Barack Hussein Obama foreign policy disaster megathread

[nickcopernicus]

Nick, can you actually show me where he said his number one priority is NOT any of those things? Or did you just add all that because you're somewhat of a drama queen?

The REASON he wanted Obama to be a "One-term-president" is because OBama was NOT focused on creating jobs (remember the "well, they weren't as shovel-ready as we thought" nonsense?) or fixing the economy, or keeping Americans safe --- Obama was busy fooling Americans into swallowing his disastrous health care fiasco.

Nick:
Come now CP, You don't need me to show you that. You can figure it out on your own. (If I sound condescending, you're just going to have to forgive me because that's no how I'm trying to be.)

The phrase "number one priority" is mutually exclusive. If any one thing is the number one priorty, then by definition, anything else must not be that thing; specifically, it must be secondary, tertiary, lesser, or not a priority at all.. That's a simple tautology that is nevertheless useful becuase it demonstrates my point. A if and only if A.

If A = "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Mich McConnell National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010 (Source)

Then that excludes creating jobs, keeping America safe, and fixing the economy from being the "single most important thing they want to achieve." To argue otherwise is to be illogical. And you're not illogical.

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

My boy Regan? Since when did he become 'my boy'? I think your black/white mentality is showing Nick. Because I am critical of Obama, I have to be a republican?

LPOT:
Who made up that rule? Also, he 'tripled the debt'? That is pretty vague there Nick. Believe it or not, I did pass math class in high school and know how these little math games work. If you owe me 1 dollar, borrow 3 dollars and now owe me 4 dollars. Have you 'tripled' your debt? Yes you have. [..stuff deleted for space...]

I was wrong.

LPOT:
Then you didn't look hard enough because I found the figures right up to two days ago, but you are right on this one (hey, even a broken clock can be right once in a while), but don't worry though. Your boy Obama is already well on his way to beating Bush's record.

But there is a vast difference between being unable to solve a problem and being the cause of the problem.

LPOT:
Again, what is it with this fundy mentality that if I'm critical of Obama, I have to be a Bush and Regan fan girl? Who made up that rule?

Nick:
The way you defend Bush below makes that rule.

LPOT:
Also, what did you expect Bush to do after a major terrorist attack happened against American citizens, which happened shortly after he took office? Was he suppose to say, "Ok guys, please turn yourself in." Funny how many forget how the democrats of the time were beating the warm drum, right along with the republicans and people conveniently 'forget' that little part and want to blame Bush for something democrats and republicans alike were calling for, eh? We have to forget that little part.

LPOT:
Finally, he singly handily put us into a 'depression worse since the great depression'? How did he do that one? Was he the one that told the banks to make bad loans? Lol, you act as though Bush is some kind of evil mastermind, what possible control does Bush or Obama have over the economy?

LPOT:
Besides, your buddy Obama has little to talk about, more Americans then ever are currently unemployed, more living below the poverty line, more are on food stamps, and rich people are even richer now, then they have been since the 1920's. Obama seems to be doing such a lovely job, right now, with that whole 'recovery' thing, isn't he?

LPOT:
Gosh, who needs enemies when you got friends like that? Sorry Nick, but you're rather off bases here. Although I do enjoy the charges of being a republican. Obviously, you don't know that I hold the republicans at about the same level of contempt that I hold the democrats to. Both parties are more interested in playing games to keep themselves in power then they are in serving those who elect them. A good house and senate cleaning is well needed, hopefully every last one of them gets thrown out and we get a totally new congress (although that is pie in the sky stuff that I know will never happen).

LPOT:
Don't worry Nick, I know you will not let the facts get in the way.

LPOT:
Most people would be smart enough to figure out I made a bit of a typo. I guess you're more interested in playing games then you are in discussing things, eh?

Nick:
Of course I knew you made a typo. My sarcastic question was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to hide the fact I was too lazy to back up my claim. I have been cured of that laziness now.
My original claim was this:

It's unfortunate that the Republican Party and those who support them on this thread enforce them as being the party of "No." Their answer to everything is No - No solutions, and no progress.

Many Republicans leaders and politicians, as well as those who defend them on this thread, offer little to no solutions to the problems facing our country, and instead generally tend to bloviate upon the alleged problems with the president. They have offered little to no solutions to their criticisms of Obama.

here is the transcript to her speech..

President Obama, in his speech offered specific solutions-- How did that work out in 2008?

 How?
 What was the inflation-adjusted price of college when you went and now?

[rogue06]

Here it is, over 5 years after Obama has been in office and somehow, things keep getting blamed on Bush. I wonder how long it will be until Obama actually takes on the blame from people like Nick or Jimmy. I'm guessing Bush will still be to blame in 2017, just as he is today, in their minds and Obama isn't responsible for anything.

I guess when you "lead from behind" you aren't responsible for anything that happens.

[lilpixieofterror]

Nick, can you actually show me where he said his number one priority is NOT any of those things? Or did you just add all that because you're somewhat of a drama queen?

The REASON he wanted Obama to be a "One-term-president" is because OBama was NOT focused on creating jobs (remember the "well, they weren't as shovel-ready as we thought" nonsense?) or fixing the economy, or keeping Americans safe --- Obama was busy fooling Americans into swallowing his disastrous health care fiasco.

All you need to do is check out the current unemployment and poverty levels to see just what is going on. I found this web site here very interesting in giving some current numbers on lots of different issues. The US population has jumped up a few million since 2008, but the unemployment numbers have jumped, the number of people living below poverty have jumped, and the people on food stamps have jumped since 2008 by a far greater number then our population has increased by. Here it is, over 5 years after Obama has been in office and somehow, things keep getting blamed on Bush. I wonder how long it will be until Obama actually takes on the blame from people like Nick or Jimmy. I'm guessing Bush will still be to blame in 2017, just as he is today, in their minds and Obama isn't responsible for anything.

[Cow Poke]

Nick, can you actually show me where he said his number one priority is NOT any of those things? Or did you just add all that because you're somewhat of a drama queen?

The REASON he wanted Obama to be a "One-term-president" is because OBama was NOT focused on creating jobs (remember the "well, they weren't as shovel-ready as we thought" nonsense?) or fixing the economy, or keeping Americans safe --- Obama was busy fooling Americans into swallowing his disastrous health care fiasco.

[lilpixieofterror]

My boy Regan? Since when did he become 'my boy'? I think your black/white mentality is showing Nick. Because I am critical of Obama, I have to be a republican? Who made up that rule? Also, he 'tripled the debt'? That is pretty vague there Nick. Believe it or not, I did pass math class in high school and know how these little math games work. If you owe me 1 dollar, borrow 3 dollars and now owe me 4 dollars. Have you 'tripled' your debt? Yes you have. Now, does that mean that Joe, who owed me 50 dollars, borrows 50 more and now owes me 100 dollars better at his personal finances then you are because he only doubled his debt and you tripled yours? I'm sorry, but I am always suspicious of anybody who uses phrases like 'tripled x' because what did he triple it from and why did he triple it?

Okay Then. Bush started his term in 2000, but we'll start at the beginning of his first Fiscal Year, 2001, and ended in 2009. End of FY 2001 (9/30) Total Debt Outstanding (TDO) : 5,807,463,412,200.06. TDO at end of FY 2009 11,909,829,003,511.70. Difference? 6,102,365,591,311.64
Obama Started in 2009. TDO Same as above. By 6/30/2013 (the treasure dept did not provide more recent exact figures), 16,738,320,054,489.20. The difference? 4,828,491,050,977.50

Then you didn't look hard enough because I found the figures right up to two days ago, but you are right on this one (hey, even a broken clock can be right once in a while), but don't worry though. Your boy Obama is already well on his way to beating Bush's record.

Again, what is it with this fundy mentality that if I'm critical of Obama, I have to be a Bush and Regan fan girl? Who made up that rule? Also, what did you expect Bush to do after a major terrorist attack happened against American citizens, which happened shortly after he took office? Was he suppose to say, "Ok guys, please turn yourself in." Funny how many forget how the democrats of the time were beating the warm drum, right along with the republicans and people conveniently 'forget' that little part and want to blame Bush for something democrats and republicans alike were calling for, eh? We have to forget that little part. Finally, he singly handily put us into a 'depression worse since the great depression'? How did he do that one? Was he the one that told the banks to make bad loans? Lol, you act as though Bush is some kind of evil mastermind, what possible control does Bush or Obama have over the economy? Besides, your buddy Obama has little to talk about, more Americans then ever are currently unemployed, more living below the poverty line, more are on food stamps, and rich people are even richer now, then they have been since the 1920's. Obama seems to be doing such a lovely job, right now, with that whole 'recovery' thing, isn't he? Gosh, who needs enemies when you got friends like that? Sorry Nick, but you're rather off bases here. Although I do enjoy the charges of being a republican. Obviously, you don't know that I hold the republicans at about the same level of contempt that I hold the democrats to. Both parties are more interested in playing games to keep themselves in power then they are in serving those who elect them. A good house and senate cleaning is well needed, hopefully every last one of them gets thrown out and we get a totally new congress (although that is pie in the sky stuff that I know will never happen).

But hey, why let facts get in the way

Don't worry Nick, I know you will not let the facts get in the way.

Most people would be smart enough to figure out I made a bit of a typo. I guess you're more interested in playing games then you are in discussing things, eh?

Why shouldn't he be taking an interest? By that logic, should the US care if an anti US government takes over one of our long time allies? The US is a major political power across the world, pretty much everybody is going to have some vested interest in US policies and government since it does affect them in some way.

Satan is never right. Can I get an Amen?!

Where did Jesus say that?

Your avoidance is noted.

[nickcopernicus]

Don't want to answer the reality, I understand it can be embarrassing to back up somebody who is making the very same mistakes you are criticizing from others. Obama raised the debt higher in his first four years, then Bush did in 8 years.

LPOT:
You can always go to the US Treasury web site and confirm the numbers, if you really don't believe me. They are there, in black and white, for anybody capable of doing some basic math.

Nick:
Okay Then.

LPOT:
They produce them here and now.

LPOT:
So you did not try to make it sound as though DE's words and arguments don't count because he isn't a US citizen?

LPOT:
Everybody is right, once in a while.

Nick:
Satan is never right. Can I get an Amen?!

LPOT:
I wish Democrats would do the same, but they are too busy playing to the media about how the other side 'refuses to compromise' while they refuse to do it themselves. How funny, how everybody else, but those whom you agree with, have to 'compromise', isn't it?

[Cow Poke]

A second study

The Thread Starter requested we stay on topic. I'm complying. Please feel free to start your own thread on this.

[Psychic Missile]

Please don't argue by weblink. WHICH part is "probably not true"

A second study was done by a different party that found the first study's (the one you referred to) methodology faulty in finding a sample's political ideology. This second study found no difference in the amount given to charity but did find a variation in what charities are given to, with conservatives giving to religious charities (including their church) more and liberals giving to secular charities more.

[Cow Poke]

Can we stick to foreign policy discussions please?

ABsolutely. Jimmy can start his own "CP is a whiner" thread.

[Darth Executor]

Can we stick to foreign policy discussions please?

[Cow Poke]

This is probably not true.

Please don't argue by weblink. WHICH part is "probably not true"

[Psychic Missile]

It may come as a shock to you, Jimmy, but in ADDITION to paying taxes, Conservatives volunteer more time, give more blood, and donate more money to charities than liberals. Liberals want OTHER people to give.

This is probably not true.

[rogue06]

I pay my taxes CP. The difference between us is that I am happy to do so. You're not a giver, you're a whiner.

I've always pictured you as somebody who collects a lot more from the government than pays in income taxes.

[Cow Poke]

How ironic, you have it bass ackwards as usual CP.

I apologize, Jimmy. I should have been more clear -- I was talking about INCOME tax, not beer and cigarette taxes.

I pay my taxes CP.

Only YOURS? You don't volunteer MORE tax money to cover your neighbors? You can DO that, you know! There's actually a mechanism for that.

The difference between us is that I am happy to do so.

Yeah, cause you got suckered into that "you're more patriotic if you pay more taxes"?

You're not a giver, you're a whiner.

Jimmy, I probably paid more taxes last year than you paid in your entire life. And on TOP of that, I tithe, volunteer, donate blood, etc. So, you're just flat out goofy, Jimmy.

It may come as a shock to you, Jimmy, but in ADDITION to paying taxes, Conservatives volunteer more time, give more blood, and donate more money to charities than liberals. Liberals want OTHER people to give.

Source: ABC News 20/20

Who Gives and Who Doesn't?Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco

We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?


Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

© Copyright Original Source

You REALLY need to try to get acquainted with TRUTH, Jimmy, and stop echoing the liberal talking points!

By the way, I wasn't online for about 3 hours last night because I was teaching the class where we're training minorities how to find jobs, fill job applications, write resumes, conduct interviews and learn job skills. At the end of the 16 week class, they earn $500 scholarships for college or training courses or for personal improvement to find a job. We're pretty flexible about how they spend that money. And WHERE does that money come from? Along with local businesses, those of us who teach the classes DONATE it.

So, this goofy notion that I'm not a giver is just... well..... typical JimmyCrap.