|
I guess we've arrive at the stage of the conversation where after leftists declare they "care about the children" coming here in droves with no provision for them now or in the future, they engage in a mob beat down of those who actually have charitable involvement with those same kids.
Meanwhile, their petulant messiah who cause the problem gets yet another pass on his blowing smoke up their ass by blaming this on the Repubs for not passing a bill which would do nothing to fix the situation.
|
|
|
|
I draw a firm line in the sand with regard to the families of those figures, most particularly the minor children and spouses that are not directly involved in political policy.
Since both Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi are very political, I guess you have no objection to poking a little fun at them. As far as racial undertones are concerned, liberals are the ones constantly reminding us that the Obamas are black and therefore beyond criticism. I also stated that I was equally uncomfortable with jokes that in any way attacked a person's race, ethnicity, gender, religion or age. And in that respect I have a couple of issues with this joke as it relates to gender. First it places the First Lady of the US and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives on the same level as a couple of hogs. And more disturbing it insinuates that Barack Obama actually "owns" the two individuals and as such can trade them for farm animals. OK, I admit it. As I said earlier, I lack a sense of humour. Or at the least, I lack a totally developed one. First it places the First Lady of the US and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives on the same level as a couple of hogs. May I remind you sir that these were not just a couple of ordinary Iowa hogs! These were a pair of genuine Arkansas Razorbacks! Certainly that makes a difference. |
|
|
|
I draw a firm line in the sand with regard to the families of those figures, most particularly the minor children and spouses that are not directly involved in political policy.
Since both Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi are very political, I guess you have no objection to poking a little fun at them. As far as racial undertones are concerned, liberals are the ones constantly reminding us that the Obamas are black and therefore beyond criticism. |
|
|
|
As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.
That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).
Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again? See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest. Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did. Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'." What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon? None of that supports your argument that a red line in Iraq wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Try again. You rather missed the fact that his red line in Syria was taken seriously: hence the Russian political intervention. You also rather missed the fact that one of the longest sitting modern dictators ended up losing his life when he was on the wrong side of our red line in Libya. You also seem to have missed how seriously Al Qaeda takes our drone program. Let me know when you have something backing up your speculation. |
|
|
|
As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.
That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).
Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again? See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest. |
|
|
|
Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action
Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line. No idea regarding Turkey, but I have to imagine Israel isn't liking the Iranian involvement or our acceptance of it. They may just be waiting to see what happens. |
|
|
|
|
Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action
|
|
|
|
So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...
Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.
My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.
I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.
Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.
Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it? Did he actually ignore the red line he had drawn? As far as I remember, Syria agreed to get rid of their chemical weapons, and it was not proven that the Syrian pro-government troops has actually used them (yes, I remember that this didn't stop Bush in Iraq). This is nothing to do with being anti-Obama and everything to do with him having drawn lines in the past and then ignored them. Thread starter's point was that if the US Came in and drew a line, it could end the issues there. My reply was that Obama has drawn lines and ignored them, and even worse has blamed Congress for his ineptitude. So since he's proven a line means nothing, why should they take anything he says seriously? Yet again, I don't think the world shares your misanthropic need for Obama to be the absolute failure you've been repeating he is since 2008. The reality is that any president would be working against the notion that working with the US in any real way would make them puppets in the eyes of their own faction, and right now this seems to be all about each faction grabbing as much as they can while the power vacuum expands. Think Russian state owned industry after the end of the Cold War: every fucking piece of infrastructure is now ripe for picking, and the more of it you own, the better your chances of continuing your cult of you into the future. And your supporters expect you to do this, because they have hitched themselves to your wagon--in this sense, imagine Ancient Rome of the fourth century and the never ending cycle of troops nominating their leader to be the new emperor. When this happened, you tried to be emperor or your supporters replaced you with someone else. In my opinion, there is a curve to overcome, and that curve is opportunity versus self preservation over time. SP requires you take advantage of O right now, but for SP to occur in the long term, you have to limit O through agreements. Right now, I don't think any of the key players can actually get their patrons to support the idea of concessions and compromise NOW for stability and security in the future. Not when the middle eastern version of the end of the Cold War is taking place, and there is so much up for grabs. |
|
|
|
|
Because maybe people with real stakes in a real situation don't give a fuck about the conservative anti-Obama movement.
|
|
|
|
|
There's this thing called division of labor, where we assign to those best suited to deal with an issue the responsibility for dealing with that issue: whether the Presidency, flipping a hamburger at mickeyd's, or arranging for the organization and care of a large number of refugees. Perhaps if you had the least concept of social responsibility, you would understand that taking care of your own in Honduras isn't quite the same thing as the former.
|
|
|
|
|
Well,Sana,the reason I think it's the worst is that because it is false to "choose one's friend carefully". It says that you are vetting them not on the basis of who they are, but what they can do for you in terms of your image.
I don't think it makes him a bad person, when I say the "worst thing I've heard from him", in a way it really is a matter of sympathy. This guy has lived a life when he could never be himself, he's had to construct his life to fit with others expectations.
|
|
|
|
Its amazing to watch these moon bats try to defend immigrants who have broke the law. Hence the term "illegal immigrant" which they have tried so hard to totally eliminate from our vocabulary by making it a politically incorrect term although it exact in its description.
Are we a land that believes in the "rule of law" or not? Under Obama it appears to be the latter. He seems to think that he should be able to ignore any law with which he does not agree. And since he is unable to get the democratically elected Congress to agree with him, he takes the law into his own hands or totally ignores the law.
Both Obama and Holder should be in jail cell right now.
You ignore the thousands of convicted sexual predators that illegally cross the border and victimize Americans and instead opt to debate the use of legal terminology versus the pretty language lefties prefer and then claim you want to have an honest debate about illegal immigrants? Pathetic , simply pathetic. Remember Chandra Levy? She is just one of thousands that would be alive today if our immigration laws were enforced, but the left seems to ignore these victims preferring to defend the illegal aliens who commit the crimes instead of the American victims of those crimes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/chandra/ch6_1.htmlWhile D.C. police focused most of their investigative efforts on Rep. Gary Condit and his relationship to missing intern Chandra Levy, they were slow to recognize another lead. It involved a man who was attacking women in the woods of Rock Creek Park. The day Chandra disappeared, May 1, 2001, Ingmar A. Guandique, a 19-year-old illegal Salvadoran immigrant, did not show up for his construction job. Around that time, he went to stay with his former landlady, Sheila Phillips Cruz, the manager of an apartment building on Somerset Place NW. Cruz noticed that Guandique looked like he had been in a bad fight, his face battered and bruised. He had a fat lip, a bloody blemish in his eye and scratches around his throat. Guandique (pronounced GWAN-dee-keh) had come from a hard-scrabble hamlet near the city of San Miguel in El Salvador. His father was kidnapped by guerrillas during the Salvadoran civil war, before Guandique's birth in 1981, and later executed. The son grew up in an adobe house with a dirt floor, no running water and an open pit for cooking meals. The home was decorated with family photos and pictures of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary taped to pink and white sheets of plastic that served as wallpaper. Guandique wanted a better life in America. A friend of the family lent him $5,000 to pay a "coyote" to smuggle him across the Texas border with more than 50 others. The seventh-grade dropout left home in January 2000, eventually swimming across the Rio Grande, crossing the border near Piedras Negras and arriving in Houston in March 2000. From there, he made his way to Washington to join his half-brother, Huber, and other family friends. Within a month, Guandique began picking up day jobs on construction sites and sending small amounts of money back home. He also had financial obligations to the family that paid his way. And he had another obligation: his ex-girlfriend, who was pregnant when Guandique left and later gave birth to a boy. In fall 2000, Guandique met a new girl, Iris Portillo. She was a tiny woman; even though she was a year older than Guandique, she looked 13. In early 2001, Guandique began to live with Portillo and her mother in their apartment on Somerset Place. The young couple took walks near the National Zoo and picnicked in Rock Creek Park. He was enamored with her. He bought her jewelry, including a ring at a Georgia Avenue pawn shop. I am trying to imagine just who you think wants illegal immigration....but i can help, no one. And when, may i ask, where our borders ever secure? Never. But, just so you know, they are more secure this day than ever in our history...more wall, more technology, more border patrol. That we aren't sending enough back home? The Obama administration has expelled about the same number in six years as the Bush administration did in eight years. On the topic of crimes...just what criminals do we embrace ever? none, so spare me your phony angst over illegals committing crimes, we have that angst over every crime from every source. Look, I would love to take you seriously, but you do not consider the issues seriously, just ignore facts and wail into the wind. |
|
|
|
Back in the 70s when I was young, there was an acquaintance of mine who was a dental student who had a friend, who was an astrophysicist from Pepperdine. He had a theory of a polar axis shift and that it occurs quite rapidly. He said that is what explained the mammoth found in the artic with still undigested food in it's stomach, the Beresovka Mammoth. Anyway, he said back then that it would occur soon, and would be cataclysmic. Of course, "soon" is a relative term, so who knows what was meant, years, decades, centuries, within the next millennium. Oh well, if it happens that way, just hold on and enjoy the ride....while you can!
We are about due for a pole reversal. Australia has had the south to itself for long enough. |
|
|
|
|
This is what happens when liberals/progressives have complete control. Thank goodness that press freedom still exists in America. For the time being, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
I just think its insane that anyone would commit jihad suicide and seriously think 72 "virgins" await them in heaven. And think about the perspective of the virgins, is that their heaven??? Talk about a fairy tale!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure the global climate changers will latch onto this and blame mankind so they can dig into our pockets for even more money. Just give them time, they're working on a new hockey stick chart that will scare the life out of lefties until they demand we fix the field and restore it to perfect balance and harmony.
|
|
|
|
|
Its amazing to watch these moon bats try to defend immigrants who have broke the law. Hence the term "illegal immigrant" which they have tried so hard to totally eliminate from our vocabulary by making it a politically incorrect term although it exact in its description.
Are we a land that believes in the "rule of law" or not? Under Obama it appears to be the latter. He seems to think that he should be able to ignore any law with which he does not agree. And since he is unable to get the democratically elected Congress to agree with him, he takes the law into his own hands or totally ignores the law.
Both Obama and Holder should be in jail cell right now.
|
|
|
|
I would love to see their response... They can't reach the US and even if they could they are not suicidal. Even at the peak of the cold war, when the USSR and the US had over a combined 50,000 nuclear weapons, no one dared attack knowing a first strike would not go without response. Now we get this bed wetter who thinks his handful of nukes, which he can hardly deliver, are some kind of threat... The worst he could do is invade South Korea, or attack Japan, at which point his rule, and possibly the lives of most of his citizens, will come to a swift end. |
|
|
|
|
and so therefore they try to make it seem as if republicans are against immigration when they are against ILLEGAL immigration... there is a bid difference....
|
|
|
|
|
"Blessed" is, I suspect, a regional term in general conversation, residing mostly in our Southern states. You virtually never here the term in the North in general conversation.
And if it is part of your linguistic dialogue you might not be a good judge of how others receive the word...just saying.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
