Obama is a Failure!

armpitsOFmight

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
870
Reaction score
12
I can't believe I voted for this douchebag twice! His foreign policy is retarded...arming jihadists in syria!?!? Supporting the muslim brotherhood in Egypt!?!?!? Are you fucking kidding me!?!?!? Yeah Obama care is good and so is his policy on gay marriage, but he has no fucking clue what to do in international politics. Fucking as worthless as Jimmy Carter.
 
What's with all the inane posts from you lately? It seems like you're deliberately trying to be annoying.
 
This is in the general section so I don't see why this should bother you. Besides, this is where you bring threads to die.
 
Umm, the US is currently tacitly supporting the Egyptian military's coup of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which is itself spiraling into a very violent situation. As for arming jihadists, yeah some of the Rebels are. Just like what happened with Reagan in Afghanistan in the 80s. Of course the rebels recently began fighting one another, more military/secular faction versus juhadists. I'd say that the threat of force in Syria was the one thing that got Assad and Putin to forge another path, and now the international community is taking ownership of the situation instead of just the United States. Is it an accidental success? Maybe. But it's certainly not a failure...
 
What I can't figure out is how so many people in this country still believe his is of Christian faith. When his real name is not Barrack Obama its Barry Soetro. What man changes their name to be perceived differently?

Something is not right with this one. Maybe the Manchurian Candidate.

Who paid for this guy to go to Harvard Law School?

One thing is for sure he is following the same path Bush would have us on. So really no difference except he is a THIEF trying to make as much money as possible to secure his future just like the Clintons now well worth 500MIllion
 
Last edited:
OMG. I just totally lost it. LOL'ed so loudly at my desk. Thank god it's lunch time. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Post of the year right there ^
 
OMG. I just totally lost it. LOL'ed so loudly at my desk. Thank god it's lunch time. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Post of the year right there ^

I know right? Maybe Rifle is a LaRouche plant. lol
 
So how about Australia electing its own version of Romney? Stayed tuned to Abbott & Co. for hijinks galore!
 
Umm, the US is currently tacitly supporting the Egyptian military's coup of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which is itself spiraling into a very violent situation.

Obama is the one that let Mubarak fall from power and hence we got Egypt's next brand of a dictatorship government, with a dash of religious fanaticism, the Muslim Brotherhood. Many Middle East analysts said Obama was stupid for supporting the MB because after they won the first election, Morsi would slowly abandon the constitution, ignore minority rights, and impose religious laws on people who prefer a secular lifestyle. All of this came true because Obama ignored their advice and now the country is probably going to have a civil war. You can thank Obama's short-sightetdness for that!

As for arming jihadists, yeah some of the Rebels are. Just like what happened with Reagan in Afghanistan in the 80s. Of course the rebels recently began fighting one another, more military/secular faction versus juhadists.

Dude, you seriously haven't paid attention to the news lately. Yes, it's true the moderate rebels just started clashing with the Jihadist rebels, but the moderate rebels are horribly outnumbered and are the minority. You are basing your information that the jihadists are "only a minority" from John McCain and Elizabeth O'bagy, who was just fired from the WSJ because the editors caught her falsifying information on Syria. Look it up on google!

As far as you comparing Obama to arming the Syrian Jihadists to Reagan arming the Afghanistan Jihadists; what a shit comparison and your argument is full of fail. Everyone, most democrats and republicans, justify not arming the jihadis in Syria because like the taliban in Afghanistan, they could use it on us in the near future.

I'd say that the threat of force in Syria was the one thing that got Assad and Putin to forge another path, and now the international community is taking ownership of the situation instead of just the United States. Is it an accidental success? Maybe. But it's certainly not a failure...

If you don't think this Syria debacle has made Obama look incompetent to the American public, you're wrong. The American people know that he did not get international support for a military strike. The final embarrassing blow was not being able to get Congress to approve a strike so he had to beg the house and senate leaders to call off the vote to save face.

However, I think we can agree on one point. Putin came out on top and looked like the better leader. Here we will probably disagree again whether or not this is good for our country because I'm wary about his connection with Iran.
 
...and yet you voted for him twice, Howie.


You sure you want to trust your own judgment to register to vote in the Mayoral primary? I mean, with that track record of judgment do you really want to live with the guilt of realizing you were in any way personally responsible for erecting another dynasty of Detroit-style failed librul *wharrrgarble* stuff and stuff in this bombed-out hull of an ex-city? Nobody should have to live with that burden, Howie. Nobody.
 
Obama is the one that let Mubarak fall from power and hence we got Egypt's next brand of a dictatorship government, with a dash of religious fanaticism, the Muslim Brotherhood. Many Middle East analysts said Obama was stupid for supporting the MB because after they won the first election, Morsi would slowly abandon the constitution, ignore minority rights, and impose religious laws on people who prefer a secular lifestyle. All of this came true because Obama ignored their advice and now the country is probably going to have a civil war. You can thank Obama's short-sightetdness for that!

Do you want US intervention in the Middle East or not? We allowed the military to depose Mubarak. We allowed and accepted Egypts elections with a wary eye. We've also allowed and accepted the military's overthrow and crackdown of the Muslim brotherhood. What would you have rather Obama done after Morsi's election? Immediately cancel US support of the Egyptian military?


Dude, you seriously haven't paid attention to the news lately. Yes, it's true the moderate rebels just started clashing with the Jihadist rebels, but the moderate rebels are horribly outnumbered and are the minority. You are basing your information that the jihadists are "only a minority" from John McCain and Elizabeth O'bagy, who was just fired from the WSJ because the editors caught her falsifying information on Syria. Look it up on google!

I didn't claim that they're a minority. There are factions within the Syrian rebels. I haven't seen any numbers suggesting the breakdown of the rebel ideologies. If you have that, please share them.

As far as you comparing Obama to arming the Syrian Jihadists to Reagan arming the Afghanistan Jihadists; what a shit comparison and your argument is full of fail. Everyone, most democrats and republicans, justify not arming the jihadis in Syria because like the taliban in Afghanistan, they could use it on us in the near future.

Explain why it's full of fail rather than just saying that it is.

Arming the rebellion is a calculated risk that we're taking. It's definitely legitimate to argue that it's not worth it. Analysts are certainly not as unanimous against arming the rebels as you suggest. You make it sound as though Obama is the sole proponent of sending arms.

If you don't think this Syria debacle has made Obama look incompetent to the American public, you're wrong. The American people know that he did not get international support for a military strike. The final embarrassing blow was not being able to get Congress to approve a strike so he had to beg the house and senate leaders to call off the vote to save face.

Oh it absolutely embarrassed and damaged his standing. But he got a positive outcome without committing the US to a military strike.

However, I think we can agree on one point. Putin came out on top and looked like the better leader. Here we will probably disagree again whether or not this is good for our country because I'm wary about his connection with Iran.

Putin gets to look like the one who brought the parties together, but that would have never happened without the White House's incompetent saber-rattling.

I'm curious what exactly you think we should be doing? On the one hand you don't seem to think that we should be involved over there at all. On the other, you sound like you think we need to intervene more.
 
You're trying to have a serious conversation with someone who's solitary goal is riling you up.
 
Hey, Lets just bomb a country at civil war with each other and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people on both sides. Then just leave.

Whats wrong with that logic?
 
Do you want US intervention in the Middle East or not? We allowed the military to depose Mubarak. We allowed and accepted Egypts elections with a wary eye. We've also allowed and accepted the military's overthrow and crackdown of the Muslim brotherhood. What would you have rather Obama done after Morsi's election? Immediately cancel US support of the Egyptian military?

Support for overthrowing Mubarak was Obama's worst mistake, clearly Egypt wasn't prepared for a democracy. If you think the muslim countries in the ME are ready for democracy, please take a look at Libya and Tunisia. The same thing is happening there; the radical religious parties have taken over and basically took a shit on the constitution, minorities, women, and are enforcing religious laws on people who want to live secular lives.

Obama seriously fucked up in this part of the world and now, like George Bush, he's going to have to learn the perils of his decisions. Unfortunately, Obama created a whole lot of new problems and only civil war and a lot of blood-shed will fix the problems in these countries.


I didn't claim that they're a minority. There are factions within the Syrian rebels. I haven't seen any numbers suggesting the breakdown of the rebel ideologies. If you have that, please share them.

Liberal-Biased NYT



Explain why it's full of fail rather than just saying that it is.

Re-read that paragraph again, I addressed that. Learn to read slower.

Arming the rebellion is a calculated risk that we're taking. It's definitely legitimate to argue that it's not worth it. Analysts are certainly not as unanimous against arming the rebels as you suggest. You make it sound as though Obama is the sole proponent of sending arms.

A small minority of people in power are for bombing Syria and arming the Jihadists. THAT'S IT.


I'm curious what exactly you think we should be doing? On the one hand you don't seem to think that we should be involved over there at all. On the other, you sound like you think we need to intervene more.

Well since you asked. We shouldn't do business with the Muslim Brotherhood anymore because in the end they don't like us and want to hurt us. We should keep supporting the Egyptian military and pray to the Gods that Egypt doesn't go into a civil war. As far as Syria, we shouldn't do anything. It's basically the terrorist state Iran and its proxies fighting a war with sunni jihadists. It really doesn't matter who wins because when the smoke clears it'll still be a bad scenario for that region of the world.
 
You're trying to have a serious conversation with someone who's solitary goal is riling you up.

please-dont-feed-the-trolls.jpg
 
Isn't there a policy in this forum to stop flame wars? How about this thread gets locked, yeah?
 

Back
Top