What part of the Presidents argument was strong Counselor?
GOP success?
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
What part of the Presidents argument was strong Counselor?
Did Obama ask for military intervention in Syria? Do you think Democrats would have supported Military intervention in Syria? Did Michelle sound any different than Democrats in this regard?
Did the President say he wanted to invade Ukraine? When did he say that?
Originally Posted by Jarod
The way the Republicans acted when President Obama wanted to do something about the use of chemical weapons by Assad in Syria sent a clear message to Putin about Obama's ability to do anything about Russia invading Ukraine.
Opinion Counselor; you don't believe that Congress people should have differing opinions from Barackus Obamanous (the Imperial President) Counselor? Why is that? Where you okay when Democrats differed with Bush on Iraq and Afghanistan Counselor?
That’s an awfully BIG “but” there Counselor. Apparently you DO think it is NOT okay to vote no and that it apparently is NOT their job to vote no based on your arguments here Counselor. I am trying to determine why.
What did they vote "NO" on Counselor? I don't recall there ever being a proposal from Barackus Obamanous (the Imperial President) to do anything in Syria? As a matter of fact, didn't Barackus Obamanous back down from his rhetoric all on his own?
Originally Posted by Jarod
The way the Republicans acted when President Obama wanted to do something about the use of chemical weapons by Assad in Syria sent a clear message to Putin about Obama's ability to do anything about Russia invading Ukraine.
What did Democrats say about Bush as CIC Counselor? Or do you think it is only okay when Democrats do it.
But again, you wander off your claim again:
Originally Posted by Jarod
The way the Republicans acted when President Obama wanted to do something about the use of chemical weapons by Assad in Syria sent a clear message to Putin about Obama's ability to do anything about Russia invading Ukraine.
Democrats to Obama: Syria Goals Unclear, Strikes Could Lead to Longer Conflict
WASHINGTON — US Democratic lawmakers are urging President Barack Obama to clearly define his objective for any military mission in Syria, while also raising concerns about unintended consequences.
......
'Significant Consequences'
Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said this week he is “still waiting to see what, specifically, the administration and other involved partners have to say about a potential military strike.” He should get a better picture later Thursday, when White House officials brief key lawmakers.
Smith, like a growing number of Democrats, will view the White House’s justification for strikes “concerned about how effective such an action could be.”
Additionally, Smith said he is “worried that such action could drag the United States into a broader direct involvement in the conflict.”
http://www.defensenews.com/article/...ls-Unclear-Strikes-Could-Lead-Longer-Conflict
When asked whether most Americans support or oppose military action in Syria, people generally answer correctly, with 67% saying that Americans are largely opposed to the push for military action in the country.
http://today.yougov.com/news/2013/09/09/syria-splits-democrats/
Democrats Face Syria Strike Divide
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's pursuit of a military strike in Syria has put congressional Democrats and party leaders around the country in a tough spot.
They face loud opposition from war-weary constituents at home and are wary of being pulled into another foreign conflict. But they also are confronted with grim images from Syria of gassed children and the pleas of a president from their own political party to consider the consequences of inaction.
.....
But some liberal and moderate Democrats, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fresh in their minds, have begun joining dozens of conservative Republicans registering their opposition. And many rank-and-file Democrats are undecided on whether to support a congressional resolution for military action, questioning whether it would turn the tide in a bloody civil war, whether it's in the U.S. national interest and whether it would prompt Assad to retaliate with more chemical weapons.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/07/democrats-syria-strike_n_3885713.html
Apparently Republicans and Democrats found unity on the issue. But again one must ask, where was this proposal they were asked to vote on?
Originally Posted by Jarod
The way the Republicans acted when President Obama wanted to do something about the use of chemical weapons by Assad in Syria sent a clear message to Putin about Obama's ability to do anything about Russia invading Ukraine.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
translation: this faux "truth detector" always falls back on some innocuous insult whenever faced with a fact the he can neither deny or refute. This faux "truth detector" is nothing more than an intellectual coward who cannot acknowledge a simple error on his part. Pathetic.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Or chew your cud, as your cartoon represents your intellectual impotence.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Again, were is YOUR PROOF that the GOP pushed for a budget increase for embassy security? If they denied it last year, and then approved a budget based on last year's numbers, then there is STILL no increase!
Simple facts and logic that escape a chuckling simpleton like the faux "Truth Detector". All he'll do is just dodge, regurgitate his bluff, move the goalpost and essentially just waste time and space.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Essentially, the President's bantering with the GOP and public opinion comes across as the same old party vs. party dance
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamas-blurry-red-line/
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Something that our resident neocon/teabagger parrots and pundits just refuse to admit DESPITE DOCUMENTED FACTS SHOWING REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTIONISM. They're just a willfully ignorant, stubborn lot.
Wrong again Counselor; he knew Obummer was all talk with no walk. Obummer has spent so much time talking about how using force was and is a mistake that no one will take his rhetoric serious; instead they just point at him and laugh much like we do with you on this forum.
I am amused that you think it was a budget issue; what is it that makes Liberals so painfully ignorant?
Were you Liberals born yesterday? Apparently you must have been to pontificate with such utter nonsense.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I am amused that you think it was a budget issue; what is it that makes Liberals so painfully ignorant?
Our cud chewing neocon/teabagger lackey just dodges what he can't refute http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?61382-GOP-success&p=1460342#post1460342
And then he just regurgitates what was already addressed, as the chronology of the posts shows. In short, all this faux Truth Detector is beyond a certain point is a waste of time...no need to address his BS and insipid stubborness further. I leave him to his last predictable retort and pursuit for attention.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
I see you're still day dreaming of your BF's balls in your mouth...