Thread: Help me get this straight.....

When the President of Syria is responsible for the deaths of 30+ children it is an atrocity, and he is a murderer. http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-condem...222337999.html
What does that make President Obama?
In Numbers: CIA drone strikes in Pakistan
Total reported killed : 2,318 – 2,912
Civilians reported killed : 386 – 775
Children reported killed : 173
Total reported injured : 1,141- 1,225
Total strikes : 300
Obama strikes : 248

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...hits-pakistan/

Where is the outrage????

Any dead Paki is a good Paki?

The legal definition of a child is different in Pakistan than it is in Syria? So Obama's off the hook?

THIS:

Obama is our Lord a Saviour. We do not question the faith?

Ask the people who voted for him.

Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople

Ask the people who voted for him.

Well, I voted for him, and now believe him to be a war criminal, a thief, a hypocrite, a liar, and a murderer. (Disclaimer..... Romney would be no better).
Maybe it's the office and not the man, that is the problem.

Unsurprisingly, silence from the obama fluffers.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

Well, I voted for him, and now believe him to be a war criminal, a thief, a hypocrite, a liar, and a murderer. (Disclaimer..... Romney would be no better).
Maybe it's the office and not the man, that is the problem.

Unsurprisingly, silence from the obama fluffers.

Why so hard on Romney? The guy saved the Olympics and took zero salary. He shut down his company and sent everyone to NYC to save an employees missing kid. He gives more to charity probably than any POTUS candidate in history. There isn't anything in his record that shows he's not a man of his word.
When he was govenor, he mostly did what he said he would do. He has since flip flopped a lot but he didn't flip flop during the time he made the promosies.
I'm not a huge fan but the guy seems to have a pretty high level of personal integrity.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

There isn't anything in his record that shows he's not a man of his word.
He has since flip flopped a lot but he didn't flip flop during the time he made the promosies.

Man of his word and flip flop, don't go together well.

His policies will be no different than Obama's. Therefore he will become a war criminal, thief, hypocrite, liar, and a murderer. That's why I wondered, if it's more symptomatic of the office, than it is of the man in the office.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

Man of his word and flip flop, don't go together well.

His policies will be no different than Obama's. Therefore he will become a war criminal, thief, hypocrite, liar, and a murderer. That's why I wondered, if it's more symptomatic of the office, than it is of the man in the office.

I think you nailed it right there.

By the standard you are setting, very few POTUS in the past 100 years wouldn't be war criminals of some sort.

And judging from McCains comments today about what we SHOULD be doing in Syria many in the Legislature as well.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

Man of his word and flip flop, don't go together well.

His policies will be no different than Obama's. Therefore he will become a war criminal, thief, hypocrite, liar, and a murderer. That's why I wondered, if it's more symptomatic of the office, than it is of the man in the office.

There's a pretty clear distinction between running on something and doing what you ran on and then years later changing your position, vs running on something and flip flopping BEFORE ever fullfilling the promise. Romney did what he told voters he would do. Isn't that what you want? The fact that he flip flopped later does not diminish the fact that he kept his word while in office.

This record would indicate that what he's running on this time (while different than his platform as gov) is a platform that he will actually try to deliver on.

Where as Obama is a lier.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

There's a pretty clear distinction between running on something and doing what you ran on and then years later changing your position, vs running on something and flip flopping BEFORE ever fullfilling the promise. Romney did what he told voters he would do. Isn't that what you want? The fact that he flip flopped later does not diminish the fact that he kept his word while in office.

This record would indicate that what he's running on this time (while different than his platform as gov) is a platform that he will actually try to deliver on.

Where as Obama is a lier.

Aside from your final sentence, what in the love of god does the rest of that shit even mean?

Tell us about Romney's record as Gov. of Mass.

Explain the difference between Romney Care and Obama Care.

You go one and on and on about Hope and Change and the failure to deliver and yet you are willing to vote for a man who did one thing as Gov. and now assures you this time it will be different?

Brilliant!

Johnson 2012!

Originally Posted by Bunion

Aside from your final sentence, what in the love of god does the rest of that shit even mean?

Tell us about Romney's record as Gov. of Mass.

Explain the difference between Romney Care and Obama Care.

You go one and on and on about Hope and Change and the failure to deliver and yet you are willing to vote for a man who did one thing as Gov. and now assures you this time it will be different?

Brilliant!

Johnson 2012!

Reading comprehension.

I don't like what he did as Gov. BUT he did what he said he would do as gov. He kept his promises.

The topic is, will the candidate lie about his promises or follow through.

Romney followed through. Which gives me reason to believe he will follow through again. Even though he is now promising to follow through on a different agenda.

I could be wrong but his history is that he has shown a pretty high level of integrity and service in his life.

Originally Posted by Bunion

Tell us about Romney's record as Gov. of Mass.

Why are you so concerned about Romney's record as Gov. of Mass when more recently he's changed his stance from week-to-week on even bigger issues throughout his entire campaign for President? The guy is more cynical and more prone to partisan opportunism than even DBT is.

DBT you keep dodging the question.

I don't like what he did as Gov. BUT he did what he said he would do as gov. He kept his promises.

In the first place Romney was Gov. during the Boom years, right up to the crash of 2007 so please take into account that a Chimp could have had good economic numbers.

In the 2nd place, being the Gov. of a State, any State is vastly different that POTUS. Gov. is training wheels for the job and is most certainly better experience that being a one term Junior Senator, no doubt but Romney served 1 term.

You keep coming back to his record of living up to his promises but have yet to specify that parts of his record you admire. Not fucking with you here but please, cite some specific examples.

And finally, examine these and get back to me.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ding-massachu/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/

http://libertycounselaction.org/cont...ured_candidate

The 3rd link is from a very Conservative Tea Party type site...

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

His policies will be no different than Obama's.

Bigger increases in defense spending and propensity for war with Iran are two areas where they diverge. Obama has an appalling record of civil rights abuses and the aggressive pursuit of al-Qaeda has led to an appalling number of civilian casualties but that doesn't mean that the enormous pull of the military-industrial complex won't pull even harder:

We don’t have to guess at what a Romney foreign policy would be, we know that the vast majority of his advisers worked in the Bush administration or strongly supported administration policies, and we know the kind and the quality of foreign policy decisions that they helped to produce. On the whole, the Bush foreign policy record was one of incompetence, disaster, and failure. There were some notable successes, which included strengthening ties with India, but they were most notable for being so rare. Some of the high points of Bush’s foreign policy record were the major blunders he could have made but didn’t (e.g., attacking Iran/supporting an Israeli attack) and the bilateral relationships that he didn’t poison with provocative and insulting actions. Romney won’t make all the same mistakes, but based on what we know about his views we can say that there is a very real danger that he would make many of the same errors, and he would do this because he and his advisers are still convinced that they weren’t errors when Bush made them. It’s true that Romney has been forced to make things up or wildly exaggerate relatively small differences to attack Obama on foreign policy, but there are still a few major disagreements.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

Well, I voted for him, and now believe him to be a war criminal, a thief, a hypocrite, a liar, and a murderer. (Disclaimer..... Romney would be no better).
Maybe it's the office and not the man, that is the problem.

No, the problem is you and everyone else bought into the ruse. Everyone continues buying into the ruse. NOT ONE POLITICIAN IS OUT TO HELP YOU! It's a business. They are doing it for a paycheck and however they need to make that paycheck they will do it.

When Are you dummies going to realize that no matter who we put in office the song remains the same? Jebus I feel like I am talking to a wall here. There's no reason to bother arguing this side or that side. Unless there is a major world war or revolution this country will be like this for the rest of our lives.

^^^ I wish I could say this was crazy talk ^^^

But more and more the difference between Dem/GOP is less and less, in spite of what the nutjobs from either side write.

Originally Posted by systemoverblow'd

No, the problem is you and everyone else bought into the ruse. Everyone continues buying into the ruse. NOT ONE POLITICIAN IS OUT TO HELP YOU! It's a business. They are doing it for a paycheck and however they need to make that paycheck they will do it.

When Are you dummies going to realize that no matter who we put in office the song remains the same? Jebus I feel like I am talking to a wall here. There's no reason to bother arguing this side or that side. Unless there is a major world war or revolution this country will be like this for the rest of our lives.

You're being cynical and a bit lazy. The problem lies in what the USA is globally... actually is. We're the cops. Nobody likes the cops until they're needed. Many bitch and moan about "Police States" and "Authority" until shit hits the fan, then we second guess what should have happened even when we knew what the deal was going in.

Obama told us he'd follow the war wherever it took us, even if it was in Pakistan. McCain and others gave him shit for that, but he flat out told us. We as a country made a choice to continue this BS "War on Terror" so... bingo. War sucks. How any kids were killed in Iraq? Afghanistan? If you think Pakistan is an ally that actually cares to help you are laughably ignorant. Unfortunately (in this case) your military commanders know better. Look at those numbers - this isn't My Lai. There were some enemy combatants hiding amongst Civilians and in taking them out some civilians got killed. The percentages listed are waaaaaay better than what happened in Dresden, and we glorify those Veterans on a daily basis.

War sucks. This is what war means, kids - it doesn't work like in the video games. Accept it, or change the mandate.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

When the President of Syria is responsible for the deaths of 30+ children it is an atrocity, and he is a murderer. http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-condem...222337999.html
What does that make President Obama?
In Numbers: CIA drone strikes in Pakistan
[FONT=Helvetica Neue]Total reported killed : 2,318 – 2,912
Civilians reported killed : 386 – 775
Children reported killed : 173
Total reported injured : 1,141- 1,225
Total strikes : 300
Obama strikes : 248[COLOR=#ff0000][B]


Where is the outrage????

Please explain how what Assad is doing is the same as what Obama is doing? I don't understand your question over the lack of outrage.

Originally Posted by systemoverblow'd

When Are you dummies going to realize that no matter who we put in office the song remains the same? Jebus I feel like I am talking to a wall here. There's no reason to bother arguing this side or that side. Unless there is a major world war or revolution this country will be like this for the rest of our lives.

You're an idiot if you really believe this (you're pretty much an idiot anyway, but more of an idiot for the above, which as Tip pointed out is lazy at best).

If it had been Gore instead of Bush, would we have invaded Iraq? Would the oil companies have rewritten environmental regs? Would regulatory agencies for securities and other financial services have been gutted so they couldn't oversee anything?

There are several dozen other important differences in platforms and ideology, all of which are presumably lost on you so you can declare that all pols/parties are the same and it makes no difference.

And what I find most interesting about Syria is that the 'human rights' groups so concerned with the plight of Palestinians don't really give a shit unless it's Israel being accused of something. If it's Arabs killing or oppressing Arabs it's all good.

But no double standard, of course.

Same thing happened several years back when the Lebanese indiscriminately shelled refugee camps because they didn't like what the Palestinians were up to. But if Israel builds a wall to keep buses and restaurants from being blown up suddenly there's racism involved. Arabs are responsible for the vast majority of oppression of Arabs, but you never hear about any of that--it only counts if Jews are involved. (Doesn't excuse what Israel does, but it is revealing of the real motives behind much of what is reported.)

Originally Posted by AK47bp

Please explain how what Assad is doing is the same as what Obama is doing? I don't understand your question over the lack of outrage.

Assad kills 30 children and is called a murderer.
Obama kills 173 and is given a pass.

What's so hard to understand?

Liberals that would be outraged if it was a Republican are either silent or defending Obama. For proof of that see Dex's posts, which I can only assume are more of his cheer leading for Obama.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

Assad kills 30 children and is called a murderer.
Obama kills 173 and is given a pass.

What's so hard to understand?

Liberals that would be outraged if it was a Republican are either silent or defending Obama. For proof of that see Dex's posts, which I can only assume are more of his cheer leading for Obama.

I agree that the killing of innocent children is disgusting, but the situation in Syria compared to Obama taking out "military" targets is different IMO. Not that I agree with either situation. For these to be equal Obama would need to bomb a day care/school/etc. within the US. So, disagree all you want with the war on terror in its current form, I certainly am opposed to some of the approaches implemented...but this is really comparing apples to an apple flavored orange...pretty different, although killing of kids is super lame irregardless.

Where all these morons got the idea that drones were some sort of magical Terminator shit that only kill bad guys is beyond me. All drones are are remote controlled bombers. Bombs kill everything within a certain blast radius, including children and kitties.

DBS - "murder" is a relative term. It's completely dependant on who's sanctioning it.

Also - Dex can't get enough Obamacock.



edit: somebody besides me should link to the thread from a year or so ago where all the resident Obamazombies were all excited about Obama using Reapers to kill teh sassy turrists. and children and kitties. Dex is the only guy here who dreams of having Obama's cock in his mouth when he actually has Obama's cock in his mouth.


LIBRODOUCHE!!!!


AIDS!!!!

Do you seriously not understand that the country you live in is founded, and built, upon allowable "collateral damage" in order to maintain and sustain all of the amenities you and the entire nation depend on?