Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 6/21/12 06:26 PM, TheMason wrote: I'm not saying that he does NOT deserve credit. But at the same time...let's not pretend it was a) politically or morally hard or b) it is enough of a center-stone to build a foreign policy legacy on. And that's what I have a problem with. The Obama campaign has presented his decision to try to capture (and allow the SeALs to kill him if necessary) as a big of a decision as the Emmancipation Proclamation.

Whoa...I'm sorry...but am I somehow saying it's somehow bigger then what it is? Did I somehow elevate it beyond a simple "he did what the prior administration showed a lack of interest in doing, and thus in at least theory improved national security"? This is my problem debating Obama stuff...the guy has become so deified or demonized that you can't simply say "name me something he did good" "ok, here you are, no frills...this is something" "well fuck, it doesn't count because...". I don't think I've ever seen this happen with any other president, the last one included who seemed to be the most controversial I'd seen in my short span.

And hey...there is some degree of complexity to it. We had to go into Pakistan and it put strain on our relationship...but let's face it: the mastermind of probably the worst terrorist attack in history was being sheltered in Pakistan. I'm sure Islamabad wasn't going to do much more than loudly protest.

Sure, which to me says something for the intelligence as well as the balls of this president. No more, no less. No frills, no "he is the greatest thing in ever!" Just that he was smart enough to read the situation correctly, and then had the courage to trust his (and I'm sure his advisors's) read of the situation.

And yes it is too early to tell. But one HUGE problem I have is a president initiating military action that is not related to defending US soil from invasion/attack having consulted only with foreign powers (inclusive of the UN)...without consulting Congress. I don't care why or who. It is a dangerous precedent.

Sure is I grant...but is it better then a president who really did all of those things BUT the difference being he brought Congress along for the ride? Is that somehow ok? Because the last one did the same thing...he just wasn't as willing to openly push the envelope as this one is, but clearly he helped wedge the door open for it (he certainly didn't open it, that started with the "Domino Theory" when it came to Communism)

Here's the thing, Obama's campaign is trying to manuever his stewardship of American foreign policy during the 'Arab Spring' as another jewel of his foreign policy crown. 1) He didn't do anything as you pointed out other than 2) supporting (through signals his administration sent) Tahrir Square organziers.

I also wholeheartedly disagree with him trying to say he somehow had a hand in this. Unless he's got something substantial and credible he's willing to show us and back it up with, this is a misfire on his campaign that any informed American should be pissed about.

Now we have Egyptian militants attacking Israel and some possibly very bad people gaining power. Instead of a republic, Egypt may turn into an Islamist state.

Were we somehow supposed to take command of Egypt after the revolution? Riiight, cause we do SUUUCH a good job with that kind of thing. Revolution is messy, revolution doesn't always give you what you want. No matter how you nudge it. Also let's drop this "bad people" shit. We're more then ok with bad people in government...just so long as they remember they're OUR bad people. You're smart enough to grasp that, don't pretend you aren't.

1) Lybia was a military adventure that did put US servicemembers at risk. It also involved US warplanes killing Lybians and breaking their shit. It was an airwar similar to what we did in Kosovo.

Similar, but the President has been issued BROAD military powers thanks to the crap the last President put through. To put forth a somewhat inelegant, but I still think relevant analogy: It's like if you leave a dog in the house all night, it shits on the floor, and then you blame the dog for shitting on the floor while ignoring the owners negligence. Sure, maybe you can say the dog should know better, but you can't put all the blame on the dog.

2) Lybia being a military action, the president does have an obligation (either through tradition, protocol or the War Powers Act) to inform congress of his intentions. So yes, what Obama did was far worse and far closer to being illegal than anything Bush did in regards to Iraq.

Well at least he didn't do it to involve us in a protracted quagmire. See? There's a silver lining to it after all.

3) The thing is the UN tried changing their minds about Iraq after giving the coalition permission to use force in the 1990s. Here's the problem with the UN:

Blah blah, bullshit that doesn't change what I've said, or what has been written in credible books by credible reporters about the situation.

Somali pirates, UBL, Lybia...these were some tough decisions and he made them. There's been treaties ratified under his administration. His Secretary of State is wildly popular. BUT I don't think he's done anything ground breaking or amazing. He hasn't done much of anything in regards to the N. Korea problem. In Lybia he abdicated US leadership of military actions...handing it over to the Europeans when they looked to us to lead, decreasing our stature with them. Nothing new in US/Mexican/Latin American politics. What about Cuba? He had a helluva opening that he was unable to take advantage of.

Again, I'm not asking that "he's done some stuff" be the same as "he's done some AMAZING stuff". All I'm asking is that people don't ignorantly act like he sat on his hands for four years and did absolutely nil. That's all.

As for the "socialist" attack (to open another can of worms), I will agree that many ppl who oppose Obama make this attack because it does carry a heavy emotional punch. But is it really unfair? So much of his rhetoric is about class...which is Marxist.

But so much of his POLICY favors one class: The rich, which has been the drum beat of the Republicans for the longest time now. So if he's Socialist, so are the people attacking him.

Also his message of growth springing from the Middle Class is an economic theory/model only found in Marxism. So while I've some say he's a Corporatist, isn't that just a stage of Marxist economy that is the prequel to a socialist system? So yeah...I think Obama has some very strong Socialist leanings...but I don't think he's satan because of it. I think he just hasn't grown-up and realized that his community organizer worldview just doesn't work in the real world.

I think he really has, since he's bent over backwards to the point that the word "compromise" for him has meant "ram through whatever the Right in Congress wants so they'll shut up and stop talking smack and work with me" and yet they still do the former, and do absolutely none of the latter. The snow job continues...

---

Obama

Deporting children is evil, but bombing them is fine

amazing

---

At 6/23/12 09:54 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Obama

Deporting children is evil, but bombing them is fine

amazing

.

---

At 6/28/12 01:36 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 6/23/12 09:54 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Obama

Deporting children is evil, but bombing them is fine

amazing

.

That link just took me to Google. Anyway, that is a pretty horrifying picture.

---

Yeah i didnt want to type anything so I just put that.

---

Illegals are like Cockroaches, they will keep coming until you physically remove them. Just look how Mexico takes care of theirs...

---

At 7/3/12 04:48 AM, EisUndStahl wrote: Illegals are like Cockroaches, they will keep coming until you physically remove them. Just look how Mexico takes care of theirs...

Spiders is a better analogy. Most people are afraid of them, but cannot seem to find a rational reason why. Also, they perform a vital service behind the scenes, and if you were to get rid of all of them bad things would happen.

---

At 7/3/12 10:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

I'm pretty sure your ancestral ancestors were worse immigrants than those coming from Latin America.

---

At 7/3/12 06:02 PM, ClickToPlay wrote:

At 7/3/12 10:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

I'm pretty sure your ancestral ancestors were worse immigrants than those coming from Latin America.

And the feller who worships those who intentionally target civilians is commenting about being bad. At a post meant to show the idiocy of the cockroach comment, no less... Yeesh. Did everyone's nuance center short out today?

---

At 7/3/12 06:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/3/12 06:02 PM, ClickToPlay wrote:

At 7/3/12 10:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

I'm pretty sure your ancestral ancestors were worse immigrants than those coming from Latin America.

And the feller who worships those who intentionally target civilians is commenting about being bad. At a post meant to show the idiocy of the cockroach comment, no less... Yeesh. Did everyone's nuance center short out today?

There is a difference between worship, and respect.
And although I never read your quote beforehand, the statement stays I guess, makes no difference what you would have said.