Obama says 'authorized' targeted US strikes on Iraq

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Eastoff said:
last line
Click to expand...

What about it? 33% of respondents democrats, 23% republicans, 38% independents.

His own base of support isn't satisfied with his performance anymore.
 
Denny Crane said:
His own base of support isn't satisfied with his performance anymore.
Click to expand...

Because he's too conservative. Quixotically (rhymes with idiotically), you think this helps conservatives.
 
jlprk said:
Because he's too conservative. Quixotically (rhymes with idiotically), you think this helps conservatives.
Click to expand...

I guess he hasn't proposed we all get our food at the government store, when there's food to be had. Yet. So he's too conservative.

That's a good one.

Maybe he's a little more pragmatic and realizes that when the progressive agenda gets passed, it fails and really hurts people.
 
No domestic progress will be possible unless Democrats have more than 60 Senate votes. Even then, they won't vote as a militant bloc as Republicans do. So they need 70.
 
jlprk said:
No domestic progress will be possible unless Democrats have more than 60 Senate votes. Even then, they won't vote as a militant bloc as Republicans do. So they need 70.
Click to expand...

They had 60 votes and Obama had his honeymoon period.

We're lucky he didn't get to pass additional harmful legislation beyond ObamaCare.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Air strikes are not a full blown war. Also there isn't a cool war catch phrase for the media. I suggest Desert Eagle Storm from Above!.
Click to expand...

Really? Strap a 30MT nuke into a bomb bay instead of conventional weapons, and I'm guessing it would look a lot like war when it went off.

We have lots of pretty flying toys, as long as we are only using those and not putting troops on the ground I'm fine with this.
Click to expand...

I'll buy that. What I was asking, then, is would you have been fine with it if Bush had started with just an air campaign?

At what point would you insist that the President get the support of Congress? Clearly, not at an air campaign. What if the President was massing war ships and troop carriers off the coast of lraq when he starts the air champaign? Then?

Go Blazers
 
Serious question.

I guess if congressional approval wasn't required for the Korean War, it's not required at all. Except by the constitution.

He can go bomb whoever he wants whenever he wants, eh?
 
julius said:
And you're not pro Republican?
Click to expand...

Define pro? I voted for Clinton his second term and didn't vote for Bush his second term (didn't vote that election because I hated both candidates).

Locally, I voted for a liberal mayor because the conservative one was doing a shitty job.

So how about you?
 
Eastoff said:
Oh and PS, you're assume that Democrats still like Obama. He was a liar, and turned out to be a 90s Republican.
Click to expand...

I agree. Most of the people I know, who are Democrats/Progressives/Liberals, aren't exactly happy with him (as I am not).

What is interesting is how Republicans/Conservatives will say things about him or the Democratic party (or liberals/progressives) that are more true of their own, than it is the Democratic party.

Like I said, most of the Democrats I know are actually mad that he backed down on a lot of what we wanted, and has been pretty much doing a lot of the same shit we didn't like with previous presidents. Not as bad (in a lot of our eyes), but it's still horse shit. We still believe he's better than McCain/Clampett or Thurston Howell III/Gilligan.


But I think you're right Eastoff.
 
julius said:
I agree. Most of the people I know, who are Democrats/Progressives/Liberals, aren't exactly happy with him (as I am not).

What is interesting is how Republicans/Conservatives will say things about him or the Democratic party (or liberals/progressives) that are more true of their own, than it is the Democratic party.

Like I said, most of the Democrats I know are actually mad that he backed down on a lot of what we wanted, and has been pretty much doing a lot of the same shit we didn't like with previous presidents. Not as bad (in a lot of our eyes), but it's still horse shit. We still believe he's better than McCain/Clampett or Thurston Howell III/Gilligan.


But I think you're right Eastoff.
Click to expand...

If he was to run again would you vote for him or a republican?
 
magnifier661 said:
Define pro? I voted for Clinton his second term and didn't vote for Bush his second term (didn't vote that election because I hated both candidates).
Click to expand...

your stances on things, both politically and religiously, is conservative or Republican. that's what i'm basing this on.

I think you're socially liberal and financially a rich sumbitch. :)

Locally, I voted for a liberal mayor because the conservative one was doing a shitty job.

So how about you?
Click to expand...

In 2000, I voted for McCain (write in) because I thought Gore was a fool for distancing himself from Clinton, and I thought Bush was and is a bad choice for the R's to make.

I voted for Gordon Smith in 2002 (or whatever was his last winning election) because even though he was a bit strange religious wise, I respected that he did what he felt was best for the state. I wasn't entirely happy with him as a senator though.

I liked Huntsman, and would've voted for him had he run. I liked him. In fact, if he ran in 2016 (and didn't have some neo-con/tea party VP candidate) I'd probably vote for him.

I like republicans who aren't socially conservative, the problem is, most of the prominent ones now-a-days are.
 
magnifier661 said:
If he was to run again would you vote for him or a republican?
Click to expand...

really depends on who he ran against. See my above post (re: Hunstman).

problem is, the people that control the R party, have made it a party I almost fundamentally now disagree with. Religion shouldn't be such a huge factor (and it is), money shouldn't be a major factor (and it is), nor should businesses be able to have as much of a say as they do (and they do).
 
julius said:
your stances on things, both politically and religiously, is conservative or Republican. that's what i'm basing this on.

I think you're socially liberal and financially a rich sumbitch. :)
Click to expand...

For the most part I will agree with you


In 2000, I voted for McCain (write in) because I thought Gore was a fool for distancing himself from Clinton, and I thought Bush was and is a bad choice for the R's to make.

I voted for Gordon Smith in 2002 (or whatever was his last winning election) because even though he was a bit strange religious wise, I respected that he did what he felt was best for the state. I wasn't entirely happy with him as a senator though.

I liked Huntsman, and would've voted for him had he run. I liked him. In fact, if he ran in 2016 (and didn't have some neo-con/tea party VP candidate) I'd probably vote for him.

I like republicans who aren't socially conservative, the problem is, most of the prominent ones now-a-days are.
Click to expand...

Sweet! I have a much higher respect for you as a concerned citizen
 
julius said:
really depends on who he ran against. See my above post (re: Hunstman).

problem is, the people that control the R party, have made it a party I almost fundamentally now disagree with. Religion shouldn't be such a huge factor (and it is), money shouldn't be a major factor (and it is), nor should businesses be able to have as much of a say as they do (and they do).
Click to expand...

I agree with "religion", but money is what drives this country. I also agree that businesses should be able to 100% dictate what goes on, but honestly even a republican heavy federal government, it's never been the case.
 
magnifier661 said:
I agree with "religion", but money is what drives this country. I also agree that businesses should be able to 100% dictate what goes on, but honestly even a republican heavy federal government, it's never been the case.
Click to expand...

Money vs who HAS the money is what I mean.

Its a government for, by and of the people...not for the people who have the money, by the people who have the money and of the people who have the money.

I'm assuming you meant that you agree businesses shouldn't have as much say as they do?
 
julius said:
really depends on who he ran against. See my above post (re: Hunstman).

problem is, the people that control the R party, have made it a party I almost fundamentally now disagree with. Religion shouldn't be such a huge factor (and it is), money shouldn't be a major factor (and it is), nor should businesses be able to have as much of a say as they do (and they do).
Click to expand...

Yeah, Huntsman came out saying Climate Change is real and needs to be addressed, and suddenly he got shit on and forgotten by the Republicans.
 
Eastoff said:
Yeah, Huntsman came out saying Climate Change is real and needs to be addressed, and suddenly he got shit on and forgotten by the Republicans.
Click to expand...

I figured he was considered a traitor for serving in the Obama administration.
 
Eastoff said:
Oh right, I forgot about that other sin, working with a Democrat.
Click to expand...

More like drinking the Democrat kook-aid.

I don't think he ever got much consideration by any of the republican voters. There was no "he was doing fine until" moment that I recall.
 
>So, here we are, 5 weeks in. Now we're at war with ISIS. We will continue to bomb Iraq. We will begin bombing in Syria.<

Eastoff said:
>How many American troops have we sent to this war?
Click to expand...

About a thousand, so far. Advisors, trainers and guards, so they say. So, if ISIS rolls in and kills some of our guys, and captures a couple dozen others, do you think we would put boots on the ground to rescue them? Do you think that would be the time to ask Congress for approval before we do that?

Go Blazers
 
>We now begin a full blown war against ISIS/ISIL/Al Qaeda. These are the same guys the President wanted to provide US weapons to a year ago.

Eastoff said:
These are not the same guys we wanted to provide US weapons to a year ago? Citations please.
Click to expand...

September 2013
The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures.
...
U.S. officials hope that, taken together, the weapons and gear will boost the profile and prowess of rebel fighters in a conflict that started about 21 / 2 years ago.
...
Although the Obama administration signaled months ago that it would increase aid to Syrian rebels, the efforts have lagged because of the logistical challenges involved in delivering equipment in a war zone and officials’ fears that any assistance could wind up in the hands of jihadists.
Click to expand...

So, not only wanted to arm them, but did. Goggle is your friend. You do realize that Al Qaeda was the most effective fighting force of all the rebel groups, right?

Go Blazers
 
Last edited:
oldguy said:
>We now begin a full blown war against ISIS/ISIL/Al Qaeda. These are the same guys the President wanted to provide US weapons to a year ago.





So, not only wanted to arm them, but did. Goggle is your friend. You do realize that Al Qaeda was the most effective fighting force of all the rebel groups, right?

Go Blazers
Click to expand...

I think your idea of 'them' is a little broad. There's more than one group of 'them' in the middle east.

barfo
 
So, we arm the Syria rebels and, what?, they promise not to give any weapons to their best fighters?

Go Blazers
 
Re: The USA is Bombing Iraq Again.

What does the UN have to say? Where's the imminent threat?
 
Eastoff said:
I think some stuff he's doing a pretty good job. I think ISIS is a shitty situation that we've gotten into because we didn't address Assad in Syria and because Iraq is ruled by assholes who don't include their minority voters.
Click to expand...

How do you think Assad should have been addressed?

Go Blazers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top