin to fall left and right at the hands of communist and islamic aggression, and it will all be consistently blamed on Bush, as it happens.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with smoking a joint now and then, but crack will kill you Dixie.
 
Dixie said:
Apparently you missed Oncies post, where HE said we were "outlaws" and HE said we "hurt american leadership" in the post I responded to. Please don't put Oncies words in MY mouth, if you have a problem with what he said, take it up with him, I was merely responding to his assertions.

My assertion is, this is the kind of "leadership" we can expect the next 4 years, if Obama wins in November. Look at what else Oncie posts..."As for foreign policy, I can only guess at what Obama would do, but we won't know until he is there, facing his first test." Now, call me crazy, but I think it's a really bad idea to elect a man president if you don't know what he would do in a crisis situation. But you see, Obama supporters don't have to worry about it, because even if he does nothing and lets the world collapse into chaos around us, you can still sit comfortably at your keyboards blaming Bush for it, and refusing to lead. This is the plan, this is the template, this is what we can all expect with an Obama Administration for the next 4 years.
Click to expand...

Dixie you are a fool. Please tell us what experience Bush had in foriegn policy? Or Reagan? Or Clinton? Or Carter?

I know you dislike two of those, but since you claim two of them were great presidents, your words are just nonsense.

"Now, call me crazy, but I think it's a really bad idea to elect a man president if you don't know what he would do in a crisis situation."

But two of your favs fit that bill perfectly.
 
Solitary said:
Dixie you are a fool. Please tell us what experience Bush had in foriegn policy? Or Reagan? Or Clinton? Or Carter?

I know you dislike two of those, but since you claim two of them were great presidents, your words are just nonsense.

"Now, call me crazy, but I think it's a really bad idea to elect a man president if you don't know what he would do in a crisis situation."

But two of your favs fit that bill perfectly.
Click to expand...

With all four of those men, we clearly had a good idea of where they stood. Hell, the Iranians were so scared of Reagan, they released the hostages the day he took office! All four were very articulate on defending American interests abroad, and we knew precisely how they would react to crisis. McCain, even though I am not supporting him, still gives us a pretty clear and concise picture of how he would lead in a crisis, and what actions he would take, if needed. With Obama, we know he is an anti-war liberal who will never use the US Military, regardless of the crisis... it's off the table completely. He is the most radically left-wing person ever nominated to run for president. Even Clinton, who despised the military, was willing to use it to protect American interests abroad.
 
"Hell, the Iranians were so scared of Reagan, they released the hostages the day he took office!"

Jesus, you have such a warped view of history. The Iranians wanted to embarass Carter; they had made the decision to release the hostages months before, but didn't want him getting the credit.

You're a such a collossal buffoon. Bush kept the Ruskies at bay for 7+ years, and Reagan scared the Iranians into releasing the hostages in just one day! History textbooks in Dixieland...
 
"With all four of those men, we clearly had a good idea of where they stood. "

We know where Obama STANDS, too; we just don't know with 100% certainty what he will DO, which is what I said; nor did we know with any of the 4 Presidents mentioned what they would DO before they actually DID IT.

That is what I was saying, but do you see how nimble & dishonest you were in spinning my words?

You're stupidity actually makes me a little queasy. I can't imagine what it must be like to be you, and live inside that head of yours all day. You have my sympathies.
 
Watermark said:
China-Russia vs. America (Europe will be tired as hell of our shenanigans by then and will delightfully sit this one out).

Betting money is not on us.
Click to expand...

You underestimate our military capability.

It would be difficult to find any combination of nations that could defeat us militarily.
 
Onceler said:
"Hell, the Iranians were so scared of Reagan, they released the hostages the day he took office!"

Jesus, you have such a warped view of history. The Iranians wanted to embarass Carter; they had made the decision to release the hostages months before, but didn't want him getting the credit.

You're a such a collossal buffoon. Bush kept the Ruskies at bay for 7+ years, and Reagan scared the Iranians into releasing the hostages in just one day! History textbooks in Dixieland...
Click to expand...

LOL... Yeah, they "decided" along about the first Tuesday in November, when Ronald Wilson Reagan won the election. You see, he had indicated, all throughout the campaign, that he had a little 'sumn-sumn' for them, if they didn't. As for the Russians, they haven't started getting funny until recently, so yeah, as much as you hate to admit it, Bush has kept them at bay.

I won't bother quoting your other post, but you are correct, we DO know what Obama will do... NOTHING! That is the point of the thread. To illustrate to all of America, just how inept the Liberals are, when it comes to their ability to lead our nation during tumultuous times. You're all stuck in "Bush Hate Mode" and can't seem to switch gears. Hating Bush is not effective leadership, and it won't suddenly and magically become effective leadership in January of 2009. We need to seriously consider what it seems we are contemplating here, because we can't rescind the president after the election, we're stuck with him for 4 years.
 
Dixie said:
LOL... Yeah, they "decided" along about the first Tuesday in November, when Ronald Wilson Reagan won the election. You see, he had indicated, all throughout the campaign, that he had a little 'sumn-sumn' for them, if they didn't. As for the Russians, they haven't started getting funny until recently, so yeah, as much as you hate to admit it, Bush has kept them at bay.

I won't bother quoting your other post, but you are correct, we DO know what Obama will do... NOTHING! That is the point of the thread. To illustrate to all of America, just how inept the Liberals are, when it comes to their ability to lead our nation during tumultuous times. You're all stuck in "Bush Hate Mode" and can't seem to switch gears. Hating Bush is not effective leadership, and it won't suddenly and magically become effective leadership in January of 2009. We need to seriously consider what it seems we are contemplating here, because we can't rescind the president after the election, we're stuck with him for 4 years.
Click to expand...

In 1980, the Shah died, and Iran was invaded by Iraq. They had plenty of reasons to agree to release the hostages; your rewriting of history is good for a chuckle, though.

As for Obama, you are still confusing him with "liberal Bush haters." Obama hasn't been consumed by Bush hate; he has run a positive campaign, and has given you little to equate him with the average Daily Kos reader as easily as you do. I agree that hating Bush is not effective leadership; fortunately, Obama is not campaigning as a "Bush hater," and has given no indication whatsoever that his first response to a foreign crisis will be to "hate Bush."

That's just your typical Dixieland, over the top way of looking at America; it's also typical of you to hear comments from one or a few people on the left - as on this thread - and ascribe those comments to anything about Obama or what he plans to do. Typical, despicable dishonesty from you.

I love how pathetic you are these days, though. It's good poetic justice.
 
Oh boy Dixie was right this was a hell of a retribution by us.
We showed em huh dix?

US, allies weigh punishment for Russia

WASHINGTON - Scrambling to find ways to punish Russia for its invasion of pro-Western Georgia, the United States and its allies are considering expelling Moscow from an exclusive club of wealthy nations and have scrapped plans for an upcoming joint NATO-Russia military exercise, Bush administration officials said Tuesday.

But with scant leverage in the face of an emboldened Moscow, Washington and its friends have been forced to face the uncomfortable reality that their options are limited to mainly symbolic measures, such as boycotting Russian-hosted meetings and events, that may have little or no long-term impact on Russia's behavior, the officials said.

With the situation on the ground still unclear after Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Tuesday ordered a halt to military action in Georgia, U.S. officials were focused primarily on confirming a cease-fire and attending to Georgia's urgent humanitarian needs following five days of fierce fighting, including Russian attacks on civilian targets.

"It is very important now that all parties cease fire," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "The Georgians have agreed to a cease-fire, the Russians need to stop their military operations as they have apparently said that they will, but those military operations really do now need to stop because calm needs to be restored."

At the same time, however, President Bush and his top aides were engaged in frantic consultations with European and other nations over how best to demonstrate their fierce condemnations of the Russian operation that began in Georgia's separatist region of South Ossetia, expanded to another disputed area, Abkhazia, and ended up on purely Georgian soil.

"The idea is to show the Russians that it is no longer business as usual," said one senior official familiar with the consultations among world leaders that were going on primarily by phone and in person at NATO headquarters in Brussels, where alliance diplomats met together and then with representatives of Georgia.

A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe confidential conversations among the leaders of other nations, said European and other leaders have been blunt with Russia that it must withdraw its forces. Russian leaders have said they do not plan a long-term occupation, the official said. The official was not specific about whether Russia has offered a timeline for withdrawal.

"People are saying, 'You know you cannot stay,'" the official said. "We have been hearing from Russia, 'We don't want to stay.'"

For now, the Bush administration decided to boycott a third meeting at NATO on Tuesday at which the alliance's governing board, the North Atlantic Council, was preparing for a meeting with a Russian delegation that has been called at Moscow's request, officials said.

In addition, a senior defense official said the U.S. has decided to dump a major NATO naval exercise with Russia that was scheduled to begin Friday.

Sailors and vessels from Britain, France, Russia, and the U.S. were to take part in the annual Russia-NATO exercise aimed at improving cooperation in maritime security. But the official said there is no way that the U.S. could proceed with it in the midst of the Georgian crisis.

The naval exercise began a decade ago and typically involves around 1,000 personnel from the four countries, officials said. The Pentagon also is looking at a variety of ways it could respond to humanitarian needs in Georgia, but officials have not yet made any final decisions.

In the medium term, the United States and its partners in the Group of Seven, or G-7, the club of the world's leading industrialized nations that also includes Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, are debating whether to effectively disband what is known as the G-8, which incorporates Russia, by throwing Moscow out, the officials said.

Discussions are also taking place on whether to revoke or review the May 2007 invitation to Russia to join the 30-member, Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which consists primarily of established European democracies, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because no decisions have yet been made and consultations with other countries involved are still under way.

Bush spoke on Monday and Tuesday with fellow G-7 leaders as well as the heads of democratically elected pro-Western governments in formerly Eastern bloc nations, some of which are among NATO's newest members and have urged a strong response to Russia's invasion of a like-minded country.

On Monday on his way home from the Olympics in China, Bush talked with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus and Polish President Lech Kaczynski. He then called Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, the White House said. On Tuesday, he spoke with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Rice, who returned early to Washington late Monday from vacation to deal with the crisis, held a second round of talks with foreign ministers from the Group of Seven countries in which they were briefed on European Union mediation efforts led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who met Tuesday with Medvedev in Moscow.

"They believe that they have made some progress and we welcome that and we certainly welcome the E.U. mediation," Rice told reporters at the White House.

Later, Saakashvili told reporters that he accepted the cease-fire plan negotiated by Sarkozy.

Despite the flurry of activity, there was still uncertainty about whether Russia had in fact halted its military action in Georgia, with reports of continued shelling of civilian and military sites.

The State Department on Tuesday recommended that all U.S. citizens leave Georgia in a new travel warning, saying the security situation remained uncertain. It said it was organizing a third evacuation convoy to take Americans who want to leave by road to neighboring Armenia. More that 170 American citizens have already left Georgia in two earlier convoys.

Just hours after Bush said in a White House address that the invasion had "substantially damaged Russia's standing in the world" and demanded an end to what he called Moscow's "dramatic and brutal escalation" of violence, Medvedev said he had ordered an end to military action.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_russia_georgia
 
Soc, maybe you missed it buddy, but the topic of the thread is regarding what an Obama Administration would do in such a situation, if anything. It's good to know we have Condi Rice at work, talking to our allies and getting things done, but that won't be the case in 2009. We will have some other yahoo as Sec-o-state, and how they might handle such a situation, is anyone's guess.... not even Oncie will attempt to say.

You can bet on this though, if Putin takes such bold unilateral actions NOW, with a right-wing war hawk Administration, imagine what he will attempt with a liberal anti-war dove in office. It's a little frightening to think about.
 
"You can bet on this though, if Putin takes such bold unilateral actions NOW, with a right-wing war hawk Administration, imagine what he will attempt with a liberal anti-war dove in office. It's a little frightening to think about."

Well, that's perspective for you. Clearly, Putin isn't overwhelmed by the guy who saw his soul; I don't think this one is just a test, and that he's saving his worst for the next admin.

I can't wait until we have some competence & intelligence in the Oval Office. Maybe that's just me; you'd probably elect Bush for 3rd & 4th terms if you could, because you feel so fuzzy & safe, but I'm pretty dismayed about what the "right wing war hawks" have done to our world standing and to our military. I'm ready for new leadership, in a big way.

You'd better be, too - because you're going to get it.
 
Dixie said:
Soc, maybe you missed it buddy, but the topic of the thread is regarding what an Obama Administration would do in such a situation, if anything. It's good to know we have Condi Rice at work, talking to our allies and getting things done, but that won't be the case in 2009. We will have some other yahoo as Sec-o-state, and how they might handle such a situation, is anyone's guess.... not even Oncie will attempt to say.

You can bet on this though, if Putin takes such bold unilateral actions NOW, with a right-wing war hawk Administration, imagine what he will attempt with a liberal anti-war dove in office. It's a little frightening to think about.
Click to expand...


Actually, Condi was on vacation while Sarkozy and the EU negotiated the cease-fire agreement. You see, we're not exactly an honest broker in this conflict and were in no position to mediate a resolution.

To the extent we were involved, it was lower level staff, specifically, Matthew Bryza, a career diplomat at the State Department who has served under GHWB, Clinton and GWB and would, as a career diplomat, likely stay on under the next president, whomever that may be.

By the way, you might want to change your undies you pants-shitter.
 
Dixie said:
It should be no secret, Vladdy Putin wants to 'reunite' the Soviet Union, and he has boldly and aggressively invaded the sovereign nation of Georgia in the first steps to that objective. He does this with Bush and Cheney in the White House, a commonly considered right-wing hawkish war administration. What might Putin dare with a liberal anti-war president in charge?

One of the things Americans really need to consider is world events, and what is happening globally. The republic of Georgia doesn't mean anything to us, we have no strategic presence in that part of the world, and there isn't much we can do about it. But what happens when he rolls tanks into Ukraine and Poland? Will a Liberal-bound Obama administration be able to tear itself from the anti-war crowd long enough to take action, when action needs to be taken?

Or will we have a quasi-Carter foreign policy of indifference and daisies? Will we have the balls to confront aggression in the world, and show force when necessary, to combat oppression? Or will we simply sink into the background and allow Putin to color eastern Europe red? I am sure the left-wing blame America libs will all be clamoring for President Obama to take no action, to stay out of it, and not get involved. But is this what Mainstream America thinks is best? Are we really ready to disconnect from leadership on the world stage like that, and allow the Communist Russians and Chinese to take over half the world... again?

We still haven't heard the last of Islamic Extremism, and we are going to be faced with the Ol' Hammer and Sickle again... WITH a liberal anti-war president... in a recession... great! Just fuckin' great!

We deserve what we get!
Click to expand...

Finally a JPP intellict worthy of RJS? I worry about what we are going to do two, with the Marxist bleeding hearts, and their leader, Barack Hussein Obama, taking over? Bush has mensaed us out of so many tight spots, and what thanks does he get? Putin would have been marching his bloodthirsty troops over here, and making whores of our Southern ladies, if it hadn’t been for Bush staving them off, with his, special mixture of Look at my big dick, and along with his mensa mind skills. There is nothing so fearsome in the worlds as a big dick with a mensa IQ, and that is why we have not been hit again, capicse you stupit lib assbites?

It is almost as if, he should have let one sneak by him, even though it would have hurt his mensa ego to let the terrorists, who have been meeting with Putin, win one? But that might have shuddup the big-mouth liberals, all of who are at best 50-50 gender wise?
 
It is not easy to be mensas like RJS, and Dixie. Men want to be us, chicks just want us. Except for the lib half and half men, who want to do both, those confused bastards, it is like, they are half way repelled by George Bush because of his, manliness, and half way attracted to him, because of his manliness. If you watch a lib male, it is like watching a person after they have had the brain of a bird transplanted into their own heads, they flutter back and forth, wildly hitting against the walls, until finally, they knock themselves out.

This is what RJS has to put up with too, everywhere he goes. It is one of the burdens that George Bush and I, share. Thank you.
 
"It is not easy to be mensas like RJS, and Dixie."

THat pretty much answers all my questions.
 
Originally Posted by Topspin View Post
Dixie you alabama drop out.
the american people would be tickled pink if Obama told us for the next 4 yrs "WE CAN'T INVADE ANYBODY'.

Damo: That would be very stupid, actually.
Click to expand...

And is actually why I posted this thread. It seems we have a fundamental disconnect with people on the left, who apparently think there is never a reason for war. I don't know how they presume we survived as a nation this long, or who will pay for their entitlements and double-mocha lattes when our enemies take over, but this clearly seems to be a consensus among the pinheaded.

It also seems to be epidemic, this belief that ALL Americans share their views. I've never seen this level of mass delusion in my lifetime. Certainly, we have a large number of pinheads who have no clue as to how to defend America, or even care if we do. Certainly, there are a large number of idiots and morons who will vote for some slick guy in an empty suit, regardless of his inexperience and lack of understanding on how to defend American interests abroad. But this is a far cry from being ALL of America, and I doubt it's even a majority of America, we will see in November, I suppose.
 
I just thought this would be another good time to remind you – you’ll die without seeing another righty appointed to the Supreme Court. And you'll die with a Democratic majority in the House. And you'll die with a Democratic majority in the Senate.

And to thank you for that, again. Couldn’t have done it without you and your kind dixcks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top