He's a lightweight. A rank amateur. He's NOT qualified to hold the position he's in. He's the damn CinC, and he fails on every level. ....oh, but he organizes communities well I hear.

Take your sorry ass back to Chicago, you flippin' f'n moron.

Oh, but he can run an economy, right? FFS! He can't even do THAT! Is there anything this flippin' ******* can do right?


Face it, Obama won a popularity contest. He has not one damn qualification to be President. Not ONE!

He studied the Constitution just to learn how to rip it to shreds.

(01-13-2010 08:53 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Face it, Obama won a popularity contest.

I'd debate you on that point. The contest he won was more people thought he would give them free handouts than McC.

(01-13-2010 08:53 PM)Rebel Wrote:  He has not one damn qualification to be President. Not ONE!

I can't debate that one at all.

(01-13-2010 09:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-13-2010 08:53 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Face it, Obama won a popularity contest.

I'd debate you on that point. The contest he won was more people thought he would give them free handouts than McC.

(01-13-2010 08:53 PM)Rebel Wrote:  He has not one damn qualification to be President. Not ONE!

I can't debate that one at all.

Well, he DIDN'T bankrupt an oil company or NEARLY bankrupt a baseball team. THat is a good start.

Hey Rebs, how should we defend against terrorism? Do we listen to the big Dick Cheney who had 9/11, shoebomber and anthrax attacks on his watch(despite his denying any act of terror occured under his watch)?

The Lane Kiffin of Politics.

What makes you think he wants to defend against terrorism?

(01-14-2010 07:57 AM)Tbags4Dbags Wrote:  The Lane Kiffin of Politics.

I was thinking yesterday how much the Kiffin drama reminded me of Obama. He hasn't really accomplished anything of note, but he seems to keep falling forward into great jobs, leaving behind a mess for the next guy.

(01-14-2010 03:23 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-13-2010 09:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-13-2010 08:53 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Face it, Obama won a popularity contest.

I'd debate you on that point. The contest he won was more people thought he would give them free handouts than McC.

(01-13-2010 08:53 PM)Rebel Wrote:  He has not one damn qualification to be President. Not ONE!

I can't debate that one at all.

Well, he DIDN'T bankrupt an oil company or NEARLY bankrupt a baseball team. THat is a good start.

Seriously? Neither has my 6 year old nephew. Great argument for qualifications.

Hell, I've never cheated on my taxes, I should be Secretary of the Treasury? Oh wait...

"Judge me by the people I surround myself with..."
-Barrack Obama


Hey Rebs, how should we defend against terrorism? Do we listen to the big Dick Cheney who had 9/11, shoebomber and anthrax attacks on his watch(despite his denying any act of terror occured under his watch)?

His administarion hasn't cherry picked intelligence to invade another country yet. That has to be worth a couple of points.

(01-14-2010 01:13 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  His administration hasn't been fed disinformation and fabricated intelligence used to justify the invasion of another country yet. That has to be worth a couple of points.

Fixed it for you.

WMD.............. Who fed us Iran or Mossad? or both................

and in most people'e eyes because of that Obama > Bush.

(01-15-2010 08:43 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  and in most people'e eyes because of that Obama > Bush.

Being > Bush might have been enough to win the 2008 election.
But it sure as heck isn't much in the grand scheme of things.
And I'm not at all certain that the sign isn't going to turn around before 2012--maybe even before November 2010.

(01-15-2010 08:43 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  and in most people'e eyes because of that Obama > Bush.

Wrong. It's 2010, not 2008. Obama's numbers are decreasing while Bush's are increasing. As I stated on numerous occasions, Bush will be judged by Obama's failures, and Bush isn't looking so damn bad now.

(01-15-2010 08:41 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  WMD.............. Who fed us Iran or Mossad? or both................

I've thought Mossad from the day one, but both makes a lot of sense. If Mossad reported and Iran corroborated (or vice versa), and we couldn't verify independently, then we would have been between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

I have tended to think Mossad because the timing has always struck me as a bit strange, and one interpretation of the timing is that we wanted to be in Baghdad before Passover, and that would fit a Mossad scenario.

But in some ways Iran probably had more to gain from our going into Iraq than anyone else. By going first into Afghanistan and then into Iraq, we have certainly neutralized a couple of major threats to Iran, allowing them time to focus on guess what?

(01-15-2010 12:02 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-15-2010 08:43 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  and in most people'e eyes because of that Obama > Bush.

Wrong. It's 2010, not 2008. Obama's numbers are decreasing while Bush's are increasing. As I stated on numerous occasions, Bush will be judged by Obama's failures, and Bush isn't looking so damn bad now.

ABS is still alive and well. People are trying hard to denegrate Bush.

I heard a couple of minutes of "conservative" talk radio from Baltimore at lunch today. Republican co-host still managed to bash Bush, and expressed caution about "tea partiers".

Bush made mistakes, but did more right than he gets credit for doing. I've seen very little from Obama, although the bank tax might actually be worthwhile.

(01-15-2010 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But in some ways Iran probably had more to gain from our going into Iraq than anyone else. By going first into Afghanistan and then into Iraq, we have certainly neutralized a couple of major threats to Iran, allowing them time to focus on guess what?

Maybe the Iranians where afraid of the Taliban's religious infiltration, but to claim the Iranian thuggery prefer American military might to a neutered Iraq and a stone-age Afghanistan?

(01-15-2010 02:36 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-15-2010 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But in some ways Iran probably had more to gain from our going into Iraq than anyone else. By going first into Afghanistan and then into Iraq, we have certainly neutralized a couple of major threats to Iran, allowing them time to focus on guess what?

Maybe the Iranians where afraid of the Taliban's religious infiltration, but to claim the Iranian thuggery prefer American military might to a neutered Iraq and a stone-age Afghanistan?

They know we are wimps and will eventually grow weary and leave, so we are no threat. If we take out some strong figures in both countries before we go, that works to their advantage. Remember, these folks work on a totally different concept of time. 100 years to them is like next week for us.

I agree now that Obama is in office that he'll grow weary, but there was no guarantee that the initial Bush invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq woudln't lead to

A) direct American military action vs Iran or
B) direct American encouragment of Iranian regime change.

And certainly Obama's recent performance doesn't lend well towards another 4 years of weariness, but instead points towards a possible conservative win and its more aggressive FP.

And now, interestingly enough, both the Iraqi military and the Afghan military (though most certainly without force projection) is better trained with better weapons systems and has a new modicum of world support and allies. And with our involvment in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American military has new and better intel on the ground in the ME, forward operating bases armed to the teeth with drones aimed at Tehran, and naval bases within spitting distance of Iranian docks.

Plus, one hundred years of Iranian waiting will only see 100 more years of Iraqi and Afghan military improvements, and American and NATO technological improvements.

In so many ways the Iranians, while certainly not impotent with their possible nuke program, have certainly been maginalized as a power player by the American ME presence.

If we are to believe that Iran preferred American involvement in the ME, then Iran lost the bet.

(01-15-2010 12:02 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-15-2010 08:43 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  and in most people'e eyes because of that Obama > Bush.

Wrong. It's 2010, not 2008. Obama's numbers are decreasing while Bush's are increasing. As I stated on numerous occasions, Bush will be judged by Obama's failures, and Bush isn't looking so damn bad now.