Should the US intervene in Syria's ci...

Should the US intervene in Syria's civil war?

Created by Hoosier Hillbilly on Aug 29, 2013

226 votes

Click on an option to vote

No

Yes

Unsure

Could care less!

And how far should "WE" go

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#549 Sep 13, 2013
191 people isn't exact a poll

“Maiden of Mayhem”

Since: May 08

OMFUG

#550 Sep 13, 2013
Hey a poll on Offbeat predicted a Romney landslide!

“"*" Always Thinking "*"”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Greensburg, IN

#551 Sep 13, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>....See Simon Cowell.....
Is this what you meant Blue? Your suggestion brought tears to my eyes.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x14mvrw_deni...

Level 7

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#552 Sep 13, 2013
How about that Rassmussen Poll, the Reich liked so much?...By the way, how is President Mitt?.....

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#553 Sep 13, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
How about that Rassmussen Poll, the Reich liked so much?...By the way, how is President Mitt?.....
Sadly, our President is named Obama...and we are stuck with him until 1/20/2017...no lol

Level 7

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#554 Sep 13, 2013
Marissa 2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly, our President is named Obama...and we are stuck with him until 1/20/2017...no lol
Don't worry....Hillary will come soon enough....

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#556 Sep 13, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Don't worry....Hillary will come soon enough....
I think if whoever runs against her has any debating skill, they will light her up in the debates. All that needs to be said is, if you can't run the state department, how can you run a country.

After the bombing of our barracks in Beirut in the 80s, we instituted minimum embassy standards for safety and the consulate in Libya did not meet the minimum safety standards ... not only that, but requests for additional safeguards were denied by the State Department under her watch.

Now, we can say, that Congress cut the funding to the State Department for security, and that is true, but there is something called prioritization. Anytime you are overseeing any organization with limited funding (and all government agencies should feel at least some funding pressure ... otherwise it just generates waste and excess) you need to prioritize. It's actually a requirement for good leadership.

She was already a highly polarizing figure before all that. Now her record is tarnished.

If she gets in, it will be because of who she is married to, not because of who she is. I think having Bill Clinton so close to the office again will not be a bad thing for our country. I think he was a good President ... I wish the worst thing Bush Jr. did was get head from a portly intern, lol.

However, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion she gets in, if the republicans can find a competent candidate.

“We're all Bozos on this bus”

Since: Jan 07

United States

#557 Sep 13, 2013
Hoosier Hillbilly wrote:
Should the US intervene in Syria's civil war?

No 135
70%
Yes 40
20%
Unsure 8
4%
Could care less! 6
3%
And how far should "WE" go 2
1%
Current Total 191

I guess it's only ?RIGHT? "WE" got our answer from Russia. SSOA Sad State Of Affairs
LOL which I'd normally write but in this case I'm not
At most, send SEIU over to do janitorial duty and try to clean up the mess?

Level 7

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#558 Sep 13, 2013
Piggly Wiggly wrote:
<quoted text>I think they secretly want that. Leadership is tough to handle. They haven't done the presidency right since Eisenhower. They do better as whiners and critics and are actually accomplishing more of their evil agenda at the state and local level. At the presidential level, people notice when "big government" doesn't get the least bit "small" during eight years of GW Bush and they start thinking that maybe it's just lip service- whining from second place finishers.
I'm alway's shocked that so many cannot remember anything, before January 2009....lol....except that unemployment was low in 1943....

Level 7

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#559 Sep 13, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think if whoever runs against her has any debating skill, they will light her up in the debates. All that needs to be said is, if you can't run the state department, how can you run a country.
After the bombing of our barracks in Beirut in the 80s, we instituted minimum embassy standards for safety and the consulate in Libya did not meet the minimum safety standards ... not only that, but requests for additional safeguards were denied by the State Department under her watch.
Now, we can say, that Congress cut the funding to the State Department for security, and that is true, but there is something called prioritization. Anytime you are overseeing any organization with limited funding (and all government agencies should feel at least some funding pressure ... otherwise it just generates waste and excess) you need to prioritize. It's actually a requirement for good leadership.
She was already a highly polarizing figure before all that. Now her record is tarnished.
If she gets in, it will be because of who she is married to, not because of who she is. I think having Bill Clinton so close to the office again will not be a bad thing for our country. I think he was a good President ... I wish the worst thing Bush Jr. did was get head from a portly intern, lol.
However, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion she gets in, if the republicans can find a competent candidate.
Not sure, the Right want's to keep leaning on all their false outrages....debates might lead to the House republicans and their many treacherys the last 5 years.....and those are real....

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#560 Sep 13, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Not sure, the Right want's to keep leaning on all their false outrages....debates might lead to the House republicans and their many treacherys the last 5 years.....and those are real....
Who says the republican candidate will come from the house?

And what you call treacheries most folks call ideological differences. If a republican were president and as president wanted to cut taxes and cut spending on social programs, and democrats fought him tooth and nail and used the fact that they controlled either the Senate or House to thwart him at every turn, would you say that is treachery. I don't think you would. Again, as you have demonstrated many times, you are not an objective political thinker. You are as biased as they come.

Fact: Just because the republicans don't roll over and pass legislation that Obama wants doesn't mean it is treachery. If Obama wants to get stuff done, he has to compromise, and if he doesn't compromise sufficiently he won't get anything done. This is something Bill Clinton understood, but Obama does not.

Another fact is, he's ultimately the leader of our country ... so if stuff isn't getting done, it's probably because he has poor leadership skills (and he has been criticized by BOTH PARTIES for poor leadership ... so I think you should keep that in mind and I will be happy to show you links demonstrating that this is true, if you would like). Whining about it doesn't change anything.

Obama suffers from delusions of grandeur and thinks he can get stuff accomplished by giving grandiose speeches. He's been quoted as saying how much faith he has in his ability to steer the American public. Hacks may eat his speeches up, but that doesn't get you anywhere with the other side when ideological differences are at play.

To some, it's easier to think he's god like, with great leadership skills, and it's evil republicans who are thwarting him at every turn, just because they don't like black people.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#562 Sep 13, 2013
Stunt Double wrote:
<quoted text>So what do you call 150 failed attempts to overturn Obamacare if it isn't disrespect, hate and treachery?
Disrespect to try to repeal a law you don't like?

Hate to try to repeal a law you don't like?

Treachery to try to repeal a law you don't like?

You have the political acumen of a drunk turtle.

I just found out my company is dropping our long time insurance provider next year, employee insurance contribution rates are going up by about 15% next year, and copays are going up, and there are limits on autism treatments too for my son. I'd say that's probably why republicans are trying to repeal the monstrosity that bimbo Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass before we could find out what was in it. Gee, maybe that is why republicans hate Obamacare...

“"*" Always Thinking "*"”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Greensburg, IN

#563 Sep 13, 2013
I can see by the 'look' of things nothing would change any minds so only to encourage I submit;
GO GET'm! Sublime

'i' thought it was only 42, you sure your right
Stunt Double from Portland?

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Level 9

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#565 Sep 13, 2013
Stunt Double wrote:
<quoted text>So what do you call 150 failed attempts to overturn Obamacare if it isn't disrespect, hate and treachery?
The right thing to do.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#571 Sep 13, 2013
Stunt Double wrote:
<quoted text>150+ times??!! Really?? Get it through your head, no matter how much you don't like it, it's the law of the land. Talk about a waste of tax payer money, this game of trying to make the President look dumb at all costs, scheming, planning etc. It makes us ALL look bad. If that isn't treachery against your country, what is dumbo? What other President has had to put up with this moronic code of idiocy from the right?
Why do you have to lie? They didn’t do this 150+ times ... not even close to 150+ times. Are we supposed to take you seriously, when you lie and misrepresent facts? Are you that big of a hack that you can't discuss this matter without lying and distorting the truth?

Not only do you lie and distort, but you also conveniently leave out the fact that a handful of members of Obama's own party, i.e. democrats, have voted with the republicans to repeal it! Did you even know this? Are they too engaging in treachery?

Further, let me ask you this ... what other Republican controlled house has had to put up this moronic code of idiocy from the left?

What other President rushed such an important piece of legislation through Congress, with zero bipartisan support, without anyone understanding what was in it, what the full consequences would be, that does almost nothing to actually make healthcare more affordable, and simply has healthcare costs and/or taxes (the losers in the deal) go up for many so that some can get subsidized healthcare or free healthcare (the winners in the deal)?

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#572 Sep 13, 2013
Working Backwards wrote:
<quoted text>No, not when it's law. The right thing is to oppose it, work to help it make more sense, help develop it, then accept it good or bad. Not spin your wheels AFTER it's set in stone.
Well gee, I suppose those types who fought to overturn segregation should have just worked to help make it more sensible, help develop it, then accept it good or bad ... because for years (and much longer than Obamacare has been around) it was set in stone that separate but equal was lawful and it was the law of the land.

Who are you to tell others what laws they must accept and stop fighting? Gee let me guess, the only laws you feel folks should accept and stop fighting are the ones YOU LIKE! Imagine that! What a shock!

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#573 Sep 13, 2013
Piggly Wiggly wrote:
<quoted text>LOL at your prioritization of *logic*.
After the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, one of the standards of security overseas was- in direct violation of Ronnie Reagan, mind you- to actually let the Marines HAVE BULLETS IN THEIR GUNS! I guess in your prioritization of things, you forgot that part.
What Ronald Reagan thought 20 years ago is irrelevant. I guess you forgot that part.
Piggly Wiggly wrote:
<quoted text>Under Hillary's watch, that CIA outpost in Benghazi were armed with guns AND bullets. No Marines though because they do Embassy duty. Benghazi had all the security a republican House thought necessary.
The republican house had no say on how the State Department allocated it's security resources.

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Level 9

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#576 Sep 13, 2013
Stunt Double wrote:
<quoted text>150+ times??!! Really?? Get it through your head, no matter how much you don't like it, it's the law of the land. Talk about a waste of tax payer money, this game of trying to make the President look dumb at all costs, scheming, planning etc. It makes us ALL look bad. If that isn't treachery against your country, what is dumbo? What other President has had to put up with this moronic code of idiocy from the right?
GWB put up with as much (or more) idocy from the left.

The current POTUS doesn't need any help looking dumb.

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Level 9

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#577 Sep 13, 2013
Working Backwards wrote:
<quoted text>No, not when it's law. The right thing is to oppose it, work to help it make more sense, help develop it, then accept it good or bad. Not spin your wheels AFTER it's set in stone.
Are you are recent immigrant to the U.S.? You must be. You act like this is the first law in the history of the U.S. that has ever undergone an attempted repeal.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#579 Sep 13, 2013
Piggly Wiggly wrote:
<quoted text>Civil Rights and Roe v. Wade are also the law of the land so, to be fair, they have spent years and BILLIONS fighting those things too. Ya gotta give credit where credit is due!
You are so ignorant ... It was the democrats who fought against civil rights. It was also the democrats who fought against the abolishment of slavery too.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 4 min Lifelover 211,643
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min messianic114 219,619
honeymylove (Sep '13) 18 min honeymylove 46
Poll Area 51 - Are they really hiding aliens? (Jun '09) 21 min TheJerseyDevil 28
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 40 min TheJerseyDevil 71,382
"The KISSING BOOTH: - Who Would You Most Like t... (Apr '13) 45 min TheJerseyDevil 1,613
A to Z songs by title or group! 59 min Emerald 1,002
What Turns You Off? 5 hr UnderstandPeople 429
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 5 hr UnderstandPeople 3,268
More from around the web