PDA

View Full Version : DeMint calls for GOP assessment of race, praises Romney



MountainMan
03-22-2012, 11:58 PM
Washington (CNN) - Sen. Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican and tea party favorite, said Thursday he was 'excited' about the possibility of Mitt Romney becoming the GOP presidential nominee.

While not an outright endorsement, it is the closest the Republican kingmaker has come to making his preference known in the race for the White House.

CNN News Link (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/22/romney-meets-with-key-republicans-on-capitol-hill/)

Oh that DAMN RINO Sen. Jim DeMInt!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? I knew you couldn't trust that tea party wannabe...Probably being paid to say those things by the Obama campaign because we all know as TRUE CONSERVATIVES the flip-flop Romney can't beat Obama...No sir, We need to get back to supporting Santorum who said that he too would prefer Obama over Romney because they are just alike........Nope, Jim Demint is a traitor of the first order and as a TRUE CONSERVATIVE we need to run him out of the party.






























:rolleyes:http://images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/25000-29999/28742/800/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_625496.jpg

Starbuck
03-23-2012, 12:24 AM
I'm getting the feeling that this GOP race is about to be settled. I know Santorum is going to take PA - if he lasts that long - and he's real excited about that. But winning your home state ain't exactly knocking it outta the park. Even Newt took his home state. Which is more than we can say about Albert Gore.

Anyway, it looks like we're all going to meet at the Romney camp. And if you look at the states that pushed Obama over the top last time, well, danged if Mitt ain't sitting right in the middle of them. And one of Mitt's greatest, most vocal, earliest supporters is Gov of NJ, too. Add Rubio as VP, and Barry should just stay home, but that would be too much to hope for.

No, Barry will smile, predict, smirk, jog up to podium after podium, but in the end the voters will have their way. Finally.:adoration:

Kay
03-23-2012, 12:44 AM
Mountain, we can say the same about that Jeb Bush feller too. :cool:

m00
03-23-2012, 01:25 AM
I have to wonder why people on this board think that the Republican Party is serious about being a conservative party. On what? Small government? The Constitution? Fiscal conservatism & Balanced Budgets? Personal Freedoms and Liberty? Sanctity of life? Free markets? National Sovereignty?

Janice
03-23-2012, 01:43 AM
I have to wonder why people on this board think that the Republican Party is serious about being a conservative party...

I have no clue as to where you draw this conclusion from. (I am speaking about the GOP)

We want to steer them in that (conservative, constitutional) direction because many/ most of them are clearly neo statists who are perfectly happy "trimming around the edges", "appearing to be conservative" in the process of maintaining and increasing their own power base and therefor are part of the problem.

m00
03-23-2012, 03:10 AM
I have no clue as to where you draw this conclusion from. (I am speaking about the GOP)

We want to steer them in that (conservative, constitutional) direction because many/ most of them are clearly neo statists who are perfectly happy "trimming around the edges", "appearing to be conservative" in the process of maintaining and increasing their own power base and therefor are part of the problem.

Do you consider Romney part of the problem?

Janice
03-23-2012, 03:21 AM
Do you consider Romney part of the problem?

I do. But in the end ... its still AB0.

Odysseus
03-23-2012, 10:21 AM
Do you consider Romney part of the problem?

Yes, but we can also make him part of the solution. Romney cannot get elected without conservative support, and he certainly cannot govern without it. Trying to play the moderate by governing a coalition of RINOs and Dems will destroy his presidency. We need to take the opportunity to get him to commit to basic conservative positions on key issues, like Obamacare repeal and entitlement reform. If we can accomplish that, then we'll be able to turn the worst of the Democratic Party's statist initiaties around. Rome wasn't built in a day, and it didn't collapse in one, either, and there were periods of renewal and restoration of first principles during the Republic. It will take time to reverse the decline that the Dems are trying to impose, but if Marius could do it, we can.

Arroyo_Doble
03-23-2012, 10:24 AM
The leaders of the Republican Party are either ready to smile for the cameras or they think Romney will be a squish while in office and just sign their bills.

Odysseus
03-23-2012, 10:35 AM
The leaders of the Republican Party are either ready to smile for the cameras or they think Romney will be a squish while in office and just sign their bills.

And, for all we know, they may be right, but we do know what Obama has been like for the last four years, and I do not believe that the country can endure another four of his administration and remain a global power. He must be defeated.

Arroyo_Doble
03-23-2012, 10:40 AM
And, for all we know, they may be right, but we do know what Obama has been like for the last four years, and I do not believe that the country can endure another four of his administration and remain a global power. He must be defeated.


Yes, I am familiar with the apocalyptic rhetoric.

Novaheart
03-23-2012, 10:42 AM
I do. But in the end ... its still AB0.

Don't use that at work. I can hear it now- someone claiming ABO is racist (nickname for aborigines).

m00
03-23-2012, 10:59 AM
Yes, but we can also make him part of the solution. Romney cannot get elected without conservative support, and he certainly cannot govern without it.

Well, if the philosophy is "ABO," he can get elected without any conservative support at all as long as the Armageddon scenario of a 2nd Obama term is pushed enough by the pundits. Because conservatives won't really be supporting him, they'll be voting against Obama. Of course he can govern without their support, all he has to do is not be Obama in name only.

Once elected the only support he'll need is from Republicans in Congress, the GOP establishment and the media, and of course the lobbyists and wall street and the banks. Which I'm sure he'll get on all counts. The only time we (the voters) have any say whatsoever is at the convention, and in the general election. After that, promises only matter to the degree which the candidate feels like keeping them.



Trying to play the moderate by governing a coalition of RINOs and Dems will destroy his presidency. We need to take the opportunity to get him to commit to basic conservative positions on key issues, like Obamacare repeal and entitlement reform.

You mean like how Bush '41 said "read my lips, no new taxes? How Bush '43 committed to no-nation building? And how Obama committed to transparent government, reducing the deficit, protecting civil liberties, and closing gitmo?


It will take time to reverse the decline that the Dems are trying to impose, but if Marius could do it, we can.

See, I have to disagree here. It's not just the Democratic Party that's imposing our decline. It's both parties. The only real argument in the public square is which party destroys the country faster (and it's always the "other one"). Vote for party A that will destroy us in 20 years, because party B will destroy us in 5. What?! You're voting neither?! Well, that's a vote for party B. Why do you want us to be destroyed in 5 years?!

Odysseus
03-23-2012, 11:50 AM
Yes, I am familiar with the apocalyptic rhetoric.

But you are sadly unfamiliar with the reality behind it, which is why you resort to snark instead of attempting refutation. If you have facts that contradict my statements, by all means, please present them. You are capable of making a substantive argument, aren't you?


Well, if the philosophy is "ABO," he can get elected without any conservative support at all as long as the Armageddon scenario of a 2nd Obama term is pushed enough by the pundits. Because conservatives won't really be supporting him, they'll be voting against Obama. Of course he can govern without their support, all he has to do is not be Obama in name only.

Once elected the only support he'll need is from Republicans in Congress, the GOP establishment and the media, and of course the lobbyists and wall street and the banks. Which I'm sure he'll get on all counts. The only time we (the voters) have any say whatsoever is at the convention, and in the general election. After that, promises only matter to the degree which the candidate feels like keeping them.

This is true, which is why we need to ensure that Romney understands that he does need conservatives.


You mean like how Bush '41 said "read my lips, no new taxes? How Bush '43 committed to no-nation building? And how Obama committed to transparent government, reducing the deficit, protecting civil liberties, and closing gitmo?

And look at the reelection prospects for Bush '41. Bush '43 governed fairly conservatively for his first term, which was why he was supported in his second. It wasn't until his second term that the nation building began.


See, I have to disagree here. It's not just the Democratic Party that's imposing our decline. It's both parties. The only real argument in the public square is which party destroys the country faster (and it's always the "other one"). Vote for party A that will destroy us in 20 years, because party B will destroy us in 5. What?! You're voting neither?! Well, that's a vote for party B. Why do you want us to be destroyed in 5 years?!

If there is no viable third option, I'll take the 20 years over the 5 years. It gives us more time to dig bunkers, if nothing else. Seriously, what is the third option? Ron Paul or some other independent who will siphon off votes and guarantee a second Obama term? Sitting on your hands and complaining? Whether we like it or not, there are two major political parties in the US. One is overtly socialist and seeks to impose massive tyranny. The other is nominally conservative, but lacks the courage of its convictions. Our options are to either attempt to stiffen the spines of the Republicans and push for a more conservative party through participation in the process, or to throw up our hands and watch it all go down the drain as the Democrats impose their agenda. You tell me which makes sense.

m00
03-23-2012, 12:04 PM
If there is no viable third option, I'll take the 20 years over the 5 years. It gives us more time to dig bunkers, if nothing else. Seriously, what is the third option? Ron Paul or some other independent who will siphon off votes and guarantee a second Obama term? Sitting on your hands and complaining? Whether we like it or not, there are two major political parties in the US. One is overtly socialist and seeks to impose massive tyranny. The other is nominally conservative, but lacks the courage of its convictions. Our options are to either attempt to stiffen the spines of the Republicans and push for a more conservative party through participation in the process, or to throw up our hands and watch it all go down the drain as the Democrats impose their agenda. You tell me which makes sense.

See, I'm willing to consider the "vote for Romney" option when we get there. But we haven't crossed that bridge yet. I think voters need to do what they can so we don't have to cross that bridge. What I really object to is the chain of logic that goes "We must stop Obama at all costs" to "therefore we have to nominate Romney, because he can get elected in a general election." Especially when you look at the money behind Romney (and where it comes from), the special interests that support him, and the media that went out of their way before the Iowa to convince everybody that he had already won the nomination. And his massive lack of consistency and convictions. Those are some major red flags.

We can have the "bite the bullet and vote for Romney" conversation if he wins at the convention. But doing it now just legitimises all the wrong reasons that he's ahead in the first place.

Arroyo_Doble
03-23-2012, 12:18 PM
But you are sadly unfamiliar with the reality behind it, which is why you resort to snark instead of attempting refutation. If you have facts that contradict my statements, by all means, please present them. You are capable of making a substantive argument, aren't you?

Your histrionics are not an argument to refute; they are cultivated, learned ravings.

Bailey
03-23-2012, 12:48 PM
Your histrionics are not an argument to refute; they are cultivated, learned ravings.

In other words you have nothing.

Arroyo_Doble
03-23-2012, 03:22 PM
In other words you have nothing.



I do not believe that the country can endure another four of his administration and remain a global power.


OK. You are correct. I cannot refute that. True, it is opinion on my part that Odie doesn't really believe that but unfortunately, I cannot prove it so I will concede that yes, he believes it.

Any other "facts" in that sentence you want me to refute?

Odysseus
03-23-2012, 04:23 PM
See, I'm willing to consider the "vote for Romney" option when we get there. But we haven't crossed that bridge yet. I think voters need to do what they can so we don't have to cross that bridge. What I really object to is the chain of logic that goes "We must stop Obama at all costs" to "therefore we have to nominate Romney, because he can get elected in a general election." Especially when you look at the money behind Romney (and where it comes from), the special interests that support him, and the media that went out of their way before the Iowa to convince everybody that he had already won the nomination. And his massive lack of consistency and convictions. Those are some major red flags.

We can have the "bite the bullet and vote for Romney" conversation if he wins at the convention. But doing it now just legitimises all the wrong reasons that he's ahead in the first place.

I agree, but we also have to think strategically. It's very likely that he will be the nominee, just by virtue of the math. Conservatives would be better off trying to influence him now, rather than waiting until he is a done deal and then holding our noses in the voting booth. We need to make the case that he can only win as a conservative, the way that Reagan did, by articulating principles, rather than as a squish who cannot be trusted to keep to a given course of action.


Your histrionics are not an argument to refute; they are cultivated, learned ravings.

You always make this claim, but when the facts are presented, like Obama's stated intent to cut defense, his promise to raise gas prices or his expansion of the national debt beyond any other administration in history, you then revert to your standard, which is uncultivated, ignorant snark.


OK. You are correct. I cannot refute that. True, it is opinion on my part that Odie doesn't really believe that but unfortunately, I cannot prove it so I will concede that yes, he believes it.

Any other "facts" in that sentence you want me to refute?

Why do you believe that I don't believe what I say? Do you doubt that I think that Obama has been destructive? Or that he has governed without regard to the Constitution? That Obamacare is unconstitutional and its passage violated a number of rules of the house and senate? Do you doubt that I believe that Obama has kowtowed to our enemies and shafted our allies? Do you truly doubt that I believe that he has allowed his AG to conduct an operation, Fast and Furious, whose sole purpose was to frame gun dealers in order to justify draconian restrictions on sales of firearms? Do you have a problem accepting that I consider his lawsuits against states that have imposed state enforcement of federal immigration law to be an abrogation of his Constitutional mandate to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed? In other words, what makes you casually call me a hypocrite and liar?

And, now that I have stated that I do believe these things, let me add that I consider everything said above to be factual, and to be easily proven. Do you care to argue that they are not?

Arroyo_Doble
03-23-2012, 04:37 PM
Why do you believe that I don't believe what I say?

Because deep down, you aren't an idiot.


Do you doubt that I think that Obama has been destructive?

No. You probably believe that.


Or that he has governed without regard to the Constitution?

That is more opinion so sure, you probably believe that.


That Obamacare is unconstitutional and its passage violated a number of rules of the house and senate?

On the first, yes, because it is opinion. Hell, I believe that the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional.

The last two? If you do believe it, it means you are simply in error.


Do you doubt that I believe that Obama has kowtowed to our enemies and shafted our allies?

If you do, it is another error. Our enemies (who aren't at the bottom of the sea) hide daily from the sound of drones. Our enemies constantly look over their shoulders and our allies (both real and tenuous) continue to look toward us to either protect them, side with them in diplomatic disputes, and fall over each other to ensure the relationship is maintained.


Do you truly doubt that I believe that he has allowed his AG to conduct an operation, Fast and Furious, whose sole purpose was to frame gun dealers in order to justify draconian restrictions on sales of firearms?

Yea. I don't doubt you believe that.


Do you have a problem accepting that I consider his lawsuits against states that have imposed state enforcement of federal immigration law to be an abrogation of his Constitutional mandate to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed?

More opinion on the Constitution so sure, why not.


In other words, what makes you casually call me a hypocrite and liar?

Nothing you mentioned would remove the United States of America as a global power in the world in four years. Simple math will show that even with a debilitating collapse (like what happened in 2008 ... a real apocalyptic time you conveniently forget ... like most here), we would still be the economic, cultural, and military powerhouse of the world; let alone merely a global power. Hell, France is a global power.

I believe you can add and subtract.


And, now that I have stated that I do believe these things, let me add that I consider everything said above to be factual, and to be easily proven. Do you care to argue that they are not?

Yes. You can show so-called facts, maybe even non Foxish (ie real) facts, that informs you opinion, but it is still opinion. Except the thing about House and Senate rules. That is a claim that cannot be substantiated.

Odysseus
03-24-2012, 04:46 PM
Because deep down, you aren't an idiot.
That may be the nicest thing that you've ever said to anyone on this board.

No. You probably believe that.
Of course I do. As you said, I'm not an idiot.

That is more opinion so sure, you probably believe that.
No, it's verifiable fact. As you stated below, the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional. His war on Libya was grossly unconstitutional. His thuggish approach to the Chrysler bondholders was simple extortion well outside of his authority as president, and his spending money without a budget violates the Constitutionally mandated budget process. Do you still say my contention that he has governed without regard to the Constitution is just my opinion, or is it a fact?


On the first, yes, because it is opinion. Hell, I believe that the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional.
The last two? If you do believe it, it means you are simply in error.
Or that you are. Obamacare passed the house, but the bill that passed the senate was not the same version, and when the house voted to adopt the senate version, it should have been returned to the senate to be voted on again, because all laws must originate in the house. The fact that the bill that passed the house was the same as the senate bill did not change the requirement, but because Teddy Kennedy's death resulted in a loss of their filibuster-proof majority, the senate declined to vote on the bill again and simply acted as if the prior vote was still binding.


If you do, it is another error. Our enemies (who aren't at the bottom of the sea) hide daily from the sound of drones. Our enemies constantly look over their shoulders and our allies (both real and tenuous) continue to look toward us to either protect them, side with them in diplomatic disputes, and fall over each other to ensure the relationship is maintained.

Do they? Our enemies include Iran, Syria and North Korea, all of which consider themselves at war with us, and at least four other nations, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China, consider us adversaries. Obama has literally kowtowed (which means to bow) to the Saudi king and Chinese premier. He refused to speak out when the people of Iran took to the streets in protest against a stolen election, but attacked an ally, Costa Rica, when their supreme court removed their president after he attempted to violate their constitution in order to prolong his administration. He has offered the Russians classified information about our anti-missile systems, knowing full well that they are delivering weapons and providing technical support to Iran. At the same time, he refused to deploy those systems to Poland and the Czech Republic. He has insulted two staunch allies Britain and Israel, repeatedly. His betrayal of one ally, Hosni Mubarak, has turned Egypt from an ally to an enemy, a strategic failure on a par with Jimmy Carter's loss of Iran to Khomeini. Again, these are facts.


Yea. I don't doubt you believe that.
Okay, then let's discuss whether you think that Fast and Furious was meant to provide an excuse to restrict gun sales in the US. The stated objective of Fast and Furious was to allow the guns to walk, follow and trace them and ideally track them to the leadership of the cartels. However, no attempt was ever made to track the guns once they were purchased, and anyone who deals with drug enforcement will tell you that the cartel leadership doesn't bother with gun-running any more than the chairman of the board of Microsoft bothers himself with buying office supplies. The premises were therefore false. What was true was that Obama had promised Sarah Brady that he intended to work for gun control "under the radar" and Eric Holder is on the record talking about using unconventional means to change opinions about guns among the public. That's my basic argument. What's yours?


More opinion on the Constitution so sure, why not.
So, are you saying that the states do not have the right to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration? Do you also believe that the federal government's failure to enforce its own laws is not a violation of the Constitutional requirement to execute the law?


Nothing you mentioned would remove the United States of America as a global power in the world in four years. Simple math will show that even with a debilitating collapse (like what happened in 2008 ... a real apocalyptic time you conveniently forget ... like most here), we would still be the economic, cultural, and military powerhouse of the world; let alone merely a global power. Hell, France is a global power.

Maybe the French think so, but nobody else does. France cannot send troops outside of its own borders in sufficient strength to influence events anywhere. They are an international joke.

A global power is one that can project force globally, but its power goes beyond that. There are four recognized Instruments of National Power, as taught by the US Army War College. They are diplomatic, economic, informational and military. Let's look at how we are faring in each:


Diplomatic: How's that reset going? Are our relations with our allies as strong as they were four years ago? Are we accomplishing our goals and persuading them to follow our lead in international affairs, or do we "lead from behind" and fail to gain consensus on challenges? Are our allies willing to trust us? Do our enemies have any interest in our diplomatic overtures, or do they treat is with derision and disdain?

Economic: The US credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. Our current debt is greater than our GDP, and future projections show the collapse of the dollar by 2027, according to the GAO. We are unilaterally restricting our access to critical domestic resources, and increasing dependency on foreign sources, resulting in massive trade deficits. These are all deliberate policy positions of Obama's.

Informational: Does the United States project confidence and decisiveness? Do we use our cultural tools to advance our goals, or do we undermine ourselves constantly? Do we make the case for our role in the world, or does the president make apologies to those who we have expended lives and treasure to protect and restore to liberty?

Military: Where do I start? We're looking at troop cuts in the tens of thousands, diminished procurement of new systems to replace aging equipment, cancellation of weapons programs, draconian rules of engagement that increase our casualties while projecting weakness to the people that we need to respect and trust us. And speaking of trust, will any of our allies ever trust us again after we have abandoned our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan? Will any of our enemies fear us? Obama's military policies have consisted of ignoring our leadership when decisions were needed, cutting our budgets and attacking our culture.


I think that I've made my case.


Yes. You can show so-called facts, maybe even non Foxish (ie real) facts, that informs you opinion, but it is still opinion. Except the thing about House and Senate rules. That is a claim that cannot be substantiated.
Except that I just did. Meanwhile, you have not provided anything remotely resembling facts in rebuttal. Not even NPR-filtered DNC talking points that masquerade as facts among those who don't know any better.

I await your reply.

Retread
03-24-2012, 05:22 PM
Ody - you continue to amaze this new face at the table. Fantastic work and square on the money.
I'll only posted up with one other who could approach you in the knowledge and ability to put it into plain language. He was also active duty and, I suspect, either in SEAL or Ranger service as his absences from the board seemed to be forays of relatively short duration and refused to comment on any of them other than he 'had to go to work' for a while.

:star:

Odysseus
03-24-2012, 07:06 PM
Ody - you continue to amaze this new face at the table. Fantastic work and square on the money.
I'll only posted up with one other who could approach you in the knowledge and ability to put it into plain language. He was also active duty and, I suspect, either in SEAL or Ranger service as his absences from the board seemed to be forays of relatively short duration and refused to comment on any of them other than he 'had to go to work' for a while.

:star:

Thanks, but the facts are out there for anyone who cares to look. What ought to amaze you is Arroyo's response, if he provides one.

NJCardFan
03-24-2012, 07:44 PM
Thanks, but the facts are out there for anyone who cares to look. What ought to amaze you is Arroyo's response, if he provides one.

You won't get one. The strongest response you'll get from him is "na na a boo boo". People like him like to sit in little drum circles and breath in their own farts and regurgitate what their little circle claim to know as fact. Remember, these are the same kind of people who were surprised Nixon won re-election because they didn't know anyone who voted for him.

Retread
03-24-2012, 10:42 PM
Thanks, but the facts are out there for anyone who cares to look. What ought to amaze you is Arroyo's response, if he provides one.

I'm never surprised or amazed at the ignorant ravings of the left and you've got some excellent examples around here.

Odysseus
03-24-2012, 11:56 PM
You won't get one. The strongest response you'll get from him is "na na a boo boo". People like him like to sit in little drum circles and breath in their own farts and regurgitate what their little circle claim to know as fact. Remember, these are the same kind of people who were surprised Nixon won re-election because they didn't know anyone who voted for him.

You know it. I know it. Everybody here knows it, but I still have to make the point. Arroyo does this constantly. He responds to any statement that he disagrees with by claiming that it is propaganda or opinion, but when presented with the factual basis for the opinion, he either disappears or reverts to short snarky answers that don't address the facts. I expect that his response to this will entail cherry-picking one or two comments and ignoring the rest.


I'm never surprised or amazed at the ignorant ravings of the left and you've got some excellent examples around here.

We do, but we've had some even more extreme examples over the years. You weren't around for Eyelids, Satanicus, Wilbur or KrushchevsShoe, all of whom eventually wore out their welcome through egregious violations of the rules, but we're a lot more tolerant of dissent than DU, which deletes whole threads and bans members solely for not being sufficiently liberal. They're good little Stalinists over there, and they serve as a constant reminder of what the country will be like if we ever let them have their way.

Arroyo_Doble
03-26-2012, 09:29 AM
That may be the nicest thing that you've ever said to anyone on this board.

I've said nicer things.


Of course I do. As you said, I'm not an idiot.

No, it's verifiable fact. As you stated below, the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional.

That is an opinion, not a verifiable fact. Yet. The arguments start today. Whether or not you and I think the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. What Anthony Kennedy thinks is what matters (and I would argue Chief Justice Roberts as well since he is a wild card in this case).

Now, if the Supreme Court decides it is unconstitutional, then it is a verifiable fact. Until then, it is debate only.


His war on Libya was grossly unconstitutional.

More opinion.


His thuggish approach to the Chrysler bondholders was simple extortion well outside of his authority as president, and his spending money without a budget violates the Constitutionally mandated budget process. Do you still say my contention that he has governed without regard to the Constitution is just my opinion, or is it a fact?

Opinion. That is all. You may have sound reasoning for that opinion but that does not make it fact.


Obamacare passed the house, but the bill that passed the senate was not the same version, and when the house voted to adopt the senate version, it should have been returned to the senate to be voted on again, because all laws must originate in the house. The fact that the bill that passed the house was the same as the senate bill did not change the requirement, but because Teddy Kennedy's death resulted in a loss of their filibuster-proof majority, the senate declined to vote on the bill again and simply acted as if the prior vote was still binding.

They used H.R. 3590 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:).


Do they? Our enemies include Iran, Syria and North Korea, all of which consider themselves at war with us, and at least four other nations, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China, consider us adversaries. Obama has literally kowtowed (which means to bow) to the Saudi king and Chinese premier.

So you have a diplomatic gaffe (bowing to a Saudi ... instead of holding hands) as you proof?

Weak sauce, that. And the Saudis are not an enemy. Your characterization of them as an "adversary" could apply to many nations we do business with. I liked how you put Venezuela in there for affect.

As far as China, stop buying their crap.


He refused to speak out when the people of Iran took to the streets in protest against a stolen election,

Really? That is what you think buttresses your argument about "kowtowing to our enemies"?

You mention three. But didn't really show the bowing to Assad, Kim, nor DinnerJacket. Just a bow to a Saudi (not our enemy) and China (not our enemy).

You are not dealing in facts. You are dealing in emotion.


but attacked an ally, Costa Rica, when their supreme court removed their president after he attempted to violate their constitution in order to prolong his administration.

I believe you are thinking of Honduras. And you are dealing in emotion again.


He has offered the Russians classified information about our anti-missile systems, knowing full well that they are delivering weapons and providing technical support to Iran. At the same time, he refused to deploy those systems to Poland and the Czech Republic.

There is some meat there, at least.


He has insulted two staunch allies Britain and Israel, repeatedly.

Diplomatic gaffe with Britain and you have it backward on Israel; they repeatedly insult us.


His betrayal of one ally, Hosni Mubarak, has turned Egypt from an ally to an enemy, a strategic failure on a par with Jimmy Carter's loss of Iran to Khomeini. Again, these are facts.

Egypt is not our enemy so no, that is not a "fact."

As far as revolutions go, happy people don't revolt. I find it interesting that you are outraged that we said Iranians should choose their leaders and the revolt (so far) failed but are equally outraged that we said the same thing about Egypt when the people of that nation are successful in removing a authoritarian regime. I understand the concept of realpolitik, and your seeming embrace of it in this instance, but it is impossible to engage in it and claim any moral authority.



So, are you saying that the states do not have the right to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration?

I believe the Several States do not get to determine immigration laws. The issue is in the Courts now.


Do you also believe that the federal government's failure to enforce its own laws is not a violation of the Constitutional requirement to execute the law?

Faithfully. Or are you talking about the Legislative Branch, now?



Maybe the French think so, but nobody else does. France cannot send troops outside of its own borders in sufficient strength to influence events anywhere. They are an international joke.

Really? Name the other global powers who sent an aircraft carrier through the Straits of Hormuz.


A global power is one that can project force globally, but its power goes beyond that. There are four recognized Instruments of National Power, as taught by the US Army War College. They are diplomatic, economic, informational and military. Let's look at how we are faring in each:

[LIST]
Diplomatic: How's that reset going? Are our relations with our allies as strong as they were four years ago?

Stronger.


Are we accomplishing our goals and persuading them to follow our lead in international affairs,

Yes. Iran, North Korea, Syria, Burma, just to name a few, are areas where we are leading the way and are being followed. The one time allies, in that case Turkey and Brasil, tried to go rogue on Iran, they got slapped down.


or do we "lead from behind" and fail to gain consensus on challenges?

Odd that you used a quote concerning Libya to show a lack of consensus with our allies.


Are our allies willing to trust us?

Yes.


Do our enemies have any interest in our diplomatic overtures, or do they treat is with derision and disdain?

That is what enemies do. You are upset that our enemies don't like us?

Weird.

Arroyo_Doble
03-26-2012, 09:34 AM
Economic: The US credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history.

Never mind laying that at the feet of the Executive only is dishonest, it happened to little or no affect. Are we having trouble getting financing for your boots?


Our current debt is greater than our GDP, and future projections show the collapse of the dollar by 2027, according to the GAO.

We should probably do something about that. But 2027 is 15 years from now, not four.


We are unilaterally restricting our access to critical domestic resources, and increasing dependency on foreign sources, resulting in massive trade deficits. These are all deliberate policy positions of Obama's.

Now you are grasping. We have had a trade deficit going back to 1976 and even now it is down from its peak in 2006.


Informational: Does the United States project confidence and decisiveness?

Yes.


Do we use our cultural tools to advance our goals, or do we undermine ourselves constantly? Do we make the case for our role in the world, or does the president make apologies to those who we have expended lives and treasure to protect and restore to liberty?

Are you seriously going to the "apology tour" canard? That chestnut?

It did not happen. Show me. I want to see the words "apologize" spoken by Obama. And none of this crap about a specific event like an American soldier going on a rampage. A real apology for the actions sanctioned and taken by this nation given to another nation. If you can, I will admit it is real.


Military: Where do I start? We're looking at troop cuts in the tens of thousands, diminished procurement of new systems to replace aging equipment, cancellation of weapons programs, draconian rules of engagement that increase our casualties while projecting weakness to the people that we need to respect and trust us. And speaking of trust, will any of our allies ever trust us again after we have abandoned our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan? Will any of our enemies fear us? Obama's military policies have consisted of ignoring our leadership when decisions were needed, cutting our budgets and attacking our culture.
[/LIST]

How much do we spend on defense and compare that to number two in the world.

After that, we can go back to your claim that "A global power is one that can project force globally," and debate who can do that the most effectively in the world right now and in the near term.


I think that I've made my case.

Yes. I disagree with your conclusions and you are using emotion and opinion as "facts" but that is typical.


Except that I just did. Meanwhile, you have not provided anything remotely resembling facts in rebuttal. Not even NPR-filtered DNC talking points that masquerade as facts among those who don't know any better.

I await your reply.

A shot at NPR?

You sound like a member of a cult.

linda22003
03-26-2012, 09:44 AM
I'm getting the feeling that this GOP race is about to be settled. I know Santorum is going to take PA - if he lasts that long -

I don't know anything of the kind, and I'm a Pennsylvanian from waaaay back - most of my family still is. Pa. is by no means in the bag for Santorum.

txradioguy
03-26-2012, 10:26 AM
Only Annoyo/fanboy could post so much and say absolutely nothing at all.

AmPat
03-26-2012, 04:19 PM
The leaders of the Republican Party are either ready to smile for the cameras or they think Romney will be a squish while in office and just sign their bills.

Kind of like the present Moron In Chief? Only this time, maybe we will have a rubber stamp that possesses his own brain and will rubber stamp legislation that the American people actually want.

Gentleman Pirate
03-26-2012, 04:21 PM
Only Annoyo/fanboy could post so much and say absolutely nothing at all.

You have a cute little nickname and dismissal for everyone who disagrees with you.

How adorable and expected...

Odysseus
03-27-2012, 07:48 PM
I've said nicer things.
Not around here, you haven't.


That is an opinion, not a verifiable fact. Yet. The arguments start today. Whether or not you and I think the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. What Anthony Kennedy thinks is what matters (and I would argue Chief Justice Roberts as well since he is a wild card in this case).

Now, if the Supreme Court decides it is unconstitutional, then it is a verifiable fact. Until then, it is debate only.

No, that is just the court's opinion. The idea that only when five out of nine judges have weighed in on something is it Constitutional is a conceit of those who think that the plain language of the Constitution doesn't say what it says. In fact, the courts have often overstepped their bounds, and anyone with a plain grasp of English can see it. Section eight of Article One enumerates the powers of congress, and gives it the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" This is not a blank check to govern every transaction within the states, but is clearly meant to allow congress to provide a general framework in which goods and services could pass between the states. It was meant to eliminate the thirteen separate trade zones that had sprung up under the Articles of Confederation, not to empower the federal government to decide how much wheat a farmer could grow for his own consumption, and yet, the Supreme Court got this completely wrong in the case of Wickard vs. Filburn.


More opinion.
Opinion. That is all. You may have sound reasoning for that opinion but that does not make it fact.
Covering your ears and saying "That's just your opinion" doesn't invalidate the argument. The war in Libya lacked congressional authorization, and continued long past the deadline of the War Powers Act. Obama skirted this by an Orwellian linguistic sleight of hand by calling it a "kinetic military action", but, like calling a kitten that is born in a cake pan a bundt, it does not change what it is.


They used H.R. 3590 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:).
Yes, they did. A House Resolution, as the HR implies. But as a legislative act, it had to originate in the house and then be voted on by the senate, not the other way around. This violates the rules.


So you have a diplomatic gaffe (bowing to a Saudi ... instead of holding hands) as you proof?
Weak sauce, that. And the Saudis are not an enemy. Your characterization of them as an "adversary" could apply to many nations we do business with. I liked how you put Venezuela in there for affect.
As far as China, stop buying their crap.
Really? That is what you think buttresses your argument about "kowtowing to our enemies"?
You mention three. But didn't really show the bowing to Assad, Kim, nor DinnerJacket. Just a bow to a Saudi (not our enemy) and China (not our enemy).
You are not dealing in facts. You are dealing in emotion.

While you are dealing in denial. The pattern of obsequious behavior to hostile foreign powers is obvious and pervasive. You haven't provided evidence to the contrary, simply your assertions that the facts don't mean what you don't want them to mean. Typical, really.


I believe you are thinking of Honduras. And you are dealing in emotion again.

I did mean Honduras, thanks, but I am dealing in facts. As reported at the time:



What seemed like a prototypical Latin American military (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/U.S.+Armed+Forces) coup, however, was belied by the events leading to Zelaya's departure. Like his chief backer, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Hugo+Chavez), Zelaya was intent on rewriting his country's constitution to abolish term limits.
Only the Honduran Congress (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Honduran+Congress), however, is legally capable of calling a constitutional convention. Unable to convince even his own ostensible legislative allies to support his scheme, Zelaya said he would implement a referendum unilaterally, and Chavez mailed the necessary ballots. When the country's Supreme Court (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/U.S.+Supreme+Court) declared his actions unconstitutional and the country's top military officer informed Zelaya that he would not carry out his orders to oversee a sham election, Zelaya fired him. Zelaya then led a mob of supporters - including armed thugs supplied by Chavez and Nicaraguan Sandinista (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Sandinista+National+Liberation+Front) leader Daniel Ortega (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Daniel+Ortega) - to try to steal the ballots.
On Tuesday, Zelaya was given a hero's welcome by the United Nations General Assembly (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/United+Nations+General+Assembly). More worrying has been American complicity in the campaign to restore an authoritarian to power, beginning with U.S. co-sponsorship of a resolution stating that the removal of Zelaya "interrupted the democratic and constitutional order and the legitimate exercise of power in Honduras."
This is exactly backwards. It was Zelaya, who in his avowal to ignore a supreme court decision and proceed with an illegal power grab, subverted his country's democracy. Nevertheless, the Pentagon (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/The+Pentagon) has cut off all cooperation with the Honduran military and Obama administration officials told The New York Times (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/The+New+York+Times+Company) of their intention to give the poverty-stricken Central American nation "a taste of isolation" (would they threaten such consequences for the mullahs in Iran?).
Secretary of State Clinton said that Honduras' actions "should be condemned by all" and President Obama said that his administration would "stand with democracy" by supporting Zelaya's reinstatement. Propping up an authoritarian undermining his country's constitution (which he claimed needs fixing to reflect a new "national reality," apparently one in which he rules forever) is a strange way to demonstrate that solidarity.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/obama-meddles-honduras-chooses-wrong-side-article-1.427475#ixzz1qMM1NCyU




There is some meat there, at least.
Diplomatic gaffe with Britain and you have it backward on Israel; they repeatedly insult us.

Gaffe? Try calculated series of insults, to both Britain and Israel. For the insults to Britain, I refer you to Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Britain – 2012 edition (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100142971/barack-obamas-top-ten-insults-against-britain-2012-edition/)

For his insults to Israel, the same author provided Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Israel (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100036389/barack-obama’s-top-ten-insults-against-israel/)

Not that you'll read them, but it goes a lot further than cheesy DVDs or returning a bust.


Egypt is not our enemy so no, that is not a "fact."
In 1978, Iran was a staunch ally. By the end of 1979, it was our most vicious enemy in the Middle East. Last year, Egypt was an ally. Today, the Muslim Brotherhood is drafting the new Egyptian constitution. The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization for Hamas and al Qaeda. Egypt has turned. Just because you refuse to see it doesn't make it


As far as revolutions go, happy people don't revolt. I find it interesting that you are outraged that we said Iranians should choose their leaders and the revolt (so far) failed but are equally outraged that we said the same thing about Egypt when the people of that nation are successful in removing a authoritarian regime. I understand the concept of realpolitik, and your seeming embrace of it in this instance, but it is impossible to engage in it and claim any moral authority.

I could argue that it is immoral to allow a leader to be overthrown by people that we know to be worse, but ultimately, I don't care if the Egyptians and Iranians are governed by heads of lettuce. I care about whether those heads of lettuce are hostile to us. The rebellion in Egypt, like the rebellion in Iran against the Shah, will end badly for those who supported it, but most importantly, it will end badly for us. My oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. My moral authority is derived from that oath, and an American president who empowers our foreign enemies, despite taking the same oath, has no moral authority.


I believe the Several States do not get to determine immigration laws. The issue is in the Courts now.

The states didn't determine the immigration laws. They simply voted to act in support of the federal laws that the executive branch doesn't deign to enforce.


Faithfully. Or are you talking about the Legislative Branch, now?
No, the Executive Branch. Immigration law ought to be enforced, don't you think?

Odysseus
03-27-2012, 10:20 PM
Really? Name the other global powers who sent an aircraft carrier through the Straits of Hormuz.

There were two? Because the aircraft carrier that went through the Strait of Hormuz was the USS Abraham Lincoln. The French navy sent one "warship", according to the article, but it wasn't the Charles De Gaul, which is their only operational carrier.


Stronger
Then you are not paying attention.


Yes. Iran, North Korea, Syria, Burma, just to name a few, are areas where we are leading the way and are being followed. The one time allies, in that case Turkey and Brasil, tried to go rogue on Iran, they got slapped down.

Now that's what I call delusional. Our sanctions on Iran were bounced out of the Security Council, our attempts to isolate North Korea seem to consist of giving them stuff in exchange for them not launching missiles that they then launch. On Syria, the Arab states have led the way on isolating that regime, but not because of anything that we've done. It's the classic Sunni/Shia rift at work, and Obama is, once again, behind the curve.


Odd that you used a quote concerning Libya to show a lack of consensus with our allies.

I actually used it to demonstrate a lack of leadership. Our allies decided to fight and we tagged along. If that's leadership, then I've got a puppy that's as qualified to be president as Obama.


Yes.
Really? Does the Karzai government trust us to remain in Afghanistan and keep it secure? Do the Iraqis follow our guidance, or are they now in Iran's orbit? Does Israel trust us to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from destroying them? Do our allies trust us to keep secrets in the wake of the wikileaks scandal? You complain about my supposed lack of facts, then you substitute your wishful thinking for rebuttal.


That is what enemies do. You are upset that our enemies don't like us?

No, I'm upset that our president doesn't understand that it is what enemies do.


Never mind laying that at the feet of the Executive only is dishonest, it happened to little or no affect. Are we having trouble getting financing for your boots?

Obama has added $5 trillion to the national debt in three years. That's more than Bush added in eight. And since the congress hasn't passed a budget three years, I'd say that it's entirely on him. As for financing boots, the problem is that we're financing fewer people to fill them, as well as keeping them around for much longer.


Really? Name the other global powers who sent an aircraft carrier through the Straits of Hormuz.

There were two? Because the aircraft carrier that went through the Strait of Hormuz was the USS Abraham Lincoln. The French navy sent one "warship", according to the article, but it wasn't the Charles De Gaul, which is their only operational carrier.


Stronger
Then you are not paying attention.


Yes. Iran, North Korea, Syria, Burma, just to name a few, are areas where we are leading the way and are being followed. The one time allies, in that case Turkey and Brasil, tried to go rogue on Iran, they got slapped down.

Now that's what I call delusional. Our sanctions on Iran were bounced out of the Security Council, our attempts to isolate North Korea seem to consist of giving them stuff in exchange for them not launching missiles that they then launch. On Syria, the Arab states have led the way on isolating that regime, but not because of anything that we've done. It's the classic Sunni/Shia rift at work, and Obama is, once again, behind the curve.


Odd that you used a quote concerning Libya to show a lack of consensus with our allies.

I actually used it to demonstrate a lack of leadership. Our allies decided to fight and we tagged along. If that's leadership, then I've got a puppy that's as qualified to be president as Obama.


Yes.
Really? Does the Karzai government trust us to remain in Afghanistan and keep it secure? Do the Iraqis follow our guidance, or are they now in Iran's orbit? Does Israel trust us to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from destroying them? Do our allies trust us to keep secrets in the wake of the wikileaks scandal? You complain about my supposed lack of facts, then you substitute your wishful thinking for rebuttal.


That is what enemies do. You are upset that our enemies don't like us?

No, I'm upset that our president doesn't understand that it is what enemies do.

[QUOTE=Arroyo_Doble;493333]Never mind laying that at the feet of the Executive only is dishonest, it happened to little or no affect. Are we having trouble getting financing for your boots?


Really? Name the other global powers who sent an aircraft carrier through the Straits of Hormuz.

There were two? Because the aircraft carrier that went through the Strait of Hormuz was the USS Abraham Lincoln. The French navy sent one "warship", according to the article, but it wasn't the Charles De Gaul, which is their only operational carrier.


Stronger
Then you are not paying attention.


Yes. Iran, North Korea, Syria, Burma, just to name a few, are areas where we are leading the way and are being followed. The one time allies, in that case Turkey and Brasil, tried to go rogue on Iran, they got slapped down.

Now that's what I call delusional. Our sanctions on Iran were bounced out of the Security Council, our attempts to isolate North Korea seem to consist of giving them stuff in exchange for them not launching missiles that they then launch. On Syria, the Arab states have led the way on isolating that regime, but not because of anything that we've done. It's the classic Sunni/Shia rift at work, and Obama is, once again, behind the curve.


Odd that you used a quote concerning Libya to show a lack of consensus with our allies.

I actually used it to demonstrate a lack of leadership. Our allies decided to fight and we tagged along. If that's leadership, then I've got a puppy that's as qualified to be president as Obama.


Yes.
Really? Does the Karzai government trust us to remain in Afghanistan and keep it secure? Do the Iraqis follow our guidance, or are they now in Iran's orbit? Does Israel trust us to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from destroying them? Do our allies trust us to keep secrets in the wake of the wikileaks scandal? You complain about my supposed lack of facts, then you substitute your wishful thinking for rebuttal.


That is what enemies do. You are upset that our enemies don't like us?

No, I'm upset that our president doesn't understand that it is what enemies do.


Never mind laying that at the feet of the Executive only is dishonest, it happened to little or no affect. Are we having trouble getting financing for your boots?

Obama has added $5 trillion in debt in three years, and congress hasn't passed a budget since he took office, so I'm laying that entirely at his feet. As for financing boots, we're filling a lot fewer of them, thanks to Obama.


We should probably do something about that. But 2027 is 15 years from now, not four.

Rome didn't collapse in a day. By the time the dollar collapses completely, it will be the last sign of our collapse as a global power, not the first.

Odysseus
03-27-2012, 10:20 PM
Are you seriously going to the "apology tour" canard? That chestnut?

It did not happen. Show me. I want to see the words "apologize" spoken by Obama. And none of this crap about a specific event like an American soldier going on a rampage. A real apology for the actions sanctioned and taken by this nation given to another nation. If you can, I will admit it is real.

What you want doesn't interest me. The word "apologize" doesn't appear in his confessional events, but it doesn't have to. Obama's litany of American sins is well-documented, so you resort to semantics. Here are the top ten:


Excerpted from article by Niles Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation.

1. Apology to Europe: Speech in Strasbourg, France, April 3. “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe‘s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

2. Apology to the Muslim world: Interview with Al Arabiya, January 27. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.”

3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas: Address to the Summit of the Americas, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17. “While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms.”

4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders: News conference in London, April 2. “I just think in a world that is as complex as it is, that it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions.”

5. Apology for the War on Terror: Speech in Washington, D.C., May 21. “Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight, that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.”

6. Apology for Guantanamo in France: Speech in Strasbourg, France, April 3. “In dealing with terrorism, we can’t lose sight of our values and who we are. That’s why I closed Guantanamo. That’s why I made very clear that we will not engage in certain interrogation practices. I don’t believe that there is a contradiction between our security and our values. And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure.”

7. Apology for America before the Turkish Parliament: Speech to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6. “The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.”

8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas: Editorial “Choosing a Better Future in the Americas,” April 16. “Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.”

9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA: Remarks to CIA employees at Langley, Va., April 29. “Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes.”

10. Apology for Guantanamo: Speech in Washington, D.C., May 21. “There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world.”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32296

Each of these statements is an apology, even if the word itself isn't used. And, there is his abject apology over the Qur'an burning in Afghanistan, despite the fact that it was an accident, that the Qur'ans had previously been desecrated by jihadis in US custody as a means to pass messages, and the fact that Afghans used the incident as an excuse to murder Americans, for which no apology was forthcoming from Karzai. And there, he did use the word "apologize. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57383504-503544/obama-apologizes-for-koran-burning-in-letter-to-karzai/)"


Obama apologizes for Koran burning in letter to Karzai
By Lucy Madison

In a letter to the Afghan President Hamid Karzai, President Obama apologized for American troops having burned a number of Korans at Bagram Air Field, the main American military base in Afghanistan, earlier this week.

Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, confirmed Thursday that Mr. Obama followed up a Feb. 20 phone call with Karzai as a means "to continue their discussion on a range of issues related to our long-term partnership."

"In the letter, delivered by Ambassador Crocker this afternoon in Kabul, the President also expressed our regret and apologies over the incident in which religious materials were unintentionally mishandled at Bagram Airbase," Vietor continued.

According to the Associated Press, which first reported the story, Karzai's office released a statement quoting Mr. Obama's letter.

In the letter, as quoted, Mr. Obama gave his "sincere apologies" and expressed "deep regret for the reported incident."

"The error was inadvertent; I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible," said Mr. Obama, according to the statement.

Violence erupted in Afghanistan on Tuesday after Americans were seen dumping books into a garbage pit where waste is burned. At least seven people have been killed as thousands of Afghans have taken to the street in protest, some of them shouting "Death to America."

I await your admission.


A shot at NPR?

You sound like a member of a cult.

It was in response to your cultish crack about Fox. Mr. Pot, the kettle will see you now...

AmPat
03-28-2012, 12:25 AM
One of our other resident retards (idiot liberal), tried this same stupidity on me some time ago. He resorted to semantics to claim O Bozo didn't go on an apology tour. I suppose that means in the fevered and atrophied brains of liberals, he didn't go around bending over on America's behalf because he didn't actually use the word,"apologize."

I guess liberals think that if they try the truth once, they'll turn into Conservatives.

txradioguy
03-28-2012, 03:22 AM
You have a cute little nickname and dismissal for everyone who disagrees with you.

How adorable and expected...

Why don't you go back to what you do best BSR...threatening violence against people that disagree with you.

Offered to get your ass kicked in the SEATAC airport lately?

You need serious help. Why don't you get banned from here again sooner rather than later so you can begin your in patient treatment.

Gentleman Pirate
03-28-2012, 05:49 PM
Why don't you go back to what you do best BSR...threatening violence against people that disagree with you.

Offered to get your ass kicked in the SEATAC airport lately?

You need serious help. Why don't you get banned from here again sooner rather than later so you can begin your in patient treatment.

Do you really want to start this, cupcake? I was asked to quit picking on you after you ran to a mod and tattled earlier this week and got me a 24 hour ban.

It's apparent you don't want to cross my path so why try to look tough now?

AmPat
03-28-2012, 07:31 PM
:smilie_catfight:

An Ancient Pest
03-28-2012, 08:46 PM
I'm getting the feeling that this GOP race is about to be settled. I know Santorum is going to take PA - if he lasts that long - and he's real excited about that. But winning your home state ain't exactly knocking it outta the park. Even Newt took his home state. Which is more than we can say about Albert Gore.

Anyway, it looks like we're all going to meet at the Romney camp. And if you look at the states that pushed Obama over the top last time, well, danged if Mitt ain't sitting right in the middle of them. And one of Mitt's greatest, most vocal, earliest supporters is Gov of NJ, too. Add Rubio as VP, and Barry should just stay home, but that would be too much to hope for.

No, Barry will smile, predict, smirk, jog up to podium after podium, but in the end the voters will have their way. Finally.:adoration:
The problem for Santorum for much of this race is that he had a bit of an alliance with Newt while attacking Romney, when really he should have pushed harder against him to compel his base to rally around him. Instead they thought Romney was playing a "divide and conquer" approach and decided at the debates to focus only on Mittens.

Then again, I detest Santorum's social policy, so his defeat wouldn't bother me in the least.

Rockntractor
03-28-2012, 08:53 PM
:smilie_catfight:

Or http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/dispute/dispute.gif

AmPat
03-29-2012, 01:11 AM
The problem for Santorum for much of this race is that he had a bit of an alliance with Newt while attacking Romney, when really he should have pushed harder against him to compel his base to rally around him. Instead they thought Romney was playing a "divide and conquer" approach and decided at the debates to focus only on Mittens.

Then again, I detest Santorum's social policy, so his defeat wouldn't bother me in the least.
I wasn't aware he had a written social policy. What exactly is his policy?

Odysseus
03-30-2012, 10:01 AM
Why don't you go back to what you do best BSR...threatening violence against people that disagree with you.

Offered to get your ass kicked in the SEATAC airport lately?

You need serious help. Why don't you get banned from here again sooner rather than later so you can begin your in patient treatment.


Do you really want to start this, cupcake? I was asked to quit picking on you after you ran to a mod and tattled earlier this week and got me a 24 hour ban.

It's apparent you don't want to cross my path so why try to look tough now?

Is every thread on this board going to end up in the Dome because of this kind of crap?

txradioguy
03-30-2012, 10:05 AM
Is every thread on this board going to end up in the Dome because of this kind of crap?

Let's hope not.