I thought Obama cared about innocent people being killed?
I guess since Saudi Arabia and the Arab league didn't ask us to go in, there is no motivation.
I thought Obama cared about innocent people being killed?
I guess since Saudi Arabia and the Arab league didn't ask us to go in, there is no motivation.
I thought Obama cared about innocent people being killed?
I guess since Saudi Arabia and the Arab league didn't ask us to go in, there is no motivation.
I had a hunch which "follow what Faux News tells me to think" right wing etremist would point a finger Obama's way.
You were 5-1 but I knew the Rick of 2013 that blames everything on Obama and Dems would come through.
I thought Obama cared about innocent people being killed?
I guess since Saudi Arabia and the Arab league didn't ask us to go in, there is no motivation.
I had a hunch which "follow what Faux News tells me to think" right wing etremist would point a finger Obama's way.
You were 5-1 but I knew the Rick of 2013 that blames everything on Obama and Dems would come through.
I had a hunch which "follow what Faux News tells me to think" right wing etremist would point a finger Obama's way.
You were 5-1 but I knew the Rick of 2013 that blames everything on Obama and Dems would come through.
I had a hunch which "follow what Faux News tells me to think" right wing etremist would point a finger Obama's way.
You were 5-1 but I knew the Rick of 2013 that blames everything on Obama and Dems would come through.
Perhaps if you and the other less than free thinkers could actually discuss an issue/situation without a simple recitation of blaming everything on Obama, we could have an intelligent debate on issues.
Perhaps you can offer a dissertation on the complexities of diplomacy involving North Korea including the options of intervention/isolationism/sanctions among others.
Or instead, you could do what the poster I responded to did, by reciting the "blame Obama" mantra that is so easy in words, but more difficult when it involves further discussions on the issue.
Like how people tend to blame Obama for health care woes, simply because Faux News forgets all history on the subject prior to 2010.
You like to state that minimum wage earners have the opportunity to move up in the world with effort. Lets see you move up in the intellectual world by offering insight and analysis.
Perhaps if you and the other less than free thinkers could actually discuss an issue/situation without a simple recitation of blaming everything on Obama, we could have an intelligent debate on issues.
Perhaps you can offer a dissertation on the complexities of diplomacy involving North Korea including the options of intervention/isolationism/sanctions among others.
Or instead, you could do what the poster I responded to did, by reciting the "blame Obama" mantra that is so easy in words, but more difficult when it involves further discussions on the issue.
Like how people tend to blame Obama for health care woes, simply because Faux News forgets all history on the subject prior to 2010.
You like to state that minimum wage earners have the opportunity to move up in the world with effort. Lets see you move up in the intellectual world by offering insight and analysis.
Perhaps if you and the other less than free thinkers could actually discuss an issue/situation without a simple recitation of blaming everything on Obama, we could have an intelligent debate on issues.
Perhaps you can offer a dissertation on the complexities of diplomacy involving North Korea including the options of intervention/isolationism/sanctions among others.
Or instead, you could do what the poster I responded to did, by reciting the "blame Obama" mantra that is so easy in words, but more difficult when it involves further discussions on the issue.
Like how people tend to blame Obama for health care woes, simply because Faux News forgets all history on the subject prior to 2010.
You like to state that minimum wage earners have the opportunity to move up in the world with effort. Lets see you move up in the intellectual world by offering insight and analysis.
Perhaps if you and the other less than free thinkers could actually discuss an issue/situation without a simple recitation of blaming everything on Obama, we could have an intelligent debate on issues.
Perhaps you can offer a dissertation on the complexities of diplomacy involving North Korea including the options of intervention/isolationism/sanctions among others.
Or instead, you could do what the poster I responded to did, by reciting the "blame Obama" mantra that is so easy in words, but more difficult when it involves further discussions on the issue.
Like how people tend to blame Obama for health care woes, simply because Faux News forgets all history on the subject prior to 2010.
You like to state that minimum wage earners have the opportunity to move up in the world with effort. Lets see you move up in the intellectual world by offering insight and analysis.
The MostSlatedNewsforBarackCenter is no better. It just isn't as mindlessly followed as Faux News, and it wasn't as bad on Bush or caught in as many scandals as Faux is with Obama.
CBS, NBC, ABC and all pretty much the same.
I don't mind CNN. I generally only watch BBC when I watch world news on TV, which is never.
The MostSlatedNewsforBarackCenter is no better. It just isn't as mindlessly followed as Faux News, and it wasn't as bad on Bush or caught in as many scandals as Faux is with Obama.
CBS, NBC, ABC and all pretty much the same.
I don't mind CNN. I generally only watch BBC when I watch world news on TV, which is never.
The "complex" minimum wage system? You are kidding right?
There is nothing complex about it. Business advocates want cheap labor, liberals want an increase solely as a "moral" victory. In the end, the extra dollar is essentially meaningless.
The "complex" minimum wage system? You are kidding right?
There is nothing complex about it. Business advocates want cheap labor, liberals want an increase solely as a "moral" victory. In the end, the extra dollar is essentially meaningless.
The "complex" minimum wage system? You are kidding right?
There is nothing complex about it. Business advocates want cheap labor, liberals want an increase solely as a "moral" victory. In the end, the extra dollar is essentially meaningless.
The "complex" minimum wage system? You are kidding right?
There is nothing complex about it. Business advocates want cheap labor, liberals want an increase solely as a "moral" victory. In the end, the extra dollar is essentially meaningless.
Fox News is pointing out the blaring hypocrisy of not only Obama and this administration, but our entire society beating the drums of war over the Syrian rebel's gas attack, and not even blinking an eye at this? maybe I need to rethink Fox news. I currently do not even have the option of tuning in, because I put my dish network down to the lowest plan, which includes MSNBC, but not fox.
So I watch Bloomberg.
Might have to upgrade. To get my "right wing whackaloon" marching orders.
Fox News is pointing out the blaring hypocrisy of not only Obama and this administration, but our entire society beating the drums of war over the Syrian rebel's gas attack, and not even blinking an eye at this? maybe I need to rethink Fox news. I currently do not even have the option of tuning in, because I put my dish network down to the lowest plan, which includes MSNBC, but not fox.
So I watch Bloomberg.
Might have to upgrade. To get my "right wing whackaloon" marching orders.
Hmm, maybe I do need to get Fox news.
https://reason.com/blog/2013/11/13/tomorrow-watch-john-stossels-the-rise-of
Hmm, maybe I do need to get Fox news.
https://reason.com/blog/2013/11/13/tomorrow-watch-john-stossels-the-rise-of
I had a hunch which "follow what Faux News tells me to think" right wing etremist would point a finger Obama's way.
You were 5-1 but I knew the Rick of 2013 that blames everything on Obama and Dems would come through.
I looked at Fox's web site, I didn't see anything that was remotely close to what I said.
Do you want to know why?
Because for all of their bluster and noise, they are owned by the same people that own Obama.
I had a hunch which "follow what Faux News tells me to think" right wing etremist would point a finger Obama's way.
You were 5-1 but I knew the Rick of 2013 that blames everything on Obama and Dems would come through.
I looked at Fox's web site, I didn't see anything that was remotely close to what I said.
Do you want to know why?
Because for all of their bluster and noise, they are owned by the same people that own Obama.
I looked at Fox's web site, I didn't see anything that was remotely close to what I said.
Do you want to know why?
Because for all of their bluster and noise, they are owned by the same people that own Obama.
Its called a euphemism (look it up) for the ridiculous notion that Obama should somehow be blamed for the actions of North Korea (or failure to act thereof) that have existed for decades.
It really doesn't take a rocket scientist (or perhaps a Virginia citizen in comparison) to understand the clear distinctions between the middle east and the terrorist breeding grounds as well as the influence of black gold and North Korea which remains in essential isolation, although remains a danger due to the strategic location of South Korea.
I looked at Fox's web site, I didn't see anything that was remotely close to what I said.
Do you want to know why?
Because for all of their bluster and noise, they are owned by the same people that own Obama.
Its called a euphemism (look it up) for the ridiculous notion that Obama should somehow be blamed for the actions of North Korea (or failure to act thereof) that have existed for decades.
It really doesn't take a rocket scientist (or perhaps a Virginia citizen in comparison) to understand the clear distinctions between the middle east and the terrorist breeding grounds as well as the influence of black gold and North Korea which remains in essential isolation, although remains a danger due to the strategic location of South Korea.
Alright DJ, if you don't see any hypocrisy in the actions of the president staying silent on this, then that is your prerogative, as you mention there are completely different circumstances about these two places (Syria, N. Korea).
My point is that there is not the talking head cacophony for intervention because a strike does not necessarily help the military industrial complex, support the Arab League and our allies, nor offer any trade or resource advantages.
The risk/reward is very low. Therefore our righteous indignation stays in the closet.
I am sorry I put it all on poor little Obama, and I am sorry that this hurt your sensibilities. I know that he is your guy and you love him very much and hate to see people talk mean about him, and as I don't want to be considered a bully, I will apologize to you personally, and say that in no way do I think that Obama is responsible for foreign policy.
I also reside in West Virginia. Not Western Virginia, nor the state of Virginia at all. We seceded from the state of Virginia to join the union against the confederacy and to abolish slavery. It is a very rich history of awesomeness, and somehow brushed under the rug as far as secession goes.
Alright DJ, if you don't see any hypocrisy in the actions of the president staying silent on this, then that is your prerogative, as you mention there are completely different circumstances about these two places (Syria, N. Korea).
My point is that there is not the talking head cacophony for intervention because a strike does not necessarily help the military industrial complex, support the Arab League and our allies, nor offer any trade or resource advantages.
The risk/reward is very low. Therefore our righteous indignation stays in the closet.
I am sorry I put it all on poor little Obama, and I am sorry that this hurt your sensibilities. I know that he is your guy and you love him very much and hate to see people talk mean about him, and as I don't want to be considered a bully, I will apologize to you personally, and say that in no way do I think that Obama is responsible for foreign policy.
I also reside in West Virginia. Not Western Virginia, nor the state of Virginia at all. We seceded from the state of Virginia to join the union against the confederacy and to abolish slavery. It is a very rich history of awesomeness, and somehow brushed under the rug as far as secession goes.
Do you even agree that N. Korea is guilty of a human rights violation?
There is no question that this took place, or who did it.
Unlike the gassing in Syria.
Do you even agree that N. Korea is guilty of a human rights violation?
There is no question that this took place, or who did it.
Unlike the gassing in Syria.
Alright DJ, if you don't see any hypocrisy in the actions of the president staying silent on this, then that is your prerogative, as you mention there are completely different circumstances about these two places (Syria, N. Korea).
My point is that there is not the talking head cacophony for intervention because a strike does not necessarily help the military industrial complex, support the Arab League and our allies, nor offer any trade or resource advantages.
The risk/reward is very low. Therefore our righteous indignation stays in the closet.
I am sorry I put it all on poor little Obama, and I am sorry that this hurt your sensibilities. I know that he is your guy and you love him very much and hate to see people talk mean about him, and as I don't want to be considered a bully, I will apologize to you personally, and say that in no way do I think that Obama is responsible for foreign policy.
I also reside in West Virginia. Not Western Virginia, nor the state of Virginia at all. We seceded from the state of Virginia to join the union against the confederacy and to abolish slavery. It is a very rich history of awesomeness, and somehow brushed under the rug as far as secession goes.
You have pretty much said that you supported "theoretically" the Confederacy over Lincoln, so I have to question your historical opinion on secession.
And your responses have also become the same "ho hum." If anyone disagrees with you, they are an Obama apologist. Its basically because there is an inability to discuss issues in-depth instead of the superficial method employed in post #3. So lets do so, shall we. Feel free to join in or perhaps you might choose to read up on the subject.
US foreign policy has always employed a sense of hypocrisy among its actions. WW II became an interesting and glaring example of this by our lack of direct intervention for years, although we did support Europe against Germany, but curiously, offered no assistance to the East against Japan.
Following that, our cold war essentially created three methods of US actions....direct intervention (Korea), isolation (N. Korea), sanctions (Iran). The hybrid of these are support for rebels/other actors in that region. This started in Vietnam, but became a prominent method of policy during the Reagan years as the US supported weapons and training in multiple areas around the globe.
As I have often stated, the Reagan foreign policy became known in the circles as the Haig Doctrine which essentially was a policy of acting solely in the US interests. Interestingly, through 4 subsequent Presidents, this doctrine best explains the US policy today. We tend to act when it is in our interests and ignore that which does not.
Our current policy towards North Korea is a perfect example. The need to havge direct intervention is outweighed by the lack of basis of it being in our direct interests. The same could be said for Kosovo (for long periods), Serbia, Somalia, etc. Our direct actions in the Middle East are obviously on the basis of the fundamential interests that the US has in the region.
I realize that most of this is lost on you because it does not comport with your need to blame the black guy for everything wrong on the planet. But intellectuals understand the reasoning and the basis for why Bush I, Bush II, Clinton, Obama, and the furture presidents act in some areas and not in others, although nor suggesting that they are always right or wrong.
I'm sure Rand Paul could have said it much better, but then again, his words are never his own as he and his fellow religious right radicals use those with lesser intellect like yourself, to help promote their agenda, whilst feigning a more libertarian agenda.
Alright DJ, if you don't see any hypocrisy in the actions of the president staying silent on this, then that is your prerogative, as you mention there are completely different circumstances about these two places (Syria, N. Korea).
My point is that there is not the talking head cacophony for intervention because a strike does not necessarily help the military industrial complex, support the Arab League and our allies, nor offer any trade or resource advantages.
The risk/reward is very low. Therefore our righteous indignation stays in the closet.
I am sorry I put it all on poor little Obama, and I am sorry that this hurt your sensibilities. I know that he is your guy and you love him very much and hate to see people talk mean about him, and as I don't want to be considered a bully, I will apologize to you personally, and say that in no way do I think that Obama is responsible for foreign policy.
I also reside in West Virginia. Not Western Virginia, nor the state of Virginia at all. We seceded from the state of Virginia to join the union against the confederacy and to abolish slavery. It is a very rich history of awesomeness, and somehow brushed under the rug as far as secession goes.
You have pretty much said that you supported "theoretically" the Confederacy over Lincoln, so I have to question your historical opinion on secession.
And your responses have also become the same "ho hum." If anyone disagrees with you, they are an Obama apologist. Its basically because there is an inability to discuss issues in-depth instead of the superficial method employed in post #3. So lets do so, shall we. Feel free to join in or perhaps you might choose to read up on the subject.
US foreign policy has always employed a sense of hypocrisy among its actions. WW II became an interesting and glaring example of this by our lack of direct intervention for years, although we did support Europe against Germany, but curiously, offered no assistance to the East against Japan.
Following that, our cold war essentially created three methods of US actions....direct intervention (Korea), isolation (N. Korea), sanctions (Iran). The hybrid of these are support for rebels/other actors in that region. This started in Vietnam, but became a prominent method of policy during the Reagan years as the US supported weapons and training in multiple areas around the globe.
As I have often stated, the Reagan foreign policy became known in the circles as the Haig Doctrine which essentially was a policy of acting solely in the US interests. Interestingly, through 4 subsequent Presidents, this doctrine best explains the US policy today. We tend to act when it is in our interests and ignore that which does not.
Our current policy towards North Korea is a perfect example. The need to havge direct intervention is outweighed by the lack of basis of it being in our direct interests. The same could be said for Kosovo (for long periods), Serbia, Somalia, etc. Our direct actions in the Middle East are obviously on the basis of the fundamential interests that the US has in the region.
I realize that most of this is lost on you because it does not comport with your need to blame the black guy for everything wrong on the planet. But intellectuals understand the reasoning and the basis for why Bush I, Bush II, Clinton, Obama, and the furture presidents act in some areas and not in others, although nor suggesting that they are always right or wrong.
I'm sure Rand Paul could have said it much better, but then again, his words are never his own as he and his fellow religious right radicals use those with lesser intellect like yourself, to help promote their agenda, whilst feigning a more libertarian agenda.
#1, I have never, nor will I ever, support the confederacy. My beef with Lincoln was his shredding of the constitution. It is possible to believe that a great man had his faults.
#2 I think we essentially agree on the issue, where we disagree is where I lampoon the current president on his disingenuous world police Rah Rah speech following Syria, and his utter silence following the N. Korean tragedy. I am neither for or against direct intervention in N. Korea, but realize that the reasons we go to war are generally lies, told by those in power to help the rich.
#3 I realize that most of this is lost on you because it does not comport with your need to blame the black guy for everything wrong on the planet. ::: Seriously? After posting here all this time, you think that I am a confederate loving racist? This kind of talk just proves how much of an apologist you are for this president. I point out something that we both know to be true, about the realities of why we go to war, and this is what you come at me with? I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself for this comment, but this comment kind of proves that you have no shame sir.
#4, I would like to see what rand Paul would say, I do not know if I can support him any more, after the last article you posted. I do not know if I can put my energies behind someone that is willing to put his name on a personhood bill that would essentially ensure that he never gets higher office.
#5 Sorry about my "lesser intellect", funny I have never seen you speak to Don Juan's "lesser intellect".
The only thing I can say to you constructively is that I do like guys like rand Paul because at least they will "feign" a more libertarian, or constitutionalist agenda. Even if it is just lip service, at least it is a thought.
#1, I have never, nor will I ever, support the confederacy. My beef with Lincoln was his shredding of the constitution. It is possible to believe that a great man had his faults.
#2 I think we essentially agree on the issue, where we disagree is where I lampoon the current president on his disingenuous world police Rah Rah speech following Syria, and his utter silence following the N. Korean tragedy. I am neither for or against direct intervention in N. Korea, but realize that the reasons we go to war are generally lies, told by those in power to help the rich.
#3 I realize that most of this is lost on you because it does not comport with your need to blame the black guy for everything wrong on the planet. ::: Seriously? After posting here all this time, you think that I am a confederate loving racist? This kind of talk just proves how much of an apologist you are for this president. I point out something that we both know to be true, about the realities of why we go to war, and this is what you come at me with? I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself for this comment, but this comment kind of proves that you have no shame sir.
#4, I would like to see what rand Paul would say, I do not know if I can support him any more, after the last article you posted. I do not know if I can put my energies behind someone that is willing to put his name on a personhood bill that would essentially ensure that he never gets higher office.
#5 Sorry about my "lesser intellect", funny I have never seen you speak to Don Juan's "lesser intellect".
The only thing I can say to you constructively is that I do like guys like rand Paul because at least they will "feign" a more libertarian, or constitutionalist agenda. Even if it is just lip service, at least it is a thought.
#1, I have never, nor will I ever, support the confederacy. My beef with Lincoln was his shredding of the constitution. It is possible to believe that a great man had his faults.
#2 I think we essentially agree on the issue, where we disagree is where I lampoon the current president on his disingenuous world police Rah Rah speech following Syria, and his utter silence following the N. Korean tragedy. I am neither for or against direct intervention in N. Korea, but realize that the reasons we go to war are generally lies, told by those in power to help the rich.
#3 I realize that most of this is lost on you because it does not comport with your need to blame the black guy for everything wrong on the planet. ::: Seriously? After posting here all this time, you think that I am a confederate loving racist? This kind of talk just proves how much of an apologist you are for this president. I point out something that we both know to be true, about the realities of why we go to war, and this is what you come at me with? I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself for this comment, but this comment kind of proves that you have no shame sir.
#4, I would like to see what rand Paul would say, I do not know if I can support him any more, after the last article you posted. I do not know if I can put my energies behind someone that is willing to put his name on a personhood bill that would essentially ensure that he never gets higher office.
#5 Sorry about my "lesser intellect", funny I have never seen you speak to Don Juan's "lesser intellect".
The only thing I can say to you constructively is that I do like guys like rand Paul because at least they will "feign" a more libertarian, or constitutionalist agenda. Even if it is just lip service, at least it is a thought.
I don't think you are a racist, but I think you follow along with those that attack Obama for the same thing that they supported when the President was a white Republican. Obama and Bush are very similar in foreign policy. I don't ever recall most the the right wing pundits attacking Bush (and do we need to even address RomneyCare).
When you simply make a statement like you did in post #3 without offering analysis, you are engaging in non-intellectual discussions similar to Faux News, etc that offer the same.
The reason one cannot have an actual discussion on this issue when offering such blame is it exposes the hypocrisy of blame when the policy is one that is entrenched within current US diplomacy, regardless of political affiliation.
#1, I have never, nor will I ever, support the confederacy. My beef with Lincoln was his shredding of the constitution. It is possible to believe that a great man had his faults.
#2 I think we essentially agree on the issue, where we disagree is where I lampoon the current president on his disingenuous world police Rah Rah speech following Syria, and his utter silence following the N. Korean tragedy. I am neither for or against direct intervention in N. Korea, but realize that the reasons we go to war are generally lies, told by those in power to help the rich.
#3 I realize that most of this is lost on you because it does not comport with your need to blame the black guy for everything wrong on the planet. ::: Seriously? After posting here all this time, you think that I am a confederate loving racist? This kind of talk just proves how much of an apologist you are for this president. I point out something that we both know to be true, about the realities of why we go to war, and this is what you come at me with? I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself for this comment, but this comment kind of proves that you have no shame sir.
#4, I would like to see what rand Paul would say, I do not know if I can support him any more, after the last article you posted. I do not know if I can put my energies behind someone that is willing to put his name on a personhood bill that would essentially ensure that he never gets higher office.
#5 Sorry about my "lesser intellect", funny I have never seen you speak to Don Juan's "lesser intellect".
The only thing I can say to you constructively is that I do like guys like rand Paul because at least they will "feign" a more libertarian, or constitutionalist agenda. Even if it is just lip service, at least it is a thought.
I don't think you are a racist, but I think you follow along with those that attack Obama for the same thing that they supported when the President was a white Republican. Obama and Bush are very similar in foreign policy. I don't ever recall most the the right wing pundits attacking Bush (and do we need to even address RomneyCare).
When you simply make a statement like you did in post #3 without offering analysis, you are engaging in non-intellectual discussions similar to Faux News, etc that offer the same.
The reason one cannot have an actual discussion on this issue when offering such blame is it exposes the hypocrisy of blame when the policy is one that is entrenched within current US diplomacy, regardless of political affiliation.
It seems counter productive to me to make an observation about the current administration in their actions regarding what constitutes military action and what does not when confronted with human rights abuses, if I also have to go back and make qualifying statements that include Reagan and every other president. I do not care about the past, I understand it for the most part, I have mixed feelings about it, but I am concerned with here and now. Currently Obama is the president, sorry, he is in the hot seat.
There comes a point when you have to look at what is happening currently and realize it for what it is.
I am sorry that makes me a confederate, racist, radical right wing, religious zealot with a "lesser intellect" in your view, but I calls em as I sees em.
It seems counter productive to me to make an observation about the current administration in their actions regarding what constitutes military action and what does not when confronted with human rights abuses, if I also have to go back and make qualifying statements that include Reagan and every other president. I do not care about the past, I understand it for the most part, I have mixed feelings about it, but I am concerned with here and now. Currently Obama is the president, sorry, he is in the hot seat.
There comes a point when you have to look at what is happening currently and realize it for what it is.
I am sorry that makes me a confederate, racist, radical right wing, religious zealot with a "lesser intellect" in your view, but I calls em as I sees em.
It seems counter productive to me to make an observation about the current administration in their actions regarding what constitutes military action and what does not when confronted with human rights abuses, if I also have to go back and make qualifying statements that include Reagan and every other president. I do not care about the past, I understand it for the most part, I have mixed feelings about it, but I am concerned with here and now. Currently Obama is the president, sorry, he is in the hot seat.
There comes a point when you have to look at what is happening currently and realize it for what it is.
I am sorry that makes me a confederate, racist, radical right wing, religious zealot with a "lesser intellect" in your view, but I calls em as I sees em.
The problem is that terms and situations do not begin in a vacuum. You want to blame this administration for acting in situations where American interests existed long before his presidency. The quagmire that is the Middle East and the reasons for said quagmire exist long before Obama. Failure to have involvement has created terrible problems for us in other areas (think Afghanistan).
The argument that we should involve ourselves in North Korea because we do elsewhere is just plain silly.
It seems counter productive to me to make an observation about the current administration in their actions regarding what constitutes military action and what does not when confronted with human rights abuses, if I also have to go back and make qualifying statements that include Reagan and every other president. I do not care about the past, I understand it for the most part, I have mixed feelings about it, but I am concerned with here and now. Currently Obama is the president, sorry, he is in the hot seat.
There comes a point when you have to look at what is happening currently and realize it for what it is.
I am sorry that makes me a confederate, racist, radical right wing, religious zealot with a "lesser intellect" in your view, but I calls em as I sees em.
The problem is that terms and situations do not begin in a vacuum. You want to blame this administration for acting in situations where American interests existed long before his presidency. The quagmire that is the Middle East and the reasons for said quagmire exist long before Obama. Failure to have involvement has created terrible problems for us in other areas (think Afghanistan).
The argument that we should involve ourselves in North Korea because we do elsewhere is just plain silly.
I am sorry that makes me a confederate, racist, radical right wing, religious zealot with a "lesser intellect" in your view, but I calls em as I sees em.
You are being far too hard on yourself. I never thought you were a religious zealot.
I am sorry that makes me a confederate, racist, radical right wing, religious zealot with a "lesser intellect" in your view, but I calls em as I sees em.
You are being far too hard on yourself. I never thought you were a religious zealot.
The problem is that terms and situations do not begin in a vacuum. You want to blame this administration for acting in situations where American interests existed long before his presidency. The quagmire that is the Middle East and the reasons for said quagmire exist long before Obama. Failure to have involvement has created terrible problems for us in other areas (think Afghanistan).
The argument that we should involve ourselves in North Korea because we do elsewhere is just plain silly.
Right, just as silly as intervention in Syria.
The problem is that terms and situations do not begin in a vacuum. You want to blame this administration for acting in situations where American interests existed long before his presidency. The quagmire that is the Middle East and the reasons for said quagmire exist long before Obama. Failure to have involvement has created terrible problems for us in other areas (think Afghanistan).
The argument that we should involve ourselves in North Korea because we do elsewhere is just plain silly.
Right, just as silly as intervention in Syria.
Right, just as silly as intervention in Syria.
Except that Syria, as all of the other countries in the Middle East, presents a huge problem for the US if their government is 1) unstable 2) controlled by extremists and/or 3) if it becomes a breeding ground for terrorism.
The reasons for these concerns existed a long time before Obama. If you want a great read on this, check our Michael Oran's Book, Power, Faith, and Fantasy.
Right, just as silly as intervention in Syria.
Except that Syria, as all of the other countries in the Middle East, presents a huge problem for the US if their government is 1) unstable 2) controlled by extremists and/or 3) if it becomes a breeding ground for terrorism.
The reasons for these concerns existed a long time before Obama. If you want a great read on this, check our Michael Oran's Book, Power, Faith, and Fantasy.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.