Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“I disagree with President Obama’s plan to strike at Syria. It is unlikely to succeed in preventing further chemical attacks and the consequences of even what is planned as a limited attack can be unpredictable. On balance, such a strike is unjustified and the risks outweigh the potential benefits.”
OR:
“Obama is a bloodthirsty warmonger who is lying to start another land war in the Middle East. He’s doing just what his corporate masters are telling him to do so we can get oil from Syria. He’s also just setting up an excuse to invade Iran.”
“I disagree with President Obama’s plan to strike at Syria. It is unlikely to succeed in preventing further chemical attacks and the consequences of even what is planned as a limited attack can be unpredictable. On balance, such a strike is unjustified and the risks outweigh the potential benefits.”
OR:
“Obama is a bloodthirsty warmonger who is lying to start another land war in the Middle East. He’s doing just what his corporate masters are telling him to do so we can get oil from Syria. He’s also just setting up an excuse to invade Iran.”
See the difference?
What I see is a bunch of butt hurt Obomots who are of course outraged that these "racists" are actually questioning The One. Same as it ever was......
“I disagree with President Obama’s plan to strike at Syria. It is unlikely to succeed in preventing further chemical attacks and the consequences of even what is planned as a limited attack can be unpredictable. On balance, such a strike is unjustified and the risks outweigh the potential benefits.”
OR:
“Obama is a bloodthirsty warmonger who is lying to start another land war in the Middle East. He’s doing just what his corporate masters are telling him to do so we can get oil from Syria. He’s also just setting up an excuse to invade Iran.”
See the difference?
Yes, there is a big difference. Sad, but true, and someone already proved your point with his reply to you.
“I disagree with President Obama’s plan to strike at Syria. It is unlikely to succeed in preventing further chemical attacks and the consequences of even what is planned as a limited attack can be unpredictable. On balance, such a strike is unjustified and the risks outweigh the potential benefits.”
OR:
“Obama is a bloodthirsty warmonger who is lying to start another land war in the Middle East. He’s doing just what his corporate masters are telling him to do so we can get oil from Syria. He’s also just setting up an excuse to invade Iran.”
See the difference?
Until you get the forum moderators to ban people for trolls, mindless whining and posts that make no sense, you'll never have that. There's almost no counterpoint to anyone here since it's mostly false conservatives who want to come on here to hear others babble on about whatever opinions the talking points have ultimately given to them. Even the conservative opinions here are really horribly thought out usually and there's little debate since there's probably only 3 or 4 people here who qualify as liberal.
Few of the people making the types of posts of the second type that you give actually understand the issue. They're just spouting out emotional nonsense and thus it's hard to make the first. It's sad really.
Few of the people making the types of posts of the second type that you give actually understand theissue. They're just spouting out emotional nonsense and thus it's hard to make the first. It's sad really.
No one here understands the issue. No one here knows what's really going on in Syria. There is not enough factual information to form anything but an emotional response, for or against based on preconceived notions that have nothing to do with Syria.
National intelligence, regardless of nation, is always colored by politics.
The other day I saw a reporter on Fox speculate that it's possible Obama does not want to attack Syria and knows Congress will not support doing so. This then would allow Obama to reduce defense/military spending and close some military bases ( oh the horror of closing some of the almost 300 bases in Germany). While it sounds far fetched, given all that has come before, it might make some sense for the Obama Admin to take the opposite track to achieve some goals.
“I disagree with President Obama’s plan to strike at Syria. It is unlikely to succeed in preventing further chemical attacks and the consequences of even what is planned as a limited attack can be unpredictable. On balance, such a strike is unjustified and the risks outweigh the potential benefits.”
OR:
“Obama is a bloodthirsty warmonger who is lying to start another land war in the Middle East. He’s doing just what his corporate masters are telling him to do so we can get oil from Syria. He’s also just setting up an excuse to invade Iran.”
See the difference?
The issue is that the first requires thinking, some analysis, listening to alternative evaluations of the situation, and a nuanced view of the world in that it is not a black and white place.
The second requires mashing the keyboard in a rage and passion. I think it was pretty well detailed in the work The Paranoid Style in American Politics on how the passionate angry mind works. I think it is a pivotal work on wingnuts in American politics.
What I see is a bunch of butt hurt Obomots who are of course outraged that these "racists" are actually questioning The One. Same as it ever was......
Exactly. We should call it as we see it - if he is a lying, bloodthirsty warmonger (and there's every indication that he is) we should say that he's a lying, bloodthirsty warmonger. The truth might sting, but it's better in the long run to not mince words. Facing reality as it is is preferable to cloaking atrocities, defective policies, and character flaws in an aura of friendliness and legitimacy, when such things deserve neither.
Anger is not in and of itself a sign of thoughtlessness - indeed, one should consider the facts carefully and then reach a conclusion. If that conclusion is "Obama is a lying, bloodthirsty warmonger", then so be it. Policies that are defective, cause great harm to the country, and will kill innocent people must be opposed forcefully and passionately, and that includes anger. Those who would have us enforce an attitude of faux-friendliness, aversion to anger and passion, and eagerness to compromise no matter what the circumstances or consequences display a lack of conscience and independent thinking.
“I disagree with President Obama’s plan to strike at Syria. It is unlikely to succeed in preventing further chemical attacks and the consequences of even what is planned as a limited attack can be unpredictable. On balance, such a strike is unjustified and the risks outweigh the potential benefits.”
OR:
“Obama is a bloodthirsty warmonger who is lying to start another land war in the Middle East. He’s doing just what his corporate masters are telling him to do so we can get oil from Syria. He’s also just setting up an excuse to invade Iran.”
See the difference?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you?
