DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on March 29, 2011, 12:58:54 AM
-
I'm speaking of Donald Trump. I like a lot of what he is saying, and I think he could beat Obama.
Obama Spent Millions 'to Get Away From This Issue ---Donald Trump (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiTznXjGFkA#ws)
-
Trump does this presidential bit every four years, when he has a book to peddle. He is just a huge ego with a nest of weird hair on top.The GOP won't likely give him the nomination, because he has never run for anything before. The economy would have to be a whole lot worse for him to have a chance.
-
Trump does this presidential bit every four years
What is your source on that?
-
Another thing is I'm getting really tired of you saying who does or does not have a chance at becoming president or anything else. You don't know shit. You are almost always wrong. You were a loser in life. You have to spend 30 minutes googling every answer you give and you still get it wrong. You thought Dennis Kucinich would be president. And you were dumb enough to vote for Obama and help put us in this mess. So go fuck yourself.
-
I did not say that I thought Kucinich would be elected president. I said I voted for him in the Democratic primary, and at the time, he expressed views closer to what I believe in than anyone else.
I am afraid that I am not going to stop saying things you don't like because you are getting tired of hearing them. Your opinions are pretty much just run of the mill Limbaugh trash, expressed in a manner inferior to Limbaugh himself.
In 2004, Trump said he was thinking about running, then he said it again in 2008. I think you will find that he came out with a couple of books in those years. Not that he WROTE them. I see Trump as a gasbag ego who likes publicity, probably because he craves approval for some odd reason.
It would be fine with me if he got the GOP nomination. It would be interesting to watch him go down in smoke and flames. The GOP will never nominate anyone that does not suck up to the oligarchy even more than the Democrats.
The mess we are in was caused by Cheney and Juniorbush: two wars, a huge debt and then a crash caused by greedheads taking advantage of idiots repealing proper regulations. Note that the choices for president were Obama and McCain. McCain was clearly just an obsessed old codger who would say anything to get elected: he said he was a maverick, and now, he has somehow magically ceased to be a maverick.
I am a fine success as far as I am concerned: I had a job I enjoyed, I pursued studies that were interesting to me, and I was never unemployed. I am pretty sure I'd take it over your life any day of the week.
You the anti-genius as far as I am concerned, but Kramer is dumber still.
-
I lost all respect for you when you trashed Cris Christie. We both know that Christie would whip Obama's sorry behind. So would Donald Trump, but you are a partisan hack who will trash anybody to prop up your boy president. How about stating the reasons that Obama should not be president? Then you would be being honest. He's the worst president since Jimmy Carter, and I haven't decided who was worse yet. You insisted that Kucinich would be the Democrat nominee. And I told you he never would be. How did that turn out for you?
You never have an original idea. Anything you post is something that you googled within the previous 5 minutes. You try to act like you are pulling all this information from your memory banks until I caught you recently ripping off somebody's thoughts pretty much word for word online. You are a silly hack. You still haven't provided the source you found on google which told you that Trump does a presidential bit every 4 years. He doesn't even have a book out now. Trump may have considered running in '08 but decided it wasn't the right time. It certainly is the right time now. Things have deteriorated so much that even Donald Trump is now considered a viable candidate.
-
Trump is definitely a "wild-card"
My only fear is we nominate him and he would stumble
and allow Obama to keep appointing Supreme Court Justices.
2012 is really our big chance....we need to not blow it.
But I like a lot of what Trump says.
Trump is super PRO-AMERICAN which I really, really like to hear!
The establishment both Dem and Repub would hate to see Trump gain momentum.
Trump is his own man....he's not gonna tote anybody's line.
Which is another reason I like him! :D
I just hope Trump doesn't end up running as a 3rd Party candidate
because that would hand four more years to Obama.
-
Trump is his own man....he's not gonna tote anybody's line.
Which is another reason I like him! :D
=================================
One of the people's lines he will not toe would be yours.
I think the expression is TOE the line, not TOTE the line.
Lines are too light to "tote".
There is a distinct disadvantage to a president who pays no attention to anyone but himself, I'd say.
The GOP won't nominate anyone they don't think they can control.
And Christie might get a second term in NJ, maybe. A presidential candidate, no way. Watch and see, it will not happen. I don't think even Christie expects this.
I NEVER claimed that I was convinced that Kucinich would get the nomination. I voted for him because has guts and opposed invading Iraq. When I saw I was only one of two people in my Democratic precinct that voted for him, of course I knew he would not be the candidate.
-
I think the expression is TOE the line, not TOTE the line. Lines are too light to "tote".
XO I am just curious...why do race to point out my grammatical mistakes
but don't ever point out Plane's spelling mistakes that appear in
everyone of his posts? Remember "glass house"....I'm gonna slam on ya...watch it! ;)
-
I used to tell Plane about his spelling, but I have given up.
Plane posts interesting stuff about science and aviation, and he does not call me nasty names. I have accepted his creative spelling as a part of his personality.
I figured that you might want to know that the idiomatic expression was "toe the line", rather than "tote the line". Like "ect.", such misuse of cliches, idioms and metaphors are the verbal equivalent of a piece of spinach caught between one's front teeth.
-
You were saying the same thing about Kucinich, something like "He is going to get the nomination. You just wait and see. He is against the Iraq war." And you were quite wrong. Kucinich is a joke and he never had a shot at anything. And for you to share thoughts of Dennis Kucinich makes you a joke as well.
I hate people who correct somebody's grammar. It is really gay. It's obvious CU4 meant "toe" the party line, but was typing fast to get his post up. Just like your stupid posts have ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and ///////////// in them when you post something hastily, asshole.
-
It's one of the reasons he's garnered the label, Spelling nazi and/or Grammar nazi. Used to do it most of the time, until Ami started doing it back at him, for his errors. After that, he definitely toned it down
-
he does not call me nasty names
I am a "counter-puncher"
If you notice I never start calling you names unless you are being a shithead first (a.k.a. bully)
I have accepted his creative spelling as a part of his personality.
Maybe I should accept you sometimes being a shithead as a part of your personality?...j/k
Ok...yeah I'd rather not be known for mistakes....
So go ahead....keep me honest.....preeeSheAteIt!
I used to never use the spell check on 3DHS
I sometimes get in a hurry....but I use it mo these dayz! ;)
I've thought about telling him to use it...
But he probably wouldn't....
I figured that you might want to know that the idiomatic expression was "toe the line",
rather than "tote the line". Like "ect.", such misuse of cliches, idioms and metaphors
are the verbal equivalent of a piece of spinach caught between one's front teeth.
Ewwwww.
I floss everyday and I water pic everyday
If I would have started that 20 years ago I'd still have a lot more of my teeth
But a super-clean mouth is almost an obsession now
So no spinach 'tween my teeth....
But I do love raw spinach....cooked spinach is yucky.
-
AS I recall, I never said that I expected Dennis Kucinich would be elected president.
I said that there were three reasons why he would NOT be elected
(1) having "Dennis" as a first name. Everyone thinks of Dennis the Menace.
(2) having "Kucinich" as a last name. It is too Slavic for most Americans.
(3) being short. Americans like tall presidents.
I added that these were bogus reasons, because he should be elected, but that this was why it would not happen.
In the same way, we will not elect a bald guy, or a fat guy, not because they would be incompetent, but because image is everything to many Americans. I have nothing against my country being led by a competent bald guy, fat guy, short guy or Slavic guy. I was commenting on the way Americans create images. It is a topic that has long interested me.
You remember what I posted incorrectly. I know what I said, but you do not remember. That is not my fault.
I believe that if you refer to anyone as "shithead" they will consider this insulting.
-
I believe that if you refer to anyone as "shithead" they will consider this insulting.
Yes like I said if you behave like a shithead then yes I punch back,
but I rarely if ever throw the first punch.....but all my life I've
enjoyed throwing the counter punch at a bully.
-
I do not think anyone can bully anyone else on a chat forum.
Trump running for President would be the very nicest thing America could do for late night talk show hosts.
Not to mention the Hair Club for Men.
Have you ever wondered what goes on at Hair Club for Men meetings? Do they shampoo, comb and set? Do they compare the merits of Vitalis vs. Brylcreem? And why are there no term limits on their president?
-
I do not think anyone can bully anyone else on a chat forum.
Trump running for President would be the very nicest thing America could do for late night talk show hosts.
Not to mention the Hair Club for Men.
Have you ever wondered what goes on at Hair Club for Men meetings? Do they shampoo, comb and set? Do they compare the merits of Vitalis vs. Brylcreem? And why are there no term limits on their president?
Have you ever wondered what goes on at Hair Club for Men meetings?
Only a fat bald guy like you would wonder such trivial thoughts, the rest of us could care less. You seem to be fixated on peoples looks, specifically presidential candidates. Did Hillary's thunder thighs bother you at all, or the large black marks under her eyes? Did Obama's dumbo ears give you pause whilst in the voting booth? For someone that prides himself on being so damn smart, you come off as a little man; I wonder out loud if you suffer from penis envy, do you?
-
Trumps hair is ridiculous, but I don't care what someone
looks like if they can get our country back on the right track.
The Republicans need to nominate someone that can really,
really, really, "take the heat". Trump has potential. I assume
Trump can take a lot of heat and handle it. Chris Christie it appears
can handle the heat. Some of the others, although I like them
just can't take the heat or come off looking like a loser when the
heat gets really hot....Palin, Gingrich, Pawlenty...ect.
We need a tough guy to battle the shit the leftist are gonna throw!
-
Granted this is a bit of a campaign tangent, but I agree with C, that the GOP needs to literally start functioning the way Reagan functioned. i.e. This is the way we need to go, and then explains the why, very clearly, very reasonably, and not down in a typical elitist condescending mode. And when the left starts with the knee jerk racial attacks, classwarfare attacks, and personal attacks, the candidate needs to stop trying to circle the wagons and play defense
That's what torpedoed Arnold, as Gov. He campaigned 1 way (Reaganesque), was elected easily, then Governed another (Moderate Liberal RINO), attempting to placate everyone, and alienating everyone, producing some of the worst poll#'s at the end of his tenure, and CA on the brink of utter economic collapse
-
AS I recall, I never said that I expected Dennis Kucinich would be elected president.
That's true. I don't remember you saying that. What you did say is that you thought Kucinich would be the Democrat nominee for president. Big difference. Nice try, loser. You said he was right on all the issues and he was against the liberation of Iraq. You said something along the lines of, "He is going to be the Democrat nominee. Watch and see. He will be."
He ended up dropping out of the race for the Democrat nomination.
-
I did not say that I thought that Kucinich would get the nomination, either.
I said only that I voted for him in the FL primary. because the other candidates were gutless about the Iraq invasion.
There is no way that Arnold could have been a success as governor of California. I don't think anyone could be.
The voters there can vote themselves benefits with 50+% of the vote, but it takes a 2/3rds majority to vote for taxes to pay for benefits.
That makes it pretty much impossible for anyone to govern. The only solution would be to convince a majority of the voters not to vote for benefits, or to convince 2/3rds of them to tax themselves to pay for it.
-
I did not say that I thought that Kucinich would get the nomination, either.
I said only that I voted for him him the FL primary. because the other candidates were gutless about the Iraq invasion.
How do you feel about Obama's gutless attack on Libya, and his flip-flops, with regards to Bush and Iraq and just about everything he said to get elected? Pretty disgusting, right?
-
I said only that I voted for him him the FL primary.
"him him"?
Is that a grammatical and/or a spelling error?
I told you about glass houses. ;)
BTW XO are you aware the man you voted for Dennis Kucinich stated
that Obama's War in Libya may be an impeachable offense?
-
I fail to see why you call the attack on Libya "gutless". I do not expect any president to personally lead troops into battle. I expect any manuver in which our soldiers are unharmed to be more successful than one in which they are harmed. A "shock and awe" campaign does not seem to be a good idea in this case.
It seems that having Europeans do the heavy lifting on this operation is a wise decision.
Qadaffi cannot now enter Benghazi and murder everyone who opposed him, as he said he would do. That is a plus.
This could turn out well or it could turn out poorly either way, whether they decided to attack Qaddafi or not. I do not think that how this turns out is mostly up to President Obama or NATO.
I have never said that I agree with Dennis Kucinich on everything. No one is going to impeach President Obama, just like no one impeached Juniorbush. I would say that this is excessive rhetoric and nothing will come of it.
McCain and Palin said a whole lot more stupid crap trying to get elected than President Obama did. He's done a better job than McCain would have done.
I see no reason whatever to jump up and down and rant about everything like you do.
-
I think the whole rationale of the NATO no fly zone in Libya is to keep the number of Muslim refugees to France and Italy to a trickle.
-
I see nothing particularly wrong with doing all we can to limit the number of refugees. European concerns about protecting their jobs and their borders are no less valid than those of the US. I don't see this as the whole rationale, but it surely is one of several concerns.
Preventing the Libyan Air Force from targeting infrastructure is certainly a positive thing as well. The fewer people that die or are displaces, the better. Chaos does not benefit Libyans, Europeans or Americans.
Egypt shares a border with Libya, and the stability of Egypt has to be a major concern of the US, as the less disruption there is in Egypt, the less we shall need to pay out in foreign aid to keep Egypt from erupting. I do not think that a peaceful transition of Egypt from a military dictatorship to something more democratic is assured. Egypt is important both as a central focus of the Arab world and as a country that could cause major problems with Israel.
-
I see nothing particularly wrong with doing all we can to limit the number of refugees. European concerns about protecting their jobs and their borders are no less valid than those of the US. I don't see this as the whole rationale, but it surely is one of several concerns.
yeah lets spends hundreds of millions to help prevent a European border
invasion while we allow millions to cross our own borders illegally! ::)
-
I do not see this as related in any way to the US border situation. It is not a question of taking money from the US border to support a no fly zone in Libya. You present this inaccurately as an either/or situation. This is not the case.
It is entirely possible that the US and others are being reimbursed for this action in Libya by other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE under the table. The monetary cost of the first Gulf war was almost entirely covered by the Kuwaitis and Saudis.
The US and NATO do not want to be accused of being mercenaries. The Saudis do not wish to be accused of paying the cost of killing other Arabs.
-
I heard an excerpt from the Rachal Maddow show, where they're all in defending Obama's hypocrisy, most notably how he chose this "humanitarian" mission to place our military in, because it was apparently a small enough problem, that the risk to our troops was minimal. So, Humantarian efforts are good, so long as the dictator is a pipsqueak, and only a few hundred have been killed. But apparently bad, if we're talking thousands upon thousands of citizens being slaughtered or gased
And isn't China the chief purchaser of Lybian oil and other exports? So we're using our resources, and putting our troops in harm's way for.....China?
-
I don't think China is the main importer of Libyan oil. Libya certainly exports more to the EC than to China. Instability in the Middle East threatens Israel. The US is Israel's only friend. Any severe fluctuation in the price of oil threatens the US economy far more than the Chinese economy.
Your argument is largely bogus. The US and the EC are doing this for their own benefit. There is not way to exclude China from the benefits, but in no way is China the main beneficiary.\
Now let us imagine the hideous squawk that the reactionary right would emit if there were a Chinese aircraft carrier off the coast of Benghazi.
Imagine the screeds that clowns like Derbyshire and Lintball would produce.
-
The US and the EC are doing this for their own benefit
And that's to be applauded.......when its a Democrat calling the shots. Yea, I kinda figured that one out
-
As I said earlier, it may or may not turn out to benefit the US, the EC or both, because there are factors involved in Libyan politics beyond the control of either. It seems to me that this has a probability of turning out better than inaction. It is certainly on a very minor scale when compared with Iraq.
-
I do not see this as related in any way to the US border situation.
It is related because you stated one of the reasons for the Libyan operation is
to prevent a mass invasion of refugees/immigrants into Europe, and it highlights
the insanity that one of the reasons we send our military to Libya is to help prevent
a huge surge influx of foreigners into Europe when we wont even protect our own
borders from millions of illegal foreigners flooding into the United States. We need
to worry about our own border security before we send our military off to prevent
foreigners from pouring into European borders!
-
Not into subtlety, are we?
The US collaborating with the Europeans helps the US because it can prevent instability in the Arab world. Instability in the Arab world threatens the flow of oil, and it could easily threaten Israel. Libya borders on two countries, Egypt and Tunisia, that are in a state of transition.
The main purpose of the US engaging in this is not to benefit Europe, though that is an important reason for Europe to join in such an alliance.
Not everyone has the same motives. Is that too complicated for you to understand?
-
The US collaborating with the Europeans helps the US because it can prevent
instability in the Arab world.
And who will be taking over in Libya that will create all this "stability"?
Hell...you don't know any more than a bobblehead who will take over!
Instability is not prevented by creating a power vacuum for radicals to fill.
Not everyone has the same motives. It that to complicated for you to understand?
Yeah I understand it quite well and history proves it out that many times people
cheering the departure of a wicked witch are sorely disappointed when a new more
wicked witch appears to replace the old one. I also understand we have no business
being involved in a Libyan civil war.
-
As I said earlier, it may or may not turn out to benefit the US, the EC or both, because there are factors involved in Libyan politics beyond the control of either.
And yet, you just concluded "The US and the EC are doing this for their own benefit" I hope you didn't get whiplash, following that lerch
It seems to me that this has a probability of turning out better than inaction. It is certainly on a very minor scale when compared with Iraq.
When there are so many far greater humantarian suffering going on, Iraq being so as well, prior to our intervention. Yea, we got that too. How "compassionate" of the Chosen. But it does kinda reinforce my original point, thank you very much
-
Everything anyone says always reinforces all your original points.
You infallibility is amazing.
-
If you say so
-
Signs Trump is Serious?
Donald Trump "isn't just visiting New Hampshire -- he's in discussions to hire staff," Politico reports.
"Michael Cohen, an aide to Trump who's been hyping the real estate mogul's latest presidential tease, is talking to New Hampshire activists and is in advanced discussions with former state lawmaker Fran Wendelboe to help consult on a potential campaign."
Meanwhile, Politico also reports Trump "is in talks with veteran GOP pollster and strategist Tony Fabrizio as he mulls a potential presidential campaign."
-
I am all for Trump running for president. Letterman and Leno need more hair jokes.
Trump should run for president of the Hair Club for Men, or at least Vice President for Dandruff.
-
It looks like Trump is going to get in. Of all the possible mentioned contenders so far, he's the one I like the best.
Obama's flappy lips, big ears and dark skin didn't stop him from becoming president.
-
And who did you like best in 2008?
Weren't you a Rudy Giulani fan?
If you think that Trump will get the nomination, I suggest you do not know how the Republican Party works.
The last person they nominated as a candidate with no political experience was Eisenhower, and he sort of supervised winning WWII in Europe.
Trump's most well-known feat is combing his hair. Watch and see, Trump will be out of the race before half the primaries are over, or sooner.
-
Watch and see, Trump will be out of the race before half the primaries are over, or sooner.
Yesterday you said Trump was just trying to promote a book, even though he has no book out. Now you say he is running and will make it through half the primaries. Which is it?
Your predictions make about as much sense as when you said, "wait and see, Dennis Kucinich will be the Democrat nominee."
-
At no point did I say Trump would make it through half the primaries. I expect Huckabee will come out ahead in Iowa, since only the ultra righties bother to show up there. I don't see him winning in NH, that will likely go to Romney.
Amazon lists three books available and in print by Trump.
Maybe Trump thinks he can get the nomination. But I do not.
I expect he will sell at least a few more books because of his semi-announcement.
-
At one point you said, very clearly, "The US and the EC are doing this for their own benefit". Quite emphatically you claimed they were. No hemming, no hawing, no maybe yes, maybe no
Nice to watch these backpedaling exercises you're performing in this thread with RR and with "As I said earlier..." which as noted above, you actually didn't, "... it may or may not turn out to benefit the US, the EC or both, because there are factors involved in Libyan politics beyond the control of either"
-
It is very possible to do something for one's own benefit and the outcome not turn out as planned.
An example would be in buying stocks.
-
and........................?
-
and........................?
I think my post was very understandable.
Do you disagree with what i said?
-
At no point did I say Trump would make it through half the primaries.
You most certainly did say that in your last post. Are you backing off that now?
I expect Huckabee will come out ahead in Iowa, since only the ultra righties bother to show up there.
It doesn't even look like the Huck is going to run. He seems to be enjoying his tv show.
I don't see him winning in NH, that will likely go to Romney.
Probably.
Amazon lists three books available and in print by Trump.
Stupid comment. Are you suggesting that Trump is promoting his book Art of the Deal which came out in 1987? I bought that for a quarter at a thrift shop about 10 years ago. You typically promote new books that come out. He doesn't have any new books. Trump was just on O'Reilly yesterday and did not hold up or mention any books. You are a jackass.
Maybe Trump thinks he can get the nomination. But I do not.
Who cares what you think?
I expect he will sell at least a few more books because of his semi-announcement.
Dumb. How does one semi-announce, and yet make it through half the primaries?
-
and........................?
I think my post was very understandable.
Do you disagree with what i said?
Trying to figure out the pertinence. Dodgers have blue in their uniforms. Do you disagree with that?
-
I used to tell Plane about his spelling, but I have given up.
Plane posts interesting stuff about science and aviation, and he does not call me nasty names. I have accepted his creative spelling as a part of his personality.
I figured that you might want to know that the idiomatic expression was "toe the line", rather than "tote the line". Like "ect.", such misuse of cliches, idioms and metaphors are the verbal equivalent of a piece of spinach caught between one's front teeth.
Oh Shucks!
I think XO has a certain flair and charm , and as a man of wide experience with language and foreign mores is a real asset to the forum.
Notwithstanding that I disagree with his political opinions 90% of the time , that is what debate is all about.
-
No way at all Donald Trump is going to be a good president.
Has he been a good landlord or casino operator?
I really do not think so, he is far too prome to overreach , over borrow, over spend and then force his creditors into a box such that they are hurt worse by demanding payment in full on time than they are by accepting what he can dribble ......
On second thought Donald trump might indeed have the experience and skill needed to run the US Government.
-
and........................?
I think my post was very understandable.
Do you disagree with what i said?
Trying to figure out the pertinence. Dodgers have blue in their uniforms. Do you disagree with that?
No, they even have a shade of blue named after them. Why would i disagree with that?
-
By semi-announce, I meant that Trump has not officially announced that he is planning to be a candidate, but that he is investigating the possibilities. There have, of course, been no primaries, and he has made it through none of them. Trump is probably trolling for rich peckerwoods to support him. If he find enough of them, he will then announce a date on which he will announce whether he will be a candidate or not.
I do not expect him to be the GOP candidate. He might win a plurality in one primary or another: it is easiest to come in first in a field of ten or twelve. He probably has enough money of his own to run as a third-party candidate, but he would have no real chance of winning that way.
-
You're all over the map. You say Trump is not running, just hawking a book. Then you say he is just semi-announcing, and now he is going to make it through half the primaries. I guess you are covered no matter what happens. I can't imagine anybody takes you seriously.
I don't know if it is going to be Trump, Pawlenty, Romney or the Huck, but with all the damage that Dumbo, i.e. Obama, has caused, he will not be elected to a second term. You just watch and see.
-
Did Trump state formally that he is running? No, he did not. He stated that he is in the "investigative" phase of thinking about running. In any event, I do not see him as likely to get the GOP nomination, because that is not the way the GOP works, and I do not see him becoming president. I do not see where the Republicans have anyone who can beat Obama, especially since the economy is recovering. If Qaddaffy leaves and Libya does not become an utter mess, he could regain his popularity.
The election will not depend on teabaggers or other reactionary types, but on the independents and undecideds. Thus far, the GOP has no one that appeals to them.
-
and........................?
I think my post was very understandable.
Do you disagree with what i said?
Trying to figure out the pertinence. Dodgers have blue in their uniforms. Do you disagree with that?
No, they even have a shade of blue named after them.
Cool....glad we got that cleared up
-
At one point you said, very clearly, "The US and the EC are doing this for their own benefit". Quite emphatically you claimed they were. No hemming, no hawing, no maybe yes, maybe no
Nice to watch these backpedaling exercises you're performing in this thread with RR and with "As I said earlier..." which as noted above, you actually didn't, "... it may or may not turn out to benefit the US, the EC or both, because there are factors involved in Libyan politics beyond the control of either"
Post 23 in this thread states:
This could turn out well or it could turn out poorly either way, whether they decided to attack Qaddafi or not. I do not think that how this turns out is mostly up to President Obama or NATO.
I believe that post was made prior to your suggestion that XO would get whiplash with his 'lerching" hither and yon.
-
You've made three different predictions about trump: 1, he's not running, just selling old books; 2, he only will semi-announce; and 3, he will run and make it through half the primaries. These are very pathetic predictions. You are covered no matter what happens.
I see no reason why somebody like Trump can't get the support of the Tea Party. He's saying a lot of things that I want to hear that nobody else is saying, or has the balls to say.
Any Republican will defeat Obama. You wait and see. He only has the support of 38% of independents. He is doomed. The economy is not recovering. We are worse off now than when Obama took office. The deficit has tripled under Obama and unemployment has skyrocketed. The next president will have an R next to his or her name. Watch and see.
-
At one point you said, very clearly, "The US and the EC are doing this for their own benefit". Quite emphatically you claimed they were. No hemming, no hawing, no maybe yes, maybe no
Nice to watch these backpedaling exercises you're performing in this thread with RR and with "As I said earlier..." which as noted above, you actually didn't, "... it may or may not turn out to benefit the US, the EC or both, because there are factors involved in Libyan politics beyond the control of either"
Post 23 in this thread states:
This could turn out well or it could turn out poorly either way, whether they decided to attack Qaddafi or not. I do not think that how this turns out is mostly up to President Obama or NATO.
I believe that post was made prior to your suggestion that XO would get whiplash with his 'lerching" hither and yon.
Twernt my suggestion. Very clearly "The US and the EC are doing this for their own benefit", with the then subsequent backpedaling "... it may or may not turn out to benefit the US, the EC or both"
-
Twernt my suggestion. Very clearly "The US and the EC are doing this for their own benefit", with the then subsequent backpedaling "... it may or may not turn out to benefit the US, the EC or both"
The point is he clearly stated prior to your accusation of backpedaling that things might not turn out as planned. so ergo no backpedaling.
-
Ergo, you'd be wrong, as he made clear his position, then backpedaled from it, like he's been doing with RR. But cudos on the defensive effort
-
Ergo, you'd be wrong, as he made clear his position, then backpedaled from it, like he's been doing with RR. But cudos on the defensive effort
Or you could be wrong , as the evidence suggests.
-
The evidence suggests the contrary. In fact, your presentation of the "evidence" appears to be a design to insulate criticism, as someone can make 1 comment, saying 1 thing, then make another of a different bent, and be allowed to remain within that bubble of immunity, as apparently it can be either/or
Interesting
-
The evidence suggests the contrary. In fact, your presentation of the "evidence" appears to be a design to insulate criticism, as someone can make 1 comment, saying 1 thing, then make another of a different bent, and be allowed to remain within that bubble of immunity, as apparently it can be either/or
Interesting
In this case. His statements do not contradict each other.
Could the no fly zone be to the benefit of Europe and the US?
Is it possible that the no fly zone might not work as intended?
or using my original analogy.
Can it be beneficial to invest in the stockmarket.
Is there a guarantee that those investments will turn out as expected?
Perhaps you would be better served in examining why you made your statements instead of inferring motivations into why i made mine.
-
The evidence suggests the contrary. In fact, your presentation of the "evidence" appears to be a design to insulate criticism, as someone can make 1 comment, saying 1 thing, then make another of a different bent, and be allowed to remain within that bubble of immunity, as apparently it can be either/or
Interesting
In this case. His statements do not contradict each other.
Sure they do. He emphatically said they U.S. and EU were in Lybia for their own self interests (constant criticism applied to Bush, by the likes of Xo, when we were in Iraq), then quickly backpedaled to maybe/maybe not their doing it for their own self interests
It's irrelevant what YOU think our self interests are, YOU didn't make the contradictory statements
-
He emphatically said they U.S. and EU were in Lybia for their own self interests
Is that a true statement? Would a no fly zone be in European and US self interests?
then quickly backpedaled to maybe/maybe not their doing it for their own self interests
Actually he never claimed it wasn't in their self interests. He claimed that their actions may not turn out how they planned. Prior to the blanket statement you are trying to infer could cause whiplash.
It's irrelevant what YOU think our self interests are, YOU didn't make the contradictory statements
My issue is not with XO's statement. It is with your erroneous inference and deductive conclusion.
-
He emphatically said they U.S. and EU were in Lybia for their own self interests
Is that a true statement?
Not really relevent to the point made with the subsequent maybe/maybe the're not doing it for their own self interests
Not sure why your having such a hard time with this, since I'm not making the point of self interest or not. Xo is the one making the inconsistent conclusions
-
I made no conclusions at all. I merely said that both the US and Europe thought it was in their best interests to intervene i Libya, but that the result may or may not be what they hoped it would be.
I do think that the odds are slightly in favor of this being the right move.
Of course, we shall never know whether Qadaffi would have stormed Benghazi and exterminated his opposition one by one as he said he would do. Perhaps he had the power, but not the will to do this, perhaps he had the will but lacked the power. Since he cannot take over Benghazi now, we shall never know what was prevented.
-
Of
I do think that the odds are slightly in favor of this being the right move.
But of course.....it's a Democrat who made the call to go in
-
That has nothing at all to do with anything.
-
I merely said that both the US and Europe thought it was in their best interests to intervene i Libya
And then you backpeddled and admitted that it may not be in the U.S.'s best interests when pressed by Sirs. You are in asscovering mode right now, which is what happens when you defend or justify every boneheaded thing somebody with a "D" after their name does. You are trying to cover yourself no matter what happens, and it is disgusting.
We need to be paid back by the Arab states for our involvement and initiation of the Libyan war. Let us see if Obama is competent enough to do that. We don't have money to throw around right now.
-
And then you backpeddled and admitted that it may not be in the U.S.'s best interests when pressed by Sirs.
Where did he say that?
-
And then you backpeddled and admitted that it may not be in the U.S.'s best interests when pressed by Sirs. You are in asscovering mode right now, which is what happens when you defend or justify every boneheaded thing somebody with a "D" after their name does. You are trying to cover yourself no matter what happens, and it is disgusting.
==========================================================================
While is is rather pleasant to know that I have managed to disgust you, I do not make Middle Eastern policy, nor do I believe that anything I say in this rather obscure chat forum will have any effect whatever.
I was simply commenting that the US and Europe both had reasons, though not identical reasons, for trying to stem the violence in Libya and to bring around the end of Qaddaffi. Qaddaffi is a mercurial and rather ineffective leader. Libya has so few people and so much oil that it should be a cinch for him to make every Libyan happy, in the same way that the Emirs of the UAE seem to have made all the Emiris happy. Money can buy rather a lot of happiness, certainly enough to render political opposition somewhat moot, and Qaddaffi has not managed that.
Then I simply mentioned that they seemed to have a pretty good understanding of the situation, but that this did not mean that everything would turn out as they planned. The Libyans are the major unpredictable factor here, after all.
-
That was a very convoluted answer. It's like you are dancing on the top of a pin to explain your contradictory statements to Sirs about Libya. Now, BT is doing a good job trying to bail your dumb ass out, and I give him credit for that. But I frankly don't think you deserve it.
The fact is the Libyan war is not in our interests. We do not purchase any oil from Libya. This war is in the interests of Europe and China, who do purchase a lot of oil from Libya, and they want it to keep flowing. We should not have gotten involved in this mess. We should have consulted and that's it. We could have provided our best minds to come up with strategy, but that's it. We don't have the money right now to get involved in a civil war in Libya. We have spent a billion dollars for what? The best we can hope for now is a stalemate. Gaddafi may not even leave power. Obama is a joke.
-
It was not a convoluted answer at all. The problem is that your mind seems incapable of detecting any degree of nuance.
What is absurd in the extreme about this entire topic is that the motive for "I can really start seeing this guy as president now" was based on Trump pretending to be some sort of birther.
Why should an opinion on Obama's place of birth qualify anyone for president? It shows that he is monumentally ignorant or is so desperate for recognition, like Huckabee and his wacko Mau-mau crack, that he caters to idiots.
How does not run the White House based on the opinion that his predecessor was ineligible to be president?
As for the war in Libya, I am absolutely sure that if Qaddaffi had actually gone through with taking Benghazi and slaughtering all the people as he promised, that Kramer, RR and "Christians" would be all over him for NOT taking action. As it is, it seemed to me to be the proper course of action, based on the facts that I read.
-
I do think that the odds are slightly in favor of this being the right move.
But of course.....it's a Democrat who made the call to go in
That has nothing at all to do with anything.
Of course it does. Iraq was a far greater humanitarian tragedy. It's dictator even used WMD on his citizens. Iraq is a far greater oil exporter than Libya, and has far greater interests to the U.S., both in the stability of the ME, and as a haven for terrorist activity. But Bush, having the (R) after his name is vilified, should be brought up on criminal charges. Obama on the other hand....well, its a good thing now, and "the right move", despite that he never even went to congress to get any authorization
Your hypocritical double standard is quite a thing to behold
-
Saddam Hussein did not state that he was going to slaughter an entire city of Iraqis.
The Iraqi resistance to Saddam did not request air cover.
Again, you lack the ability to distinguish any degree of nuance.
-
Saddam Hussein did not state that he was going to slaughter an entire city of Iraqis.
He didn't have the state it....he DID IT. Iraqi Kurds in the north were slaughtered with WMD
The Iraqi resistance to Saddam did not request air cover.
Again, you lack the ability to distinguish any degree of nuance.
Countries and their citizens across the globe ask, practically beg for our help and "cover". I realize the need to backpedal to the "nuance defense". Believe me, if this was about nuance, you'd have a leg to stand on. This is referred to as reality and who has the R after their name, and who has the D. R's are to be brought up on criminal charges. D's...well....are slightly in favor of this being the right move
-
The US did not attack Saddam Hussein in 2003 because he killed some Kurds in 1988. That argument is spurious. It MIGHT have made sense to attack him for this in 1988, not 15 years later.
-
Doesn't matter...the point remains that he DID. The point remains it was a GREATER humanitarian effort in Iraq. The point remains that Iraq was a far GREATER interest to the U.S. and its immediate neighbors/allies.
No nuance needed. Its called reality
-
Actually, XO does support the Iraq war now. Obama is still in Iraq and XO hasn't said a peep about it. His support is very nuanced. It's because Obama has a "D" after his name.
-
Good point....not a peep. When the President had an R, it was daily condemnation
-
I am all for them leaving Iraq and Afghanistan as well. But they need to make sure that Al Qaeda does not take over when they do.
Libya is not a major effort as Iraq was.
-
I am all for them leaving Iraq and Afghanistan as well. But they need to make sure that Al Qaeda does not take over when they do.
Which is why Bush kept up the efforts as well. Yet he was verbally crucified by the likes of you, on a daily basis
Libya is not a major effort as Iraq was.
Again, the notion that a humantarin is small, is why we should go in? Thousands, or just the mere threat of thousands, we go in. But tens of thousands, already murdered/slaughtered, well, we need to bring our President up on criminal charges, for going in on that one.
Keep digging, Xo
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn110404_02_cmyk20110404030632.jpg)