Bush is a hero

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#176160 Mar 23, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Oh brother! So because we hand the responsibility to Obama we cannot possibly be talking about real solutions. No you're not an Obama worshipper, not at all.
No, lisw, I don't think you want to talk about real solutions.

I think all you want to talk about Obama. You clearly don't want to acknowledge that this is something more than a "High Noon" confrontation between Obama and Putin.

The mere mention of the interests of the European countries just as, if not more, involved in this has you very quickly going into dismissal mode. The mention of a possible energy embargo by Russia (a weapon they've used before) is cavalierly dismissed as concern with 'creature comforts'. You seem to think the US should do things without consideration for what our allies want or how it will effect them. You take Obama's willingness to consider the allies in this process off somewhere into lala land - some silly nonsense about his preference to the 'European way', whatever that means.

This is all about Obama for you to the exclusion of anything and everything else that puts his actions in context.

Just because it is all about Obama for you doesn't mean it is for me. For me this is just another in a series of confrontations between the West and Russia. That being the case, you have to look at the actions of previous U.S. presidents in similar circumstances. What you'll find is consistency. That consistency is due to the limitations of the power of the United States irrespective of who happens to be in the White House.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176161 Mar 23, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>No, lisw, I don't think you want to talk about real solutions.
I think all you want to talk about Obama. You clearly don't want to acknowledge that this is something more than a "High Noon" confrontation between Obama and Putin.
The mere mention of the interests of the European countries just as, if not more, involved in this has you very quickly going into dismissal mode. The mention of a possible energy embargo by Russia (a weapon they've used before) is cavalierly dismissed as concern with 'creature comforts'. You seem to think the US should do things without consideration for what our allies want or how it will effect them. You take Obama's willingness to consider the allies in this process off somewhere into lala land - some silly nonsense about his preference to the 'European way', whatever that means.
This is all about Obama for you to the exclusion of anything and everything else that puts his actions in context.
Just because it is all about Obama for you doesn't mean it is for me. For me this is just another in a series of confrontations between the West and Russia. That being the case, you have to look at the actions of previous U.S. presidents in similar circumstances. What you'll find is consistency. That consistency is due to the limitations of the power of the United States irrespective of who happens to be in the White House.
Who are : The Good, The Bad and The UGLY?
hehehehe

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#176162 Mar 23, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>No, lisw, I don't think you want to talk about real solutions.
I think all you want to talk about Obama. You clearly don't want to acknowledge that this is something more than a "High Noon" confrontation between Obama and Putin.
The mere mention of the interests of the European countries just as, if not more, involved in this has you very quickly going into dismissal mode. The mention of a possible energy embargo by Russia (a weapon they've used before) is cavalierly dismissed as concern with 'creature comforts'. You seem to think the US should do things without consideration for what our allies want or how it will effect them. You take Obama's willingness to consider the allies in this process off somewhere into lala land - some silly nonsense about his preference to the 'European way', whatever that means.
This is all about Obama for you to the exclusion of anything and everything else that puts his actions in context.
Just because it is all about Obama for you doesn't mean it is for me. For me this is just another in a series of confrontations between the West and Russia. That being the case, you have to look at the actions of previous U.S. presidents in similar circumstances. What you'll find is consistency. That consistency is due to the limitations of the power of the United States irrespective of who happens to be in the White House.
This makes me tired but it does not surprise me. You, Wild Willie, are quick to tell Lyndi "don't tell me how I feel or think" but you are very quick to do it. Again none of the suggestions were made without saying IF he had done this first or IF he hadn't given himself this reputation. We in many ways know it's too late. The path has already been carved. Willingness to consider his allies...please give me a break. Obama is not thinking of his allies, he never has. He has treated our allies badly in many instances. Sending Joe Biden to Poland is just the latest.
So don't tell me I don't care about the outcome of this that I just care about criticising Obama. It really gets me that he is credited with things that had nothing to do with him but things go wrong and it's just not his fault.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#176163 Mar 23, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, you do have to take a calculated risk sometimes. That comes after consideration of what Putin's likely response would be.
My question to you is, how much of a calculated risk does the President of the United States have a right to take with the economy of Germany or Poland or any other European nation?
The flaw in this conversation, as I see it, is that in the haste to find something - anything - that Obama's done wrong, people are ignoring the obvious fact that Obama doesn't have the complete freedom of action that Putin does. He has to work with those pesky allies.
Now, you can make the argument that there are things the west should do collectively, and I'd probably agree with you - and that includes much of what's on bob's list. That hasn't been the conversation we're having thus far. It's been all Obama all the time.
If there was a single sign that the response of the west was being slowed or dragged down by Obama, we could be having the conversation you want.
Well Willie lest you forget the Pres does have a pen and a phone.He doesn't hesitate to use either rather than work with his pesky countrymen.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#176164 Mar 23, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>No, lisw, I don't think you want to talk about real solutions.
I think all you want to talk about Obama. You clearly don't want to acknowledge that this is something more than a "High Noon" confrontation between Obama and Putin.
The mere mention of the interests of the European countries just as, if not more, involved in this has you very quickly going into dismissal mode. The mention of a possible energy embargo by Russia (a weapon they've used before) is cavalierly dismissed as concern with 'creature comforts'. You seem to think the US should do things without consideration for what our allies want or how it will effect them. You take Obama's willingness to consider the allies in this process off somewhere into lala land - some silly nonsense about his preference to the 'European way', whatever that means.
This is all about Obama for you to the exclusion of anything and everything else that puts his actions in context.
Just because it is all about Obama for you doesn't mean it is for me. For me this is just another in a series of confrontations between the West and Russia. That being the case, you have to look at the actions of previous U.S. presidents in similar circumstances. What you'll find is consistency. That consistency is due to the limitations of the power of the United States irrespective of who happens to be in the White House.
Where did you stand when Reagan escalated the arms race with aim of bankrupting the USSR? What were the limitations of his power? Reagan UNILATERALLY refused to take SDI off the table and USSR caved. Did you support that very bold position?
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176165 Mar 23, 2014
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Willie lest you forget the Pres does have a pen and a phone.He doesn't hesitate to use either rather than work with his pesky countrymen.
More like use of a Sword and Book on Machiavellian on howto work the Americans and world masses to frenzy! ABhaaahaaaa!
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176166 Mar 23, 2014
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>Who are : The Good, The Bad and The UGLY?
hehehehe
one more thing WWW! Add new member to class: The Evil?

Thats for all Americans/world to think about!

Bahhahaaaaa
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176167 Mar 23, 2014
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Many thanks. Darn cat thinks the computer is her warm bed, afrer years of her laying on it its about toast.
Try a Dog! Bahahahahaaaaaa
MeOOooWWWW!
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176168 Mar 23, 2014
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you stand when Reagan escalated the arms race with aim of bankrupting the USSR? What were the limitations of his power? Reagan UNILATERALLY refused to take SDI off the table and USSR caved. Did you support that very bold position?
Off topic! And ReaGUNs VOODOO Economic did in our Americans . Bahahhaaaaaa
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176169 Mar 23, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Can I suggest you just shut up? Idiot might not leave but he was almost bearable until you came along with your stupid posts. You're half-way decent when you just talk politics and quit trying to be the playground bully.
that right telling USA_1 to SGUTUP!

I'm love with you, turns red for speaking up for the Idiot's Class agianst big bullies of society! i disappionted with others ignorumus on here for not looking out for handicap of society, those without a voice, the weak....

In life and in society someone has to be an idiot sometimes and has its place (Someone unknown author said it!) nice you to join a class of Idiots !

Wink Wink!:)......

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#176170 Mar 23, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>This makes me tired but it does not surprise me. You, Wild Willie, are quick to tell Lyndi "don't tell me how I feel or think" but you are very quick to do it. Again none of the suggestions were made without saying IF he had done this first or IF he hadn't given himself this reputation. We in many ways know it's too late. The path has already been carved. Willingness to consider his allies...please give me a break. Obama is not thinking of his allies, he never has. He has treated our allies badly in many instances. Sending Joe Biden to Poland is just the latest.
So don't tell me I don't care about the outcome of this that I just care about criticising Obama. It really gets me that he is credited with things that had nothing to do with him but things go wrong and it's just not his fault.
If I wanted to play this in a partisan manner, the obvious ruse would be to cry that if only Bush had stood up to Putin over Georgia ...

Of course, that would be crap, because Bush's options were as limited as Obama's are in a very similar situation.

In the Bush years there were people just like you are - so locked into domestic politics, the left/right con/lib rep/dem game that they can't see anything else. They probably WERE yelling about Bush over Georgia in exactly the same way you are honing your focus in on Obama. I probably had the same sort of arguments with them that I'm having with you, because the notion that this is about strength of personality or domestic American politics is just plain silly.

I'm puzzled about one thing, though. When a crisis breaks out, the US often sends a VIP to visit our allies. The Vice President of the United States is one of the VIPs most often selected. What makes you think that doing so in this case is 'treating our allies badly'?

I mean, is that supposed to be con humor, or are you serious?
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176171 Mar 23, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>No, lisw, I don't think you want to talk about real solutions.
I think all you want to talk about Obama. You clearly don't want to acknowledge that this is something more than a "High Noon" confrontation between Obama and Putin.
The mere mention of the interests of the European countries just as, if not more, involved in this has you very quickly going into dismissal mode. The mention of a possible energy embargo by Russia (a weapon they've used before) is cavalierly dismissed as concern with 'creature comforts'. You seem to think the US should do things without consideration for what our allies want or how it will effect them. You take Obama's willingness to consider the allies in this process off somewhere into lala land - some silly nonsense about his preference to the 'European way', whatever that means.
This is all about Obama for you to the exclusion of anything and everything else that puts his actions in context.
Just because it is all about Obama for you doesn't mean it is for me. For me this is just another in a series of confrontations between the West and Russia. That being the case, you have to look at the actions of previous U.S. presidents in similar circumstances. What you'll find is consistency. That consistency is due to the limitations of the power of the United States irrespective of who happens to be in the White House.
U all should think about this US an ally of india, wow this is how we treat our allies! Our dumb US had put Sanctions on India to not to deal with Iran Oil. India Irritated, instead had gone ahead and dealt with Iran by using its Gold to pay for Iran Oil instead.

Some of Our Western allies wants most to all of its Gold returned but the US reneged on promise only returning a few ton! It tells you Western allies are so pissed off, so? ahahaha
MwBhahaha! Biddy-eye bad bob and rest of his lowly Authoritarian grunting meathead bullies will go ballistic ! abbabaabababababa Mwaha hahahhahaha
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176172 Mar 23, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>If I wanted to play this in a partisan manner, the obvious ruse would be to cry that if only Bush had stood up to Putin over Georgia ...
Of course, that would be crap, because Bush's options were as limited as Obama's are in a very similar situation.
In the Bush years there were people just like you are - so locked into domestic politics, the left/right con/lib rep/dem game that they can't see anything else. They probably WERE yelling about Bush over Georgia in exactly the same way you are honing your focus in on Obama. I probably had the same sort of arguments with them that I'm having with you, because the notion that this is about strength of personality or domestic American politics is just plain silly.
I'm puzzled about one thing, though. When a crisis breaks out, the US often sends a VIP to visit our allies. The Vice President of the United States is one of the VIPs most often selected. What makes you think that doing so in this case is 'treating our allies badly'?
I mean, is that supposed to be con humor, or are you serious?
If that does not work send in the US economic hitmans and if fail US jackals and Full US military Industrial complex assualt/invasion on its way to bully little world of morons! ABbabaabaaaa Nwhahahahaha

Wink Wink Wink1 Bsbbebeebeee
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176173 Mar 23, 2014
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>that right telling USA_1 to SGUTUP!
I'm love with you, turns red for speaking up for the Idiot's Class agianst big bullies of society! i disappionted with others ignorumus on here for not looking out for handicap of society, those without a voice, the weak....
In life and in society someone has to be an idiot sometimes and has its place (Someone unknown author said it!) nice you to join a class of Idiots !
Wink Wink!:)......
Oops S/h/b I;m in love with you, and turns red. for you speak up for the idiot class.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176174 Mar 23, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>If I wanted to play this in a partisan manner, the obvious ruse would be to cry that if only Bush had stood up to Putin over Georgia ...
Of course, that would be crap, because Bush's options were as limited as Obama's are in a very similar situation.
In the Bush years there were people just like you are - so locked into domestic politics, the left/right con/lib rep/dem game that they can't see anything else. They probably WERE yelling about Bush over Georgia in exactly the same way you are honing your focus in on Obama. I probably had the same sort of arguments with them that I'm having with you, because the notion that this is about strength of personality or domestic American politics is just plain silly.
I'm puzzled about one thing, though. When a crisis breaks out, the US often sends a VIP to visit our allies. The Vice President of the United States is one of the VIPs most often selected. What makes you think that doing so in this case is 'treating our allies badly'?
I mean, is that supposed to be con humor, or are you serious?
How long did it take you to wake up on left/right paragidmn is tool used to divide world to wars?
Its about time all need to wake up! ABbababaabababaaa
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176175 Mar 23, 2014
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>More like use of a US Sword and Book on Machiavellian on howto work the Americans and world masses to frenzy! ABhaaahaaaa!
warring Frenzy!
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176176 Mar 23, 2014
hey where the negative icons! abbabaabbaaa

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#176177 Mar 23, 2014
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you stand when Reagan escalated the arms race with aim of bankrupting the USSR? What were the limitations of his power? Reagan UNILATERALLY refused to take SDI off the table and USSR caved. Did you support that very bold position?
Reagan and SDI ... really?

Well, lemme see ... worst speech he gave during his Presidency, bar none. Not nearly as responsible for increased Soviet spending operations in Afghanistan, conventional arms and ballistic missile buildups. Supported the concept of SDI, and supported increasing the spending on the research. Whether it was the proper subject for a prime time address at the time he made it ... that I wasn't sure about.

I supported Reagan's deployment of Pershing missiles to Europe, too.

The deployment of Pershing missiles to Europe - now, that's a lot more relevant than SDI.

Reagan's critics in this country ignored that. They spun Reagan as the warmonger forcing his dirty missiles on the poor Europeans, making them a pawn in his fixation with the evil empire - some such crap as that. The very real threat that Western Europe faced from the USSR wasn't something they wanted to consider, because it interfered with their ability to trash Reagan.

Some of Reagan's supporters spun (and still spin) this in a completely different way. Reagan, savior of the west, had the idea to deploy those missiles. The Europeans really didn't want them, but Reagan persevered.

The truth? The agreement to counter the new generation of Soviet medium-range with the Pershings was agreed to by the US, UK, France, and Germany while Ronald Reagan was still a candidate.

Every REAL action taken about the USSR during Reagan's presidency was coordinated with our Western European allies. There were no arbitrary decisions made by the American president.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#176178 Mar 23, 2014
Should have read "Every REAL action taken about the USSR during Reagan's presidency in Europe was coordinated with our Western European allies. There were no arbitrary decisions made by the American president."
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176179 Mar 23, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Reagan and SDI ... really?
Well, lemme see ... worst speech he gave during his Presidency, bar none. Not nearly as responsible for increased Soviet spending operations in Afghanistan, conventional arms and ballistic missile buildups. Supported the concept of SDI, and supported increasing the spending on the research. Whether it was the proper subject for a prime time address at the time he made it ... that I wasn't sure about.
I supported Reagan's deployment of Pershing missiles to Europe, too.
The deployment of Pershing missiles to Europe - now, that's a lot more relevant than SDI.
Reagan's critics in this country ignored that. They spun Reagan as the warmonger forcing his dirty missiles on the poor Europeans, making them a pawn in his fixation with the evil empire - some such crap as that. The very real threat that Western Europe faced from the USSR wasn't something they wanted to consider, because it interfered with their ability to trash Reagan.
Some of Reagan's supporters spun (and still spin) this in a completely different way. Reagan, savior of the west, had the idea to deploy those missiles. The Europeans really didn't want them, but Reagan persevered.
The truth? The agreement to counter the new generation of Soviet medium-range with the Pershings was agreed to by the US, UK, France, and Germany while Ronald Reagan was still a candidate.
Every REAL action taken about the USSR during Reagan's presidency was coordinated with our Western European allies. There were no arbitrary decisions made by the American president.
US tricked soviets to invade Afghansitan in '79 and from that day onward, soviets learn the hard lesson of sly US duplicity .of Art of war., so now they are caustous !

Whoa! b !

Bhahahahaha.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min Buck Crick 70,476
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min confrinting with ... 658,516
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 12 min Neville Thompson 282,932
Want men to sniff my wifes dirty knickers 19 min mar 8
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 42 min ImFree2Choose 3,017
Who won the debate 2016 ? 52 min Brian_G 5
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 55 min Truth 18,771
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr Brian_G 974,677
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 4 hr Hilary 93
More from around the web