(February 21, 2015 at 5:56 pm)A Theist Wrote: Right now, ISIS is speaking louder than the left and the threat of terrorism has captured the attention of the voters. Barack Obama is seen as weak and naive in light of this threat and that reflects on the rest of your party. You guys will lose the White House in 2016.

You may be right. I don't know. But I wouldn't be too quick to write off the possibility that a large number of voters will figure out which party, while in power, created the vacuum from which ISIS emerged. If Obama is naïve, what does that make his predecessor and his people?

"Trust us not to fuck it all up again" isn't the most encouraging foreign policy rallying cry, but it's about all the GOP can honestly offer.

(February 22, 2015 at 10:39 am)A Theist Wrote: I'm really very sorry that you feel you've been insulted. Perhaps this playground is too rough for you to play on. You should probably pick up your toys and go home.

Where did I reference Fox as my sources? I posted links to the Pew Research Center...
http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/15/p...nd-abroad/

and to the Daily Mail....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...rikes.html

You do realise the Daily Mail is the UK version of Fox news a right wing bias rag that peddles lies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ot6zTFjYeo

Quote:I'm really very sorry that you feel you've been insulted. Perhaps this playground is too rough for you to play on. You should probably pick up your toys and go home.

Not in the least. You see, feeling insulted requires some kind of respect for the party attempting to insult.

(February 21, 2015 at 5:56 pm)A Theist Wrote: Barack Obama is seen as weak and naive in light of this threat and that reflects on the rest of your party.

The right continually complains that he targets American traitors with drone strikes ... and then complains that he is weak against terror even as American planes are bombarding ISIS targets.

Obama could say that the sun rises in the east, and 3/4ths of Congressional Republicans would vote against that, on general principles.

The other quarter would allege a conspiracy and call for a special investigator.

Jeb Bush does stand a chance, support for"anything any then "Obama". The popular slogan for people who want him and his party out. As far as Jeb being next in line I hope not, don't forget his own mother thinks we had enough Bushes (http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-news...rbara-bush). It would be the straw that brakes the camels back, if anything history as shown the two party system is not working. We need a third party in office, if the right third party was to come to power it would balance the U.S out, but it won't happen which does annoy me. There's only one way to fix the mess the U.S as created and it's to file chapter 13 Bankruptcy. That won't happen either, not in our lifetime anyways. Let's just hope that Jeb does not make it in the primary and if he's elected; we're better off moving to France.

(February 22, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(February 21, 2015 at 5:56 pm)A Theist Wrote: Barack Obama is seen as weak and naive in light of this threat and that reflects on the rest of your party.

The right continually complains that he targets American traitors with drone strikes ... and then complains that he is weak against terror even as American planes are bombarding ISIS targets.

Obama could say that the sun rises in the east, and 3/4ths of Congressional Republicans would vote against that, on general principles.

The other quarter would allege a conspiracy and call for a special investigator.

The use of drone strikes against American traitors has drawn some criticism from members of both parties. But not everyone on the Right or the on the left oppose that program.

Also, the complaint isn't against bombing ISIS targets. The complaint is that the bombing isn't enough. Despite the bombing raids by the U.S., Jordan, and Egypt, ISIS continues to gain more territory in both Syria and Iraq.

(February 23, 2015 at 4:00 pm)A Theist Wrote: The use of drone strikes against American traitors has drawn some criticism from members of both parties. But not everyone on the Right or the on the left oppose that program.

The majority of the opposition I've seen comes from the right. It's true that criticism comes from both sides of the aisle, but the hypocrisy of calling him soft on terror even as Obama undertakes what I thought, and think, are appropriate steps, is silly.

(February 23, 2015 at 4:00 pm)A Theist Wrote: Also, the complaint isn't against bombing ISIS targets. The complaint is that the bombing isn't enough. Despite the bombing raids by the U.S., Jordan, and Egypt, ISIS continues to gain more territory in both Syria and Iraq.

I really don't care, so long as they don't attack us. I cannot think of one square foot of Iraqi territory that is worth one pint of American blood. If they want to live under a fundamentalist Muslim government, let them do so. If they don't, let them pick up arms and buy their own freedom with their own blood.

(February 23, 2015 at 6:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I really don't care, so long as they don't attack us. I cannot think of one square foot of Iraqi territory that is worth one pint of American blood. If they want to live under a fundamentalist Muslim government, let them do so. If they don't, let them pick up arms and buy their own freedom with their own blood.

I couldn't agree more. I'm so tired of the chickenhawk Monday morning generals that love to vomit up 'boots on the ground' when discussing ISIS; this includes Hillary Clinton. I simply don't understand how some can be so cavalier about sending young, usually poor, kids to their deaths; and for what? Saudi Arabia spends the fourth most of any country on their military, let them deal with it.

(February 23, 2015 at 6:19 pm)Cato Wrote:

(February 23, 2015 at 6:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I really don't care, so long as they don't attack us. I cannot think of one square foot of Iraqi territory that is worth one pint of American blood. If they want to live under a fundamentalist Muslim government, let them do so. If they don't, let them pick up arms and buy their own freedom with their own blood.

I couldn't agree more. I'm so tired of the chickenhawk Monday morning generals that love to vomit up 'boots on the ground' when discussing ISIS; this includes Hillary Clinton. I simply don't understand how some can be so cavalier about sending young, usually poor, kids to their deaths; and for what? Saudi Arabia spends the fourth most of any country on their military, let them deal with it.

Exactly. We've armed the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Israelis, and the Bahrainis in the region. It's their asses on the line. Let them handle the issue.

These little fuckers in Washington are perfectly willing to stand behind our troops "every step of the way". Except they can't walk nearly as big as they talk.

And while I'm at it, I want to say a word or two about John McCain. I respect the service he has given this country both in and out of uniform, but fucking Christ, the guy hasn't seen a war he doesn't like.

(February 23, 2015 at 6:57 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: These little fuckers in Washington are perfectly willing to stand behind our troops "every step of the way". Except they can't walk nearly as big as they talk.

When it comes to draft dodging it's nearly a hallmark of rightwingers. Chimp Bush hid in the National Guard, Giuliani dodged it reapeatedly when his number was up. Mitt the Shit had missionary work in France to do and so on and so on. The only war fan who actually served seems to be Mc Cain.

They all run their mouths when it comes to send other people to their possible doom, but when it was their time, they hid in the closet. That piece of crap Nugent, who always has a mouth like a wale on rightwing issues including gun rights and wars, literally shit his pants for days to not get drafted to Vietnam.

I'd also like to know how many sons and daughters of these armchair heroes are doing army service. Probably zilch.