AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

lowing wrote:

this train of thought is exactly what we are up against with this administration.
"It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, when asked for the president's thoughts about Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's suggestion, raised in an interview with The Associated Press a daily earlier.
Source

It was so flatly rejected it took less than a whole day to discount the proposal after it had even been brought up.

Yeah, that's the kind of thinking your up against with this administration?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
imortal
Member
+240|6666|Austin, TX

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

It is the proposal from his Transportation Secratary. The guy Obama decided is perfect for this job. SO my post stands, this train of thought is exactly what we are up against with this administration.

Nothing is wrong with me. How are you doing?
Is his Transportation Secretary a Democrat, or Republican?

It was a stupid proposal and has been rejected. That's the price you pay for bipartisanship. Crazy right-wing ideas of taxing your mileage.
...just a good way to find the RINOs in office, anyway.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

imortal wrote:

...just a good way to find the RINOs in office, anyway.
they stand out like a bull in a china shop.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6652|USA

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

It is the proposal from his Transportation Secratary. The guy Obama decided is perfect for this job. SO my post stands, this train of thought is exactly what we are up against with this administration.

Nothing is wrong with me. How are you doing?
Is his Transportation Secretary a Democrat, or Republican?

It was a stupid proposal and has been rejected. That's the price you pay for bipartisanship. Crazy right-wing ideas of taxing your mileage.
Yer right it is stupid, but it is exactly the thought process of this big govt.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

lowing wrote:

Yer right it is stupid, but it is exactly the thought process of this big govt.
If it was, it would have been adopted. Unless your saying the thought process is to explore every possibility, even the absurd and then cull the bad ideas outright.

If this were a Democrat this dumb idea wouldn't even had been brought up. (that's bait, don't take it. I'm not serious with this line)
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6582|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yes yes, by lifting sanctions against the terrorist state Syria. what a fuckin hero

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun … _02_09.asp


ya gotta google it, since it isn't covered very well, I wonder why.
Something much of the rest of the world are quite happy about. You're proving my point for me...
and how is that?
By providing an example of something that demonstrates that Obama is pursuing globally popular foreign policy.

lowing wrote:

Syria is a terrorist state
Really? Most of the rest of the world seem to get along with them ok. It's just Israel, and by extension the US, that do not. Obama seems to be moving away from unconditional, unilateral support of Israel, in favour of a more sensible long term peace oriented program.

No other nations seem to have seen much evidence of Syria being a terrorist state. Just outlandish claims by the Bush administration. Syria are building chemical weapons, Syria are building nukes with North Korea - that sort of thing. Given that administrations track record in such instances, I'd say they're talking rubbish. It's probable they have had some shady roles in some of the shady weapons deals that have gone on in the region - but the way they are portrayed sometimes is hilarious and clearly untrue.

lowing wrote:

and Obama is going bend over and kiss its ass.
By removing trade sanctions in a time of global recession? Doesn't make much difference at all - they never did much trade with the US. They did 24x the amount of trade with the EU that they did with the US (prior to the sanctions being imposed).

Hardly kissing their ass, removing sanctions your predecessor put in place for no clear reason (or for some bullshit reason about preventing proliferation in building weapons of mass destruction - which US trade sanctions would do very, very little to restrict).

lowing wrote:

Yeah I guess I can see how the rest of the world would love that given their jealously of the US.
Yes. Since everyone else deals with the Syrians and the US is the only nation to have imposed sanctions on them.

Before the US imposed these sanctions the EU urged calm over Syria.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-21 00:51:56)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
Syria is a terrorist state
Did Syria come into existence as a result of terrorism?
Has a large proportion of its Presidents and Prime ministers been terrorists?
Is it based on racial supremacy and ethnic cleansing?

Could we please sticky this thread and keep it for all 'I'm a neo-con and I hate Obama' posts?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

Dilbert_X wrote:

Syria is a terrorist state
Did Syria come into existence as a result of terrorism?
Has a large proportion of its Presidents and Prime ministers been terrorists?
Is it based on racial supremacy and ethnic cleansing?
Ouch...  good points.

I'm no fan of Israel either, but Syria isn't exactly innocent.

Admittedly, I do find it odd that we call several nations terrorist states but don't apply the same title to Israel.  Granted, America was also actually founded on terrorism against the British.

I suppose Israel and America have a lot in common in that respect.
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6501|so randum

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Syria is a terrorist state
Did Syria come into existence as a result of terrorism?
Has a large proportion of its Presidents and Prime ministers been terrorists?
Is it based on racial supremacy and ethnic cleansing?
Ouch...  good points.

I'm no fan of Israel either, but Syria isn't exactly innocent.

Admittedly, I do find it odd that we call several nations terrorist states but don't apply the same title to Israel.  Granted, America was also actually founded on terrorism against the British.

I suppose Israel and America have a lot in common in that respect.
We seem to have a habit of creating countries with a background of terrorism.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

FatherTed wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


Did Syria come into existence as a result of terrorism?
Has a large proportion of its Presidents and Prime ministers been terrorists?
Is it based on racial supremacy and ethnic cleansing?
Ouch...  good points.

I'm no fan of Israel either, but Syria isn't exactly innocent.

Admittedly, I do find it odd that we call several nations terrorist states but don't apply the same title to Israel.  Granted, America was also actually founded on terrorism against the British.

I suppose Israel and America have a lot in common in that respect.
We seem to have a habit of creating countries with a background of terrorism.
True...  or at least, they typically enact terrorism against you after a long enough time.

....Canada and Australia notwithstanding.
Warhammer
Member
+18|5682

Turquoise wrote:

Granted, America was also actually founded on terrorism against the British.
Be specific please.
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6501|so randum

Warhammer wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Granted, America was also actually founded on terrorism against the British.
Be specific please.
? lol
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Warhammer
Member
+18|5682
What kind of terrorism. I am sorry, but terrorism to me is more of targeting non-combatants. I know that there are several definitions, but I am curious how America is founded on which kind of terrorism.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6582|SE London

Warhammer wrote:

What kind of terrorism. I am sorry, but terrorism to me is more of targeting non-combatants. I know that there are several definitions, but I am curious how America is founded on which kind of terrorism.
Are you joking?

terrorism noun the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

Warhammer wrote:

What kind of terrorism. I am sorry, but terrorism to me is more of targeting non-combatants. I know that there are several definitions, but I am curious how America is founded on which kind of terrorism.
In the buildup to the Revolutionary War, we killed a lot of Tories.  Our history is pretty bloody, and the Founding Fathers did have a darker side in that they weren't particularly merciful to the British (including non-combatants).

While I take pride in us establishing our independence, I also acknowledge that the difference between freedom fighting and terrorism is sometimes a matter of opinion.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6550|San Diego, CA, USA
Poll: Obama More Popular Than Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 … ndhi-king/

Last edited by Harmor (2009-02-21 14:21:18)

FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6501|so randum

Harmor wrote:

Poll: Obama More Popular Than Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 … ndhi-king/
Polling a whole 2.6k Americans!

Conclusive i'd say
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
13rin
Member
+977|6480

FatherTed wrote:

Warhammer wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Granted, America was also actually founded on terrorism against the British.
Be specific please.
? lol
No. Revolution and terrorism are quite different.  Argue guerrilla warfare, but terrorism?  Bullshit.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

Warhammer wrote:

What kind of terrorism. I am sorry, but terrorism to me is more of targeting non-combatants. I know that there are several definitions, but I am curious how America is founded on which kind of terrorism.
The Boston Tea party targetted non-combatants financially. lol
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6652|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Something much of the rest of the world are quite happy about. You're proving my point for me...
and how is that?
By providing an example of something that demonstrates that Obama is pursuing globally popular foreign policy.

lowing wrote:

Syria is a terrorist state
Really? Most of the rest of the world seem to get along with them ok. It's just Israel, and by extension the US, that do not. Obama seems to be moving away from unconditional, unilateral support of Israel, in favour of a more sensible long term peace oriented program.

No other nations seem to have seen much evidence of Syria being a terrorist state. Just outlandish claims by the Bush administration. Syria are building chemical weapons, Syria are building nukes with North Korea - that sort of thing. Given that administrations track record in such instances, I'd say they're talking rubbish. It's probable they have had some shady roles in some of the shady weapons deals that have gone on in the region - but the way they are portrayed sometimes is hilarious and clearly untrue.

lowing wrote:

and Obama is going bend over and kiss its ass.
By removing trade sanctions in a time of global recession? Doesn't make much difference at all - they never did much trade with the US. They did 24x the amount of trade with the EU that they did with the US (prior to the sanctions being imposed).

Hardly kissing their ass, removing sanctions your predecessor put in place for no clear reason (or for some bullshit reason about preventing proliferation in building weapons of mass destruction - which US trade sanctions would do very, very little to restrict).

lowing wrote:

Yeah I guess I can see how the rest of the world would love that given their jealously of the US.
Yes. Since everyone else deals with the Syrians and the US is the only nation to have imposed sanctions on them.

Before the US imposed these sanctions the EU urged calm over Syria.
1. Yes I know, Obama is more than willing to do what the world wants, more than he is willing to do what is best ofr America or what is right. I get that.

2. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr … 60413.aspx

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/ … 55079.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P … 7nftww.asp

  your firends with this? None of the rest of the world have a problem with this, Wow. Then you're part of the problem.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6676|Canberra, AUS
Wow, that was an epic dodge there. Kudos for ignoring any details of his post.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6652|USA

Spark wrote:

Wow, that was an epic dodge there. Kudos for ignoring any details of his post.

Well what is it you wanna me to do, fly to Syria and do some investigating reporting to prove him wrong?

How about this, how about he post links along with his assumptions, that supports his statement.

Ya know, kinda like what I did with mine. Show me where therest of the world loves Syria and does not think they support terrorism.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6652|USA

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

this train of thought is exactly what we are up against with this administration.
"It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, when asked for the president's thoughts about Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's suggestion, raised in an interview with The Associated Press a daily earlier.
Source

It was so flatly rejected it took less than a whole day to discount the proposal after it had even been brought up.

Yeah, that's the kind of thinking your up against with this administration?
Ya know, It would not matter to you if the propsal was on the table to kill the first born of every household for population control, I guess. As long as it was discussed, and then rejected.


Govt. is the only solution according to this administration. I disagree, plain and simple
Ya really need to wake up
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6773|PNW

Holy shit, it's the God-Emperor of Mankind!

https://images.wikia.com/warhammer40k/images/d/d0/Emperor40K.jpg
...but thinner in the face.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6582|SE London

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Wow, that was an epic dodge there. Kudos for ignoring any details of his post.

Well what is it you wanna me to do, fly to Syria and do some investigating reporting to prove him wrong?

How about this, how about he post links along with his assumptions, that supports his statement.

Ya know, kinda like what I did with mine. Show me where therest of the world loves Syria and does not think they support terrorism.
You mean like the link I included about the EU urging the US not to impose sanctions on Syria in the first place?

You were concerned about Obama lifting the sanctions against Syria. I said the rest of the world would be pleased. I then post a link showing that the EU were opposed to the sanctions in the first place. That is a link that supports my statement.

It is not remotely difficult to show that the rest of the world (and by that I mean the vast majority - Israel obviously are quite happy about them) are either indifferent to the sanctions on Syria or opposed to them. There was not serious opposition to them being imposed, but nations did advise the US against them and did not follow suite when the US imposed them.

To suggest that removing the sanctions on Syria is something that damage the image of the US globally is poppycock. Since you have brought this stupid notion to the table, I suggest you prove it.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard