Obama Administration's Syrian Hypocri...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#142 Sep 8, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
Start your own thread or stick to the topic. Stop playing the change the subject game.
Stick it up your ASS.....

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Maryland

#143 Sep 8, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
Start your own thread or stick to the topic. Stop playing the change the subject game.
Careful...or he'll call you goofy...
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#144 Sep 8, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Careful...or he'll call you goofy...
Between Pipedream, Bob and Go Blue's "stick it up your #@$" angry posts, we're seeing the difference between people who elected Obama because they were fed up with war and they truly bought into Obama's Hope & Change promises, and the sick progressive radicals that this administration counts on to defend them like attack dogs regardless of what actions they take.
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#145 Sep 8, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Stick it up your ASS.....
You can't handle this conversation? Fine. You're the one accusing others of dragging threads down into grade school insults. Yet here you are chiming in with college football comments in a thread discussing war and the death of children. Go start up your own thread about college football and let the people who are concerned with important events discus them.

Obama has not provided enough evidence to prove who was responsible for the chemical attacks on those poor innocent Syrians. Not even the usually obedient democrats in congress are supporting him.

Only 25 congress members are in favor of attacking Syria - and that's after classified information was given them in private sessions. Shove that up your ASS.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#146 Sep 8, 2013
For those from the right, that insist we stay out of situations, like Syria....then we should be able to cut defense spending by 60-70%.....you know, if we can only look inward? Let someone else lead....
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#147 Sep 8, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
For those from the right, that insist we stay out of situations, like Syria....then we should be able to cut defense spending by 60-70%.....you know, if we can only look inward? Let someone else lead....
This is not about cutting military spending any more than it is the Michigan football game yesterday. It's about a president's desire to lob missiles on a country and involve us in yet another Middle Eastern war despite two consecutive campaigns as an anti-war, anti-Bush candidate. It's about a group of democrats who for over a decade have whined and whined about Bush and the GOP "warhawks", now campaigning to go to war.

Stop trying to change the subject.
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#148 Sep 8, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
For those from the right, that insist we stay out of situations, like Syria....then we should be able to cut defense spending by 60-70%.....you know, if we can only look inward? Let someone else lead....
This is not about right and left either. BOTH sides of the political fence are resoundingly against this Syrian attack. This isn't about racism, or Tea Parties or funding, or any of the other lame-ass excuses you continue to use as weapons to avoid legitimate criticism of this administration's actions.

This president is trying to go against the American peoples' wishes, not just conservatives'. In an attempt to guilt America into allowing Obama to commit an act of war against a country who has not committed an act of war against us, the liberal media will broadcast horrific images and videos of little children writhing in pain and lined up dead on national television - images our children will see.

If Obama has enough evidence to attack Syria he should be able to get congressional approval without broadcasting horrific images to our children in some sick community organizing campaign.

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Maryland

#149 Sep 8, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not about right and left either. BOTH sides of the political fence are resoundingly against this Syrian attack. This isn't about racism, or Tea Parties or funding, or any of the other lame-ass excuses you continue to use as weapons to avoid legitimate criticism of this administration's actions.
This president is trying to go against the American peoples' wishes, not just conservatives'. In an attempt to guilt America into allowing Obama to commit an act of war against a country who has not committed an act of war against us, the liberal media will broadcast horrific images and videos of little children writhing in pain and lined up dead on national television - images our children will see.
If Obama has enough evidence to attack Syria he should be able to get congressional approval without broadcasting horrific images to our children in some sick community organizing campaign.
70% of all Americans are against the U.S. sticking our nose into yet another islamic religious war against themselves based on differences in their religion. All factions of that religion hate Americans already. What possible positive outcome would come from us getting involved?

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Maryland

#150 Sep 8, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
For those from the right, that insist we stay out of situations, like Syria....then we should be able to cut defense spending by 60-70%.....you know, if we can only look inward? Let someone else lead....
We will only cut that spending once we have helped the thousands, yes thousands of American soldiers that were injured while serving in these hopeless situations.
Or maybe those Arab nations would like to help us pay for their care and rehabilitation??
I bet not...

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Maryland

#151 Sep 8, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
Between Pipedream, Bob and Go Blue's "stick it up your #@$" angry posts, we're seeing the difference between people who elected Obama because they were fed up with war and they truly bought into Obama's Hope & Change promises, and the sick progressive radicals that this administration counts on to defend them like attack dogs regardless of what actions they take.
That's actually a great observation...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#152 Sep 8, 2013
Watching the last year's accusations about Syria....seem's to me that John McCain has been calling for ramping up our involvement in Syria...even IN SYRIA?.....guess no one paid attention?
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#153 Sep 8, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
That's actually a great observation...
Thank you.
Really

Grandville, MI

#154 Sep 8, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
Watching the last year's accusations about Syria....seem's to me that John McCain has been calling for ramping up our involvement in Syria...even IN SYRIA?.....guess no one paid attention?
You are correct, he WAS calling for it and has now changed his mind. Politically motivated? You bet it is, just like Obama's thought process. The American people should be watching this very, very carefully. Diane Feinstein spoke eloquently about exactly how the politicians view the voters. "yes, the majority are against it, but they don't know what we know." Can I be bold and interpret this for you? "Of course they are against it. That is because they don't know what's best for them or the country." Yeah, heard that elitist crap before. I sincerely hope that the 70% that are against this crap remember this at the voting booths in 2014. Vote everyone of their representatives out that vote for the resolution. Time to take this country back to "by the people, for the people, of the people."

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#155 Sep 8, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>You are correct, he WAS calling for it and has now changed his mind. Politically motivated? You bet it is, just like Obama's thought process. The American people should be watching this very, very carefully. Diane Feinstein spoke eloquently about exactly how the politicians view the voters. "yes, the majority are against it, but they don't know what we know." Can I be bold and interpret this for you? "Of course they are against it. That is because they don't know what's best for them or the country." Yeah, heard that elitist crap before. I sincerely hope that the 70% that are against this crap remember this at the voting booths in 2014. Vote everyone of their representatives out that vote for the resolution. Time to take this country back to "by the people, for the people, of the people."
Isn't that really how our system is supposed to work, though? I would'nt expect the public's input about reacting to terrorism, foreign detente or intricate, military operations, be considered as important as those pro's in position, much more equipped to make those decisions...It should'nt be like, America's Got Talent, where the viewers decide on the attack....you must agree, right?....Also, here is an idea, if they decide againest a military attack, in fact to do nothing.....could'nt we then cut huge amounts from our military funding? What would the point of maintaining costly overseas bases and a global presence?
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#156 Sep 8, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>It should'nt be like, America's Got Talent..
Oh, that's interesting, because an 'America's Got Talent' mentality got Obama elected and reelected.

The pros are deciding, that's why the general aside Kerry during his Syria speech, when Kerry asked if he would expand on Kerry's ridiculous sales pitch, said "no", and those congress members that sat through a secondary confidential intelligence meeting came out still resoundingly against Obama's warhawking plans.
Sassy

Grand Rapids, MI

#157 Sep 8, 2013
If the money was truly going to help the thousands of American soldiers I would have no problem. However, I doubt that it is.
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
We will only cut that spending once we have helped the thousands, yes thousands of American soldiers that were injured while serving in these hopeless situations.
Or maybe those Arab nations would like to help us pay for their care and rehabilitation??
I bet not...
Really

Grandville, MI

#158 Sep 9, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't that really how our system is supposed to work, though? I would'nt expect the public's input about reacting to terrorism, foreign detente or intricate, military operations, be considered as important as those pro's in position, much more equipped to make those decisions...It should'nt be like, America's Got Talent, where the viewers decide on the attack....you must agree, right?....Also, here is an idea, if they decide againest a military attack, in fact to do nothing.....could'nt we then cut huge amounts from our military funding? What would the point of maintaining costly overseas bases and a global presence?
Let me be sure I understand what you are saying....if we choose NOT to get involved with a civil war that impacts us not at all, we should cut huge amounts from the military budget and put the military members out of work and bring them home? Wouldn't that increase the unemployment level through the roof as the largest employer in this country right now IS the government? And if we indeed cut that military spending and put those members out of work, shouldn't we cut the Pentagon's employment and all of the defense contractors would then cut their employment? Am I understanding you correctly that you would risk putting this country into a depression just so you could cut the military spending?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#159 Sep 9, 2013
Yeah.....whatever.....I'm saying if our elected representatives, and military and intelligence leadership, are prohibited from using their arsenal.....againest a dictator that has gassed innocent people...that has used chemical weapons, in violation of a ban we promoted, signed and then ratified by Congress....then we should seriously look to downsize our military complex and drawback from our being a Global Military Presence.....If we truly cannot do the right thing, and help the helpless, because it's not our business, or that their is nothing to gain by it....then let's budget with that concept in mind....concentrate our military inward, rather than outward....and save the Trillions of dollars taxpayers have been paying for an overblown military complex, forever at idle......
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#160 Sep 9, 2013
Would this be the time to consider what the attitudes would be if John McCain was now into his second term?

I'm pretty sure that I'd still be against all of these Middle East wars.

How about all of you former chicken-hawks that thought the Iraq war was not only a great idea, but that we shouldn't have left?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#161 Sep 9, 2013
Bob wrote:
Would this be the time to consider what the attitudes would be if John McCain was now into his second term?
I'm pretty sure that I'd still be against all of these Middle East wars.
How about all of you former chicken-hawks that thought the Iraq war was not only a great idea, but that we shouldn't have left?
I'd guess, based on his rhetoric...we would have troops on the ground in Syria, and possibly Libya...if not elsewhere, also....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Days of Yore 12 hr Joe Schlitzpack 1
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) 13 hr Irememberwhen 1,080
Adult theater Cina-Mini two (Mar '13) 13 hr Sharon Sharealike 12
Local News Women (Apr '09) 13 hr American Dairyman 2,671
Why Trump is running for prez Wed Gville Jim 6
News a Very conservativea platform, Pence VP pick me... Jul 25 DR X 29
Politics aside, I'm sick of Beyonce Jul 22 Idea Maker 1

Grand Rapids Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Rapids Mortgages