Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G8trGr8t, Apr 18, 2014.
there you go. you guys are all our slaves with no possible will of your own.
Because they believe in a philosophy in search of facts instead of a fact - based philosophy.
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
What doesn't make sense is you, ever so-quick to fact-check everything, not having any facts on your side for once.
Bush said nothing on the situation before Russia invaded. You've never ONCE been able to post anything to contradict that.
In contrast, Obama stuck his nose into the Ukraine situation long before the Russians invaded. That too, you've never been able to contradict because you know it's absolutely true. Obama's been offering comments on the Ukrainian situation since November. Feel free to use google about it if you dare.
While we're looking up facts: look at the size of Ukraine vs Georgia. Which country is bigger? More populous? Bigger economy? Larger geostrategic importance? If both countries were cars, clearly, Georgia is a used Chevy Cavalier from 2003; Ukraine is a two year old Cadillac.
I mean, to me, this is pretty simple to grasp. Say your teenage son takes the keys to the Cavalier that hasnt been driven in years without permission. You don't really use it (it just sits in the driveway), so you're right to be annoyed--but not worth drastic measures.
Now say you told him in a public setting "son, these keys are to my Caddie--you're not to touch them"...and he does it anyway; completely different situation, no?
One car isn't really that big a deal--the other is.
I mean, I've heard of being drunk off the koolaid, but this is approaching blackout levels. The two aren't remotely comparable.
I'm not really even trying to say the Crimea is comparable to the Sudetenland (equally as worthless a comparison), but if the BEST you can do to distinguish the two is to say "well, Obama didn't *personally* negotiate away the Crimea" (and aren't even challenging the rest), then the point stands: it's a more accurate comparison than 2008/2014 because I gave you multiple examples why one was different than the other (who the aggressor was, the timeline of events, the size and strategic value of both countries, when the US got involved, etc).
Actually, the difference is: I've posted facts to support my opinion. You haven't. Feel free to contradict my timeline. Tell me when Bush spoke at press conferences on Georgia in April-July of 2008. Just once.
Feel free to contradict me when I say Obama's had his nose into the Ukraine situation from *at least* November 2013 and in multiple press conferences too.
Go on...try. I dare ya.
wait a minute, you think that's the key to the whole thing - when the president first commented on it? That's what makes Putin's invasion so different?
And your connection between the Ukraine and the Munich Agreement? Let me guess, both happened on a Thursday, so they're identical?
Seriously? I gave you *5* differences about why it's a lazy, pathetic comparison and that's the one you focus on?
Yea, that IS a pretty big difference between the two. Glad we at least established THAT much. It's progress, of nothing else.
And, back to the Crimea/Sudetenland comparison: I already explained it--at length--earlier. If you couldn't understand it the first time, then have somone else explain it to you in whatever language you want it translated into, because it was posted in plain English. I even did a similarities and differences section, to help you out.
Enough with the deflections. If you can refute the issue with facts, then get off your rear and do so. Otherwise, you just look like an a$$ by continuing with the deflections.
I disagree with you a lot, and have probably stated on here things that make it seem like I can't stand you. But, at times, you make a cogent argument for your beliefs.
If you have facts that will support Obama's position, then use those for your argument. If you can't, then simply state that, or just quit posting. There is no shame in either of those two scenarios. The shame is in continuing with your deflections, with no other arguments to back your claim.
As I've already stated, if the roles were reversed, you'd just post a different set of facts to support your opinion. Your opinion wouldn't change, but your facts would. I'm sure I could google up a bunch of 'facts' to show that Bush was bad and Obama was good, but in this case that would just make me as big a hypocrite as you. It's pretty simple -- the Russian dictator did the same thing while Bush was president as he's done while Obama is president. I don't fault Bush's handling of the situation, nor do I fault Obama's. In both cases, there was little each president could realistically do.
There's a saying in law: when the facts are against you, argue the law; when the law is against you, argue the facts; when both are against you: BS! (There exist many variations to the punchline, but the essence is the same).
You aren't challenging the facts of what I posted: the situations are entirely different and involve vastly different stakes. You aren't challenging the reality that Obama chose to get involved before the Russians invaded, whereas Bush did not...the only thing you're trying to argue is that my reaction would be different. Maybe, maybe not.
But the fact you've chosen to focus on my response tells me there's little defense to be made of Obama's behavior here.
If he didn't plan on getting involved, he shouldn't have opened his mouth up before the situation worsened and he's caught moving his "red line" to avoid confrontation.
Nah, you're just attempting to make the situations different so you can say 'Obama bad'. Why don't you just save yourself some time and simply post 'Obama bad' randomly in different threads throughout the day. You'd be saying the same thing you always say but in far fewer words.
Look, if you don't want to be criticized for acting as though when the US president first commented on a situation is the key element to an action by Putin, don't post it as a reason. No one made you. You came up with that ridiculous comparison.
Otherwise, you're talking about size and population? "See, Putin's invasions were completely different because one country is bigger than the other!"
And then the silly car comparison? Come on.
Meanwhile, you still haven't explained why your Chamberlain comparison is even remotely accurate. Again: In the Munich agreement, multiple countries signed a pact giving a chunk of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. In the Ukraine situation, no one did anything like that.
So what makes it the same, other than the fact that you want it to be?
And seriously, stop with the insults. It only makes it sillier.
I leave such lazy characterizations to others. Obama's handling of the situation has left plenty to be desired--and he's faced criticism from many in the left too.
I get it that you want this to be a simple thing, but it's not.
You were the one who began this entire deflection by your usual "but Bush" defense. There are many, many differences between the two situations.
And yes: US involvement is one of them. If you don't think it's a big deal that the US and Europe were actively courting Ukraine to join the Western fold before the Russians invaded--as opposed to the Georgia situation when we weren't; then it tells me you haven't fully grasped the issues.
"Insults"...I like that. If you don't like being criticized for the fawning levels of adoration you give Obama--leaping to defend him for literally everything he does (like some love-drunk Bieber fan), then don't do it.
No conservative made Obama wag his finger at Putin *before* the Russians invaded and tell him not to get involved. No one made him use the phrase "there'll be serious consequences" either. That's on him alone.
you might want to go back thru the thread and see who first mentioned Bush. Hint: It was you.
Why don't we stay on this subject and debate what Obama is doing right... and what he's doing wrong instead?
Back on target....Leon Panetta, one of 0's insiders, says 0 has failed to lead America on an international stage.
Am I the only one that found the source of the comment to be somewhat surprising. Are the kinks in 0's Teflon suit starting to show?
I think it's profoundly interesting and important that one of Obama's inner circle people said this. Obama is doing this on purpose, so he's not ever going to 'triangulate' on any of his lead-from-behind dictates.
One of the first things he did after taking office was to kill our manned space program to become dependent on Russia. He killed the missile defense shield in Poland to embolden the Russians.
He tried to give away our NASA rocket technology to the Muslim nations... Iran loved that idea. Helped destabilize the middle East and Russia's standing in the middle east was greatly improved.
he's slashed $1 trillion dollars from our defense spending... Again Russia loves us for that.
There are other things that he's done to empower Russia and China all the while weakening the United States of America.
Russia got Obama's message via Medvedev when Obama was caught whispering promises (intended for Putin) into Medvedevs ear.
It's fairly simple to the Secretary of Defense who served under both Bush and Obama. He (Gates) says that in both cases Putin was simply an opportunist and that there was little either Bush or Obama could have done to prevent the situation. I'm going to go with the guy who served as SoD under two presidents over the ultrapartisan message board guy on this one.
but yet you discount Panetta when he says that 0 has failed to lead
Where did I discount Panetta? I've never even posted about it. If you are talking about this quote by Panetta:
Then I agree with what he said. Obama does have a mixed record on national security. Can you show me an example of a president who didn't have a mixed record on foreign relations and national security?