Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Why don't congressional Republicans authorize action against ISIS?
2001400ex
Member Posts: 29,457
in Tug Tavern
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-congress-wont-vote-on-the-war-against-the-193503398.html
One senior Senate Democratic aide suggested that members are very aware of their history on AUMF votes, particularly those who continue to feel stung by being on the record as supporting the Iraq War before the nation as a whole came to consider that intervention a mistake. Given that, not everyone is eager to vote on an AUMF again.
“These votes are difficult and complex, and folks have a natural aversion to them. This one is particularly tricky because it’s next to impossible to find the sweet spot on the sliding scale between people who want a narrow, tailored specific mission and people who want open-ended, robust missions,” said the aide.
“No one has been able to figure out where there are 60 votes in the Senate. Nobody — not the administration, not Democrats, not Republicans, nobody — has put forward language that has the votes to pass,” the aide continued, noting that Republicans want presidents to have near unlimited power while Democrats oppose “mission creep and indefinite war.” Nothing about that partisan difference in outlook has changed in the days since the Paris attacks.
One senior Senate Democratic aide suggested that members are very aware of their history on AUMF votes, particularly those who continue to feel stung by being on the record as supporting the Iraq War before the nation as a whole came to consider that intervention a mistake. Given that, not everyone is eager to vote on an AUMF again.
“These votes are difficult and complex, and folks have a natural aversion to them. This one is particularly tricky because it’s next to impossible to find the sweet spot on the sliding scale between people who want a narrow, tailored specific mission and people who want open-ended, robust missions,” said the aide.
“No one has been able to figure out where there are 60 votes in the Senate. Nobody — not the administration, not Democrats, not Republicans, nobody — has put forward language that has the votes to pass,” the aide continued, noting that Republicans want presidents to have near unlimited power while Democrats oppose “mission creep and indefinite war.” Nothing about that partisan difference in outlook has changed in the days since the Paris attacks.
Comments
-
Obama is a pussy. Why hasn't he asked?
Blame and deflect. -
In the same article:RaceBannon said:Obama is a pussy. Why hasn't he asked?
Blame and deflect.
Obama sent Congress a draft AUMF early this year, and the White House has repeatedly signaled that it is open to “reasonable” alterations, including language that would make the new legislation the only source of presidential authority for taking on IS. It landed with a thud, and the president hasn’t shown much inclination to try to nudge it back to life.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/11/letter-president-authorization-use-united-states-armed-forces-connection -
Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules. -
Liberool post o' the day!
-
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama? -
So you praise him when he's given the Nobel Peace prize and then you praise him when he's a War monger...sounds like you love ham sandwich.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama? -
You clearly don't get it.Doogles said:
So you praise him when he's given the Nobel Peace prize and then you praise him when he's a War monger...sounds like you love ham sandwich.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama? -
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here? -
Why can't Obama just drag us into a racist unfunded, unconstitutional war like BUSH!!!!???
-
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now. -
Shoutout to Obama for leaving behind all these sweet Hummers behind for me and my bros to bro out in.
Big belly laughs in the masjid. -
I miss @Haid_D_SalaamiHalal_Dawg said:Shoutout to Obama for leaving behind all these sweet Hummers behind for me and my bros to bro out in.
Big belly laughs in the masjid. -
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question -
This was your quote, which is a lie:RaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
That being said. It's very clear you have no clue what happened in Afghanistan. You see, Bush didn't do much there and chased this shiny object in Iraq. When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business there along with taking out bin ladin, something Bush said he wouldn't go into Pakistan to do.
Either way, you are very uneducated on the matter and like to believe the conservative blog post of the week. -
Hondo is playing checkers. Race has the chess board out.
-
Yes it's clear he doesn't have a clue how to play the game. Glad we agree.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:Hondo is playing checkers. Race has the chess board out.
-
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose.
-
I suggest you watch last night's version of Frontline before popping off.2001400ex said:
This was your quote, which is a lie:RaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
That being said. It's very clear you have no clue what happened in Afghanistan. You see, Bush didn't do much there and chased this shiny object in Iraq. When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business there along with taking out bin ladin, something Bush said he wouldn't go into Pakistan to do.
Either way, you are very uneducated on the matter and like to believe the conservative blog post of the week.
ISIS has a strong foothold in Afghanistan.
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ -
Your perception of reality is whatever your conservative news source tells you.HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose. -
I never said they didn't have a foothold in Afghanistan. You could learn to use reading comprehension before you pop off.PurpleThrobber said:
I suggest you watch last night's version of Frontline before popping off.2001400ex said:
This was your quote, which is a lie:RaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
That being said. It's very clear you have no clue what happened in Afghanistan. You see, Bush didn't do much there and chased this shiny object in Iraq. When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business there along with taking out bin ladin, something Bush said he wouldn't go into Pakistan to do.
Either way, you are very uneducated on the matter and like to believe the conservative blog post of the week.
ISIS has a strong foothold in Afghanistan.
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ -
If you ever needed a measure of how FS and out in left field HondoFS is this is it...2001400ex said:
Your perception of reality is whatever your conservative news source tells you.HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose.
The NYTimes editorial board and the Daily Beast are now "conservative news source(s)".
Keep gurgling... -
You said Obama took care of business in Afghanistan. He didn't. He fucked it up just like he did in Iraq. ISIS ran the same fucking play.2001400ex said:
I never said they didn't have a foothold in Afghanistan. You could learn to use reading comprehension before you pop off.PurpleThrobber said:
I suggest you watch last night's version of Frontline before popping off.2001400ex said:
This was your quote, which is a lie:RaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
That being said. It's very clear you have no clue what happened in Afghanistan. You see, Bush didn't do much there and chased this shiny object in Iraq. When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business there along with taking out bin ladin, something Bush said he wouldn't go into Pakistan to do.
Either way, you are very uneducated on the matter and like to believe the conservative blog post of the week.
ISIS has a strong foothold in Afghanistan.
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
THE SAME FUCKING PLAY.
That is Jonathan Smith level bubble screen stupidity.
-
ISIS can't lop your head off soon enough. I'll read about it from whatever news source I wish.2001400ex said:
Your perception of reality is whatever your conservative news source tells you.HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose. -
No matter the alleged political affiliations of its founders, the Daily Beast features identified conservative writers over identified liberals at a rate of 3-1 (maybe more; the political leanings of sports and celebrity writers are largely unknown).HoustonHusky said:
If you ever needed a measure of how FS and out in left field HondoFS is this is it...2001400ex said:
Your perception of reality is whatever your conservative news source tells you.HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose.
The NYTimes editorial board and the Daily Beast are now "conservative news source(s)".
Keep gurgling...
Although the Daily Beast portrays itself as centrist, you'll find a heavy concentration of right-leaning Yale, DoD, WSJ, National Review and Weekly Standard alumni in the contributing pool.
Check the conservative bona fides of Christopher Buckley, Michael Moynihan, David Frum, Meghan McCain, Les Gelb, Mark McKinnon, John Avlon, Lucinda Franks, Bruce Riedel, Lloyd Grove, Tunku Varadarajan, James Kirchick. Peter Beinart and Reza Aslan are two of only a few identified regulars.
Scribnia describes Daily Beast as "A news publication that sifts, sorts and curates information with a conservative twist." Many rightwing websites consider Daily Beast liberal, but that may be due to a difference in definition of terms. -
Why would Isis harm a brother in struggle?
Hondo is loyal to the cause. -
Why would we hurt a fellow jihadist?Doogles said:
ISIS can't lop your head off soon enough. I'll read about it from whatever news source I wish.2001400ex said:
Your perception of reality is whatever your conservative news source tells you.HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose. -
يمارس الجنس مع ديك و53 ثوانيsarktastic said:Why would Isis harm a brother in struggle?
Hondo is loyal to the cause. -
Halal_Dawg said:
يمارس الجنس مع ديك و53 ثوانيsarktastic said:Why would Isis harm a brother in struggle?
Hondo is loyal to the cause.
أنت لست شادي حقيقية. الذهاب سباق يمارس الجنس مع الحمار الغطاس القذرة . -
http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_The_daily_Beast_liberal_or_conservative2001400ex said:
No matter the alleged political affiliations of its founders, the Daily Beast features identified conservative writers over identified liberals at a rate of 3-1 (maybe more; the political leanings of sports and celebrity writers are largely unknown).HoustonHusky said:
If you ever needed a measure of how FS and out in left field HondoFS is this is it...2001400ex said:
Your perception of reality is whatever your conservative news source tells you.HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose.
The NYTimes editorial board and the Daily Beast are now "conservative news source(s)".
Keep gurgling...
Although the Daily Beast portrays itself as centrist, you'll find a heavy concentration of right-leaning Yale, DoD, WSJ, National Review and Weekly Standard alumni in the contributing pool.
Check the conservative bona fides of Christopher Buckley, Michael Moynihan, David Frum, Meghan McCain, Les Gelb, Mark McKinnon, John Avlon, Lucinda Franks, Bruce Riedel, Lloyd Grove, Tunku Varadarajan, James Kirchick. Peter Beinart and Reza Aslan are two of only a few identified regulars.
Scribnia describes Daily Beast as "A news publication that sifts, sorts and curates information with a conservative twist." Many rightwing websites consider Daily Beast liberal, but that may be due to a difference in definition of terms.
Wow...answers.com is your source? And you missed the next line...
Another View
"Conservative" - balderdash. The "Daily Beast" is decidedly liberal - founded by arch-liberal Tina Brown, former editor of liberal publications The New Yorker, Vanity Fair and Talk. Daily Beast merged with Newsweek, by far the most liberal of the three main American weekly news magazine. Daily Beast is liberal - not in rational dispute.
HondoFS... -
There's a hundred other sources that say the same thing. I'm lazy so fuck off.HoustonHusky said:
http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_The_daily_Beast_liberal_or_conservative2001400ex said:
No matter the alleged political affiliations of its founders, the Daily Beast features identified conservative writers over identified liberals at a rate of 3-1 (maybe more; the political leanings of sports and celebrity writers are largely unknown).HoustonHusky said:
If you ever needed a measure of how FS and out in left field HondoFS is this is it...2001400ex said:
Your perception of reality is whatever your conservative news source tells you.HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose.
The NYTimes editorial board and the Daily Beast are now "conservative news source(s)".
Keep gurgling...
Although the Daily Beast portrays itself as centrist, you'll find a heavy concentration of right-leaning Yale, DoD, WSJ, National Review and Weekly Standard alumni in the contributing pool.
Check the conservative bona fides of Christopher Buckley, Michael Moynihan, David Frum, Meghan McCain, Les Gelb, Mark McKinnon, John Avlon, Lucinda Franks, Bruce Riedel, Lloyd Grove, Tunku Varadarajan, James Kirchick. Peter Beinart and Reza Aslan are two of only a few identified regulars.
Scribnia describes Daily Beast as "A news publication that sifts, sorts and curates information with a conservative twist." Many rightwing websites consider Daily Beast liberal, but that may be due to a difference in definition of terms.
Wow...answers.com is your source? And you missed the next line...
Another View
"Conservative" - balderdash. The "Daily Beast" is decidedly liberal - founded by arch-liberal Tina Brown, former editor of liberal publications The New Yorker, Vanity Fair and Talk. Daily Beast merged with Newsweek, by far the most liberal of the three main American weekly news magazine. Daily Beast is liberal - not in rational dispute.
HondoFS...
