Bungler in Chief at it again

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Bungler in Chief at it again

    Obama takes military action in Ukraine off the table. 

    http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Obama-Military-Action-Russia-Ukraine-Crimea-Tensions-Troops-251067481.html#ixzz2wRwFEJW6

    Personally, I don't see any reason to get involved in military action either, but Obama is being an idiot to rule it out publicly. Of course he does tend to lie so who knows what the bleep is going on.

    This is just giving Putin tremendous joy. Ukraine is his whenever he wants. 

    Obama is letting this thing get out of control. We are going to a gunfight, not with a knife, but a community activist mediator.

     

     

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Obama takes military action in Ukraine off the table. 

    http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Obama-Military-Action-Russia-Ukraine-Crimea-Tensions-Troops-251067481.html#ixzz2wRwFEJW6

    Personally, I don't see any reason to get involved in military action either, but Obama is being an idiot to rule it out publicly. Of course he does tend to lie so who knows what the bleep is going on.

    This is just giving Putin tremendous joy. Ukraine is his whenever he wants. 

    Obama is letting this thing get out of control. We are going to a gunfight, not with a knife, but a community activist mediator.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]Give the "GUY A BREAK"  !!!  The BRIDE is on VACATION (again, you paid for it) and he has to work on HIS BRACKEST & GOLF GAME (as soon as global warming melts the SNOW)..........  Heck, DA PLANE, DA PLANE has provided 14 days of DISTRACTIONS for him !!!


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    Military action or war IS out of the question, and i'm glad he said it.  The only reasonable option Obama has is to try to hurt Putin with sanctions, which is what he's doing with other world leaders. That's not weakness, that's realty. Anyone who thinks otherwise is indulging in fantasies and/or cheap domestic political theater.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    Obama takes military action in Ukraine off the table. 

    Personally, I don't see any reason to get involved in military action either, but Obama is being an idiot to rule it out publicly.

     



    Yeah. Romney would have said the nuclear option isn't off the table, and Putin would have ran away.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And there it is, the "what would Romney have done" post that comes up whenever Obama is questioned. Just a matter of time. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Military action or war IS out of the question, and i'm glad he said it.  The only reasonable option Obama has is to try to hurt Putin with sanctions, which is what he's doing with other world leaders. That's not weakness, that's realty. Anyone who thinks otherwise is indulging in fantasies and/or cheap domestic political theater.

     

    [/QUOTE]iTS NOT what he says, but how he delivers it ...... His body language is sooooo weak that it is a signal for "hey, you can walk all over me"  !!!


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to Bill-806's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Military action or war IS out of the question, and i'm glad he said it.  The only reasonable option Obama has is to try to hurt Putin with sanctions, which is what he's doing with other world leaders. That's not weakness, that's realty. Anyone who thinks otherwise is indulging in fantasies and/or cheap domestic political theater.

     

    [/QUOTE]iTS NOT what he says, but how he delivers it ...... His body language is sooooo weak that it is a signal for "hey, you can walk all over me"  !!!


    [/QUOTE]

    His body language.....You mean the bike picture? 

    Incidentally....Any idea what your posts project about you?

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:

    [QUOTE]And there it is, the "what would Romney have done" post that comes up whenever Obama is questioned. Just a matter of time.[/QUOTE]

     

    It'll come up every time you pathetic losers whine and complain about Obama without being able to articulate one single thing that he could do that would accomplish whatever your ___ing about.

    Seriously gets tiring. You're just repeating whatever Fox or newsbusters commanded you to repeat.

     

    Thank God they told you that any disagreement means the person doing the disagreeing is just defending Obama..... 

    Otherwise you might have to look in the mirror once in a while.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You are full of it. There is one thing right in this OP - don't show you forking cards at the table.

    Geez man, you are a lawyer? Do you defend your clients by giving in ahead of time?? 

    Why don't you get to the point on this board instead of whining that we just hate Obama?  I do like your pictures though.

    Do you think it is right just to announce we are not going to take any military action? What is the advantage of that for us? Come on, enlighten us. Maybe there is something useful to be gained from this tactic. 

    His actions are leading us to a larger confrontation. OK, I do not have a crystal ball. Neither do  you. What is the case for publicly decalring that military action is off the table?

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:

    And there it is, the "what would Romney have done" post that comes up whenever Obama is questioned. Just a matter of time.



     

    It'll come up every time you pathetic losers whine and complain about Obama without being able to articulate one single thing that he could do that would accomplish whatever your ___ing about.

    Seriously gets tiring. You're just repeating whatever Fox or newsbusters commanded you to repeat.

     

    Thank God they told you that any disagreement means the person doing the disagreeing is just defending Obama..... 

    Otherwise you might have to look in the mirror once in a while.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're asking what Romney would do to fix what we are calling Obama's failures. In the same breath assuming Romney would be in the exact same position had he been elected.  

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    Obama takes military action in Ukraine off the table. 

    Personally, I don't see any reason to get involved in military action either, but Obama is being an idiot to rule it out publicly.

     



    Yeah. Romney would have said the nuclear option isn't off the table, and Putin would have ran away.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And there it is, the "what would Romney have done" post that comes up whenever Obama is questioned. Just a matter of time. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm with you. Not sure what Romney has to do with any of this. Last I checked the president is Obama

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

    You're asking what Romney would do to fix what we are calling Obama's failures. In the same breath assuming Romney would be in the exact same position had he been elected.  

     



    Stop fixating on Romney.

    I think you got it backwards, You're the one, and the only one that brings it up in just about every thread. And you tell me to look in the mirror.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:

    [QUOTE]And there it is, the "what would Romney have done" post that comes up whenever Obama is questioned. Just a matter of time.[/QUOTE]

     

    It'll come up every time you pathetic losers whine and complain about Obama without being able to articulate one single thing that he could do that would accomplish whatever your ___ing about.

    Seriously gets tiring. You're just repeating whatever Fox or newsbusters commanded you to repeat.

     

    Thank God they told you that any disagreement means the person doing the disagreeing is just defending Obama..... 

    Otherwise you might have to look in the mirror once in a while.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No offense but I've lost count at the number of times a Lib has accused a conservative of being an "apologist" for someone/some thing whenever they disagree with a Lib on an issue. Works both ways my friend.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     Last I checked the president is Obama

     

    [/QUOTE]

    And what can Obama do to stop Putin that is worth doing?

     

     

     

    That was the point of the Romney reference.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not much Obama can do. Still don't see how that involves Romney. Up to you post no one said a word about Romney in this thread.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]Personally, I don't see any reason to get involved in military action either[/QUOTE]

    So....why'd you start the thread?

     

    Everyone knew, knows, and will continue to know that military action was off the table for Crimea.

    If you're going to talk about precedent, why don't you want to talk about the precedent involving Russia's last belligerent military action and our response? Oh right. I forgot. The universe was created in 2009.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ukraine does not equal Crimea.

    If you want to talk about precedent, fine by me. I presume you are talking about Georgia and no response from the US under Bush? Proves my point. We did nothing and then Putin aims at Ukraine.  How does taking military action off the table help us with Putin now???

    You really have a thing about criticism of Obama. Why don't you tell us why taking threat of miltary action off the table is a good idea instead of beatching about people pointing out how incompetent he is?

    Oh, that's right, he IS incompetent. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again


     This is breaking news:

    WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday announced he would expand sanctions against Russia, targeting individuals who support the government and a bank with ties to these associates, delivering on his warning earlier this week that it would ratchet up costs on Russia if it moved to annex the breakaway province of Crimea.

    “The United States is today moving, as we said we would, to impose additional costs on Russia,” Mr. Obama said in a statement on the South Lawn of the White House before leaving on a trip to Florida.

    “These are all choices that the Russian government has made, choices that have rejected by the international community,” he said.

    Mr. Obama also said he had signed a new executive order that would allow him to impose sanctions on Russian industrial sectors, presumably including its energy exports – a step that would greatly tighten the economic pressure on Russia.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/us/politics/us-expanding-sanctions-against-russia-over-ukraine.html

    ----------

    This is exactly the right move for us to make. 

    The Russian economy is fragile.  Russia does not have much to sell outside it own country, except gas, oil, and some metals......all of which can be bought in other places.

    Putin is beholden to only one group of people: the oligarchs in these industries who supported his rise, and continue to support him.  You hurt them and you hurt Putin.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    There is one thing right in this OP - don't show you forking cards at the table.

    Geez man, you are a lawyer? Do you defend your clients by giving in ahead of time?? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So you are laboring under the delusion that Putin was afraid that there was a real chance we'd start a hot war with Russia until Obama said we would not use military force?

     

    I guess you're just a moron then. Yikes.

    [/QUOTE]

    God, you are clueless. Perhaps if we didn't come right out and say it he might hesitate while we gain time.

    You must be some lawyer if you use Obama tactics with the prosecution.

    Again I ask, what good does it do us by publicly announcing military action is off the table? 

    WIll the witness PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    There is one thing right in this OP - don't show you forking cards at the table.

    Geez man, you are a lawyer? Do you defend your clients by giving in ahead of time?? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So you are laboring under the delusion that Putin was afraid that there was a real chance we'd start a hot war with Russia until Obama said we would not use military force?

     

    I guess you're just a moron then. Yikes.

    [/QUOTE]

    God, you are clueless. Perhaps if we didn't come right out and say it he might hesitate while we gain time.

    You must be some lawyer if you use Obama tactics with the prosecution.

    Again I ask, what good does it do us by publicly announcing military action is off the table? 

    WIll the witness PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Because under the current set of circumstances, IT IS OFF THE TABLE. 

    If Putin decides to start slaughtering Ukrainians then the set of circumstances will have changed and military action will be on the table.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ukraine does not equal Crimea.

    If you want to talk about precedent, fine by me. I presume you are talking about Georgia and no response from the US under Bush? Proves my point. We did nothing and then Putin aims at Ukraine.  How does taking military action off the table help us with Putin now???

    You really have a thing about criticism of Obama. Why don't you tell us why taking threat of miltary action off the table is a good idea

    [/QUOTE]


     

    I take it this means you cannot articulate a single thing Obama should do that would be worth cost to stop Putin?

    I take it this mean you don't have a response to this:

    That's not the issue. You are claiming that it will cause problems. The burden is thus on you to make out a coherent argument that it will disadvantage us.

    Any such argument necessarily relies on an assumption that Putin was uncertain about whether we would start a hot war with him over it.

     

     


    Well? Why do you think Putin was afraid we might start a hot war with him over it?

    And if you don't think that, then why would it matter whether Obama said something was off the table, if Putin knew it was off the table? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Well Putin is more certain now than he was before. Let's just remove all doubt for him.

    If Putin was so certain about our reaction why didn't he just go after all of the Ukraine instead of just Crimea?

    That's not the issue. You are claiming that it will cause problems. The burden is thus on you to make out a coherent argument that it will disadvantage us.

    Any such argument necessarily relies on an assumption that Putin was uncertain about whether we would start a hot war with him over it.


    So, apparently YOU know that Putin was certain we would do nothing militarily?? How the bleep do you know?

    And how dumb must  you be to need proof that taking exposing your tactics to an adversary is at a minimum no good? What is to be acheived? Why not just keep your mouth shut? The only possible outcome is BAD.

    How far do you have to go to defend Obama anyway? It is really pathetic.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    The truth hurts.

     

    Anyone proposing or even suggesting military intervention against russia over crimea has some serious anger issues.

    Alas, most of americans agree with POTUS.

    We MUST stop believing in the absurdly magical thinking of U.S. military hegemony over all creatures great and small.  Even IF our military could make a difference, it says nothing about whether we should.

     

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How far do you have to go to defend Obama anyway? 

     [/QUOTE]


    Not far at all.

    This one is a no-brainer.

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Again I ask, what good does it do us by publicly announcing military action is off the table? 

    WIll the witness PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    This is YOUR thread.

    YOU are the one saying that taking military action off the table is a bad thing.

    YOU are the one who has the burden of explaining why.

     

    What a coward!

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh I get it, there is no discussion when you are trapped in stupidity.

    I am supposed to explain why the earth is round?

    My assertion is an obvious truth for anyone but a dunce. I had no idea you were so intellectually challenged.

     

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The truth hurts.

     

    Anyone proposing or even suggesting military intervention against russia over crimea has some serious anger issues.

    Alas, most of americans agree with POTUS.

    We MUST stop believing in the absurdly magical thinking of U.S. military hegemony over all creatures great and small.  Even IF our military could make a difference, it says nothing about whether we should.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You are as dumb as WDYWN. What good does it do to say we are not going to take military action?? It only has an adverse impact on our position.

    So I guess you and WDYWN have some contacts with Putin and know that he had/has no reason to fear military action by NATO??

    Awesome. Instead of contributing nonsense to this board you should be working for the CIA.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


     This is breaking news:

    WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday announced he would expand sanctions against Russia, targeting individuals who support the government and a bank with ties to these associates, delivering on his warning earlier this week that it would ratchet up costs on Russia if it moved to annex the breakaway province of Crimea.

    “The United States is today moving, as we said we would, to impose additional costs on Russia,” Mr. Obama said in a statement on the South Lawn of the White House before leaving on a trip to Florida.

    “These are all choices that the Russian government has made, choices that have rejected by the international community,” he said.

    Mr. Obama also said he had signed a new executive order that would allow him to impose sanctions on Russian industrial sectors, presumably including its energy exports – a step that would greatly tighten the economic pressure on Russia.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/us/politics/us-expanding-sanctions-against-russia-over-ukraine.html

    ----------

    This is exactly the right move for us to make. 

    The Russian economy is fragile.  Russia does not have much to sell outside it own country, except gas, oil, and some metals......all of which can be bought in other places.

    Putin is beholden to only one group of people: the oligarchs in these industries who supported his rise, and continue to support him.  You hurt them and you hurt Putin.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    [/QUOTE]

    Breaking news......

    That is not the question at hand. The question is why take the military option off the table? What good does it do??

    Nice try Perry. Irrelevant and immaterial.

    Oh, I am sorry I have to prove to you that exposing your tactics in advance in a negotiation is a bad thing.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    My assertion is an obvious truth for anyone but a dunce. I had no idea you were so intellectually challenged.

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh I see. So you're right because you're right.

    Anyone who disagrees with you is just defending Obama, which is proof that you are right. 

    In case that cowardly dodge gets stale, they're also a dunce, which is proof that you are right.

     

     

     

     

    You have been given many chances to articulate a coherent argument for specific action Obama could take that is worth the cost to drive Putin out of crimea.

     

    You have been given many chances to make a coherent argument that Obama - (whom you have called the "liar in chief" repeatedly) - taking military action off the table is going to change anything.

     

     

    It seems all you have is to ask me whether I personally know that Putin was not afraid that we would use military force. You're still just trying to make this about me. It's not about me.

     

    And you still haven't backed up your OP with anything.

     

     

    Does the highlighting help?

    [/QUOTE]

    If you need proof for my assertion, you have the intelligence of a rubber ball.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


    You are as dumb as WDYWN. What good does it do to say we are not going to take military action?? It only has an adverse impact on our position.

    So I guess you and WDYWN have some contacts with Putin and know that he had/has no reason to fear military action by NATO??

    Awesome. Instead of contributing nonsense to this board you should be working for the CIA.

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    You are as dumb as a bag of rocks. What harm does it do to say we are not going to take military action? It can't have an impact on our situation if everyone already knewi t anyway.

    So I guess you have some contacts with Putin and know that he is actually mentally ret@rded?

    Awesome. Instead of contributing nonsense to this board you should be working for Alex Jones.

     

     

     

    '

    See? I can throw poopydoodyhead words at people to, to show how right I am!

    [/QUOTE]

    Watch wht PUtin does. Then you'll have your proof, moron.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share