Obama's loss for words on Syria

[TexasTiger 14,068]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonp...7add_story.html

Now that last President, that guy had a policy!

Not saying Bush was better or worse. I didn't write the article. Just posted it. Doesn't surprise most here that a democrat fanboy would bring up Bush, though.

No, you just chose to post an article written by this guy:

http://mediamatters....rs/193117#cohen

And complained about what you perceive as a lack of a "policy." And I drew the contrast between this President's approach and the last one that you and most other folks complaining about Obama's approach to Syria supported.

LOL!

I didn't complain about anything. The line I posted (from my phone, so quoting was a little difficult) was in the article. You didn't like that I posted an editorial about your "guy" that didn't praise him as the messiah and you retorted with a typical, liberal, "BUSH!"

You post a particular article out of untold possible articles you could post and then try to act as if it was some random act. Take a little ownership, man!! And you retort with the typical, right-wing nut job claim that all Democrats see Obama as a messiah!

[augolf1716 21,939]

Well this has been fun

[MDM4AU 337]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonp...7add_story.html

Now that last President, that guy had a policy!

Not saying Bush was better or worse. I didn't write the article. Just posted it. Doesn't surprise most here that a democrat fanboy would bring up Bush, though.

No, you just chose to post an article written by this guy:

http://mediamatters....rs/193117#cohen

And complained about what you perceive as a lack of a "policy." And I drew the contrast between this President's approach and the last one that you and most other folks complaining about Obama's approach to Syria supported.

LOL!

I didn't complain about anything. The line I posted (from my phone, so quoting was a little difficult) was in the article. You didn't like that I posted an editorial about your "guy" that didn't praise him as the messiah and you retorted with a typical, liberal, "BUSH!"

You post a particular article out of untold possible articles you could post and then try to act as if it was some random act. Take a little ownership, man!! And you retort with the typical, right-wing nut job claim that all Democrats see Obama as a messiah!

Yes, I saw an article on twitter and I posted it from my phone while sitting in a board meeting listening to politicians in Montgomery bloviate. Sue me! It was relevant with all the "red line" talk I kept hearing. And you retort with the same old whiney assed Dem response "BUSH!!" How long has he been out of office?? You didn't even try to defend your guy except with "BUSH".

Get real, Tex. You 'supposed' to be better than that.

[homersapien 12,172]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonp...7add_story.html

Now that last President, that guy had a policy!

Not saying Bush was better or worse. I didn't write the article. Just posted it. Doesn't surprise most here that a democrat fanboy would bring up Bush, though.

No, you just chose to post an article written by this guy:

http://mediamatters....rs/193117#cohen

And complained about what you perceive as a lack of a "policy." And I drew the contrast between this President's approach and the last one that you and most other folks complaining about Obama's approach to Syria supported.

LOL!

I didn't complain about anything. The line I posted (from my phone, so quoting was a little difficult) was in the article. You didn't like that I posted an editorial about your "guy" that didn't praise him as the messiah and you retorted with a typical, liberal, "BUSH!"

You post a particular article out of untold possible articles you could post and then try to act as if it was some random act. Take a little ownership, man!! And you retort with the typical, right-wing nut job claim that all Democrats see Obama as a messiah!

Yes, I saw an article on twitter and I posted it from my phone while sitting in a board meeting listening to politicians in Montgomery bloviate. Sue me! It was relevant with all the "red line" talk I kept hearing. And you retort with the same old whiney assed Dem response "BUSH!!" How long has he been out of office?? You didn't even try to defend your guy except with "BUSH".

Get real, Tex. You 'supposed' to be better than that.

I think Texas is right on.

There seems to be an outbreak of backing off original statements, or the obvious implications they reflect.

Wonder why?

[MDM4AU 337]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonp...7add_story.html

Now that last President, that guy had a policy!

Not saying Bush was better or worse. I didn't write the article. Just posted it. Doesn't surprise most here that a democrat fanboy would bring up Bush, though. :rolleyes:/>

No, you just chose to post an article written by this guy:

http://mediamatters....rs/193117#cohen

And complained about what you perceive as a lack of a "policy." And I drew the contrast between this President's approach and the last one that you and most other folks complaining about Obama's approach to Syria supported.

LOL!

I didn't complain about anything. The line I posted (from my phone, so quoting was a little difficult) was in the article. You didn't like that I posted an editorial about your "guy" that didn't praise him as the messiah and you retorted with a typical, liberal, "BUSH!"

You post a particular article out of untold possible articles you could post and then try to act as if it was some random act. Take a little ownership, man!! And you retort with the typical, right-wing nut job claim that all Democrats see Obama as a messiah!

Yes, I saw an article on twitter and I posted it from my phone while sitting in a board meeting listening to politicians in Montgomery bloviate. Sue me! It was relevant with all the "red line" talk I kept hearing. And you retort with the same old whiney assed Dem response "BUSH!!" How long has he been out of office?? You didn't even try to defend your guy except with "BUSH".

Get real, Tex. You 'supposed' to be better than that. :rolleyes:/>

I think Texas is right on. :thumbsup:/>

There seems to be an outbreak of backing off original statements, or the obvious implications they reflect.

Wonder why?

What have I backed off of??

[homersapien 12,172]

What have I backed off of??

What Texas said.

The title of this thread and your first post.

You are backing off the original proposition (for which you offered no arguments) and now you are denying motivation in the face of evidence demonstrating obvious partisan bias.

[TexasTiger 14,068]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonp...7add_story.html

Now that last President, that guy had a policy!

Not saying Bush was better or worse. I didn't write the article. Just posted it. Doesn't surprise most here that a democrat fanboy would bring up Bush, though. :rolleyes:/>

No, you just chose to post an article written by this guy:

http://mediamatters....rs/193117#cohen

And complained about what you perceive as a lack of a "policy." And I drew the contrast between this President's approach and the last one that you and most other folks complaining about Obama's approach to Syria supported.

LOL!

I didn't complain about anything. The line I posted (from my phone, so quoting was a little difficult) was in the article. You didn't like that I posted an editorial about your "guy" that didn't praise him as the messiah and you retorted with a typical, liberal, "BUSH!"

You post a particular article out of untold possible articles you could post and then try to act as if it was some random act. Take a little ownership, man!! And you retort with the typical, right-wing nut job claim that all Democrats see Obama as a messiah!

Yes, I saw an article on twitter and I posted it from my phone while sitting in a board meeting listening to politicians in Montgomery bloviate. Sue me! It was relevant with all the "red line" talk I kept hearing. And you retort with the same old whiney assed Dem response "BUSH!!" How long has he been out of office?? You didn't even try to defend your guy except with "BUSH".

Get real, Tex. You 'supposed' to be better than that. :rolleyes:/>

You act as if comparing the policies of one President to the next is a character flaw. You post about Obama's supposed lack of direction in the Middle East-- a standard wing nut talking point. I playfully point out that the policy endorsed by the same writer you posted wasn't so special. It's hardly just Bush-- he was just the Neocon in charge. You post a Neocon's article, I make a critique on Neocon policy-- a pretty rational and valid response. You go ad hominem immediately.

[MDM4AU 337]

The title of the thread is the title of the article. This is done quite often by most people on here. The line in the post is from the article. From the mobile version of this site, I don't have all the tools to quote properly. I explained this. Since it was in the article, I didn't think this would be such a rub. Man, was I wrong.

I didn't know I needed to argue anything. Tex's rebuttal was to bring up Bush. I never said Bush's tactic was the best response, but to state that "You better not cross this line or else!" and then do nothing in response, Obama is better off to just say nothing or risk looking like a the bully on Andy Griffith that tells Opie, "You better be glad I have my good clothes on".

It's no secret I disagree with this president just like it is no secret Tex appears to never have disagreed with this president.

[TexasTiger 14,068]

The title of the thread is the title of the article. This is done quite often by most people on here. The line in the post is from the article. From the mobile version of this site, I don't have all the tools to quote properly. I explained this. Since it was in the article, I didn't think this would be such a rub. Man, was I wrong.

I didn't know I needed to argue anything. Tex's rebuttal was to bring up Bush. I never said Bush's tactic was the best response, but to state that "You better not cross this line or else!" and then do nothing in response, Obama is better off to just say nothing or risk looking like a the bully on Andy Griffith that tells Opie, "You better be glad I have my good clothes on".

It's no secret I disagree with this president just like it is no secret Tex appears to never have disagreed with this president.

You see a very simple world. I see one more complex. As I pointed out, you post a Neocon's article criticizing our direction in the Middle East. I jokingly pointed out that our only Neocon President's policy in the Middle East was not so special, either. Your understanding of such things is too limited to follow that. You dismiss any criticism of the previous administration as mindless Bush bashing.

[MDM4AU 337]

The title of the thread is the title of the article. This is done quite often by most people on here. The line in the post is from the article. From the mobile version of this site, I don't have all the tools to quote properly. I explained this. Since it was in the article, I didn't think this would be such a rub. Man, was I wrong.

I didn't know I needed to argue anything. Tex's rebuttal was to bring up Bush. I never said Bush's tactic was the best response, but to state that "You better not cross this line or else!" and then do nothing in response, Obama is better off to just say nothing or risk looking like a the bully on Andy Griffith that tells Opie, "You better be glad I have my good clothes on".

It's no secret I disagree with this president just like it is no secret Tex appears to never have disagreed with this president.

You see a very simple world. I see one more complex. As I pointed out, you post a Neocon's article criticizing our direction in the Middle East. I jokingly pointed out that our only Neocon President's policy in the Middle East was not so special, either. Your understanding of such things is too limited to follow that. You dismiss any criticism of the previous administration as mindless Bush bashing.

Um...ok, Tex. Guess I need to get my Media Matters decoder ring for the next time you post such an in depth response as "Now that last President, that guy had a policy!" so I don't seem so simple again.

[TexasTiger 14,068]

The title of the thread is the title of the article. This is done quite often by most people on here. The line in the post is from the article. From the mobile version of this site, I don't have all the tools to quote properly. I explained this. Since it was in the article, I didn't think this would be such a rub. Man, was I wrong.

I didn't know I needed to argue anything. Tex's rebuttal was to bring up Bush. I never said Bush's tactic was the best response, but to state that "You better not cross this line or else!" and then do nothing in response, Obama is better off to just say nothing or risk looking like a the bully on Andy Griffith that tells Opie, "You better be glad I have my good clothes on".

It's no secret I disagree with this president just like it is no secret Tex appears to never have disagreed with this president.

You see a very simple world. I see one more complex. As I pointed out, you post a Neocon's article criticizing our direction in the Middle East. I jokingly pointed out that our only Neocon President's policy in the Middle East was not so special, either. Your understanding of such things is too limited to follow that. You dismiss any criticism of the previous administration as mindless Bush bashing.

Um...ok, Tex. Guess I need to get my Media Matters decoder ring for the next time you post such an in depth response as "Now that last President, that guy had a policy!" so I don't seem so simple again.

Or better understand the policy positions of the guys you post with hardly any comment yourself. You post, "Obama has no policy," and expect folks to put in more effort than the guy who starts the thread.

[MDM4AU 337]

The title of the thread is the title of the article. This is done quite often by most people on here. The line in the post is from the article. From the mobile version of this site, I don't have all the tools to quote properly. I explained this. Since it was in the article, I didn't think this would be such a rub. Man, was I wrong.

I didn't know I needed to argue anything. Tex's rebuttal was to bring up Bush. I never said Bush's tactic was the best response, but to state that "You better not cross this line or else!" and then do nothing in response, Obama is better off to just say nothing or risk looking like a the bully on Andy Griffith that tells Opie, "You better be glad I have my good clothes on".

It's no secret I disagree with this president just like it is no secret Tex appears to never have disagreed with this president.

You see a very simple world. I see one more complex. As I pointed out, you post a Neocon's article criticizing our direction in the Middle East. I jokingly pointed out that our only Neocon President's policy in the Middle East was not so special, either. Your understanding of such things is too limited to follow that. You dismiss any criticism of the previous administration as mindless Bush bashing.

Um...ok, Tex. Guess I need to get my Media Matters decoder ring for the next time you post such an in depth response as "Now that last President, that guy had a policy!" so I don't seem so simple again.

Or better understand the policy positions of the guys you post with hardly any comment yourself.

Getting on the Media Matters mailing list right now...

[TexasTiger 14,068]

The title of the thread is the title of the article. This is done quite often by most people on here. The line in the post is from the article. From the mobile version of this site, I don't have all the tools to quote properly. I explained this. Since it was in the article, I didn't think this would be such a rub. Man, was I wrong.

I didn't know I needed to argue anything. Tex's rebuttal was to bring up Bush. I never said Bush's tactic was the best response, but to state that "You better not cross this line or else!" and then do nothing in response, Obama is better off to just say nothing or risk looking like a the bully on Andy Griffith that tells Opie, "You better be glad I have my good clothes on".

It's no secret I disagree with this president just like it is no secret Tex appears to never have disagreed with this president.

You see a very simple world. I see one more complex. As I pointed out, you post a Neocon's article criticizing our direction in the Middle East. I jokingly pointed out that our only Neocon President's policy in the Middle East was not so special, either. Your understanding of such things is too limited to follow that. You dismiss any criticism of the previous administration as mindless Bush bashing.

Um...ok, Tex. Guess I need to get my Media Matters decoder ring for the next time you post such an in depth response as "Now that last President, that guy had a policy!" so I don't seem so simple again.

Or better understand the policy positions of the guys you post with hardly any comment yourself.

Getting on the Media Matters mailing list right now...

Great! You can let me know if I should try it!

[MDM4AU 337]

The title of the thread is the title of the article. This is done quite often by most people on here. The line in the post is from the article. From the mobile version of this site, I don't have all the tools to quote properly. I explained this. Since it was in the article, I didn't think this would be such a rub. Man, was I wrong.

I didn't know I needed to argue anything. Tex's rebuttal was to bring up Bush. I never said Bush's tactic was the best response, but to state that "You better not cross this line or else!" and then do nothing in response, Obama is better off to just say nothing or risk looking like a the bully on Andy Griffith that tells Opie, "You better be glad I have my good clothes on".

It's no secret I disagree with this president just like it is no secret Tex appears to never have disagreed with this president.

You see a very simple world. I see one more complex. As I pointed out, you post a Neocon's article criticizing our direction in the Middle East. I jokingly pointed out that our only Neocon President's policy in the Middle East was not so special, either. Your understanding of such things is too limited to follow that. You dismiss any criticism of the previous administration as mindless Bush bashing.

Um...ok, Tex. Guess I need to get my Media Matters decoder ring for the next time you post such an in depth response as "Now that last President, that guy had a policy!" so I don't seem so simple again.

Or better understand the policy positions of the guys you post with hardly any comment yourself.

Getting on the Media Matters mailing list right now...

Great! You can let me know if I should try it!

Like you didn't send me that "Friends and Family" sign-up email...

[TexasTiger 14,068]

The title of the thread is the title of the article. This is done quite often by most people on here. The line in the post is from the article. From the mobile version of this site, I don't have all the tools to quote properly. I explained this. Since it was in the article, I didn't think this would be such a rub. Man, was I wrong.

I didn't know I needed to argue anything. Tex's rebuttal was to bring up Bush. I never said Bush's tactic was the best response, but to state that "You better not cross this line or else!" and then do nothing in response, Obama is better off to just say nothing or risk looking like a the bully on Andy Griffith that tells Opie, "You better be glad I have my good clothes on".

It's no secret I disagree with this president just like it is no secret Tex appears to never have disagreed with this president.

You see a very simple world. I see one more complex. As I pointed out, you post a Neocon's article criticizing our direction in the Middle East. I jokingly pointed out that our only Neocon President's policy in the Middle East was not so special, either. Your understanding of such things is too limited to follow that. You dismiss any criticism of the previous administration as mindless Bush bashing.

Um...ok, Tex. Guess I need to get my Media Matters decoder ring for the next time you post such an in depth response as "Now that last President, that guy had a policy!" so I don't seem so simple again.

Or better understand the policy positions of the guys you post with hardly any comment yourself.

Getting on the Media Matters mailing list right now...

Great! You can let me know if I should try it!

Like you didn't send me that "Friends and Family" sign-up email...

I know you like a great deal!

War Eagle, brother.

[homersapien 12,172]

The title of the thread is the title of the article. This is done quite often by most people on here. The line in the post is from the article. From the mobile version of this site, I don't have all the tools to quote properly. I explained this. Since it was in the article, I didn't think this would be such a rub. Man, was I wrong.

I didn't know I needed to argue anything. Tex's rebuttal was to bring up Bush. I never said Bush's tactic was the best response, but to state that "You better not cross this line or else!" and then do nothing in response, Obama is better off to just say nothing or risk looking like a the bully on Andy Griffith that tells Opie, "You better be glad I have my good clothes on".

It's no secret I disagree with this president just like it is no secret Tex appears to never have disagreed with this president.

Well, I suppose it depends on what you expect from this forum. Some of us (like me) would use the metaphor of a tennis game to explain (just) one of the reasons I post here. So from my perspective, if you serve up a fat juicy one, it's gonna get smacked.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Just let 'em fight it out. Let Israel create her demise and have her Armageddon. We're still licking our wounds from those other two needless wars, and will be for years to come. Spending money we don't have has it's consequences.