Jump to content

Some tutorials on the new software have been pinned here.

Sign in to follow this  
FiredMotorCompany

The "Thrill Is Gone"-The Collapse Of Obama-mania

Recommended Posts

 

Why does he always ask leading questions that are from way out there in conspiracy land that none of us have joined him in?

If you didn't have a comment or response to the post, why are you making this about me?

 

Respond to my comment. Or ignore it.

 

Instead, you have now made me an adjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way what is the standard that the Ukraine is being held too? You posted some blah, blah blah stuff by Susan Rice, but i didn't hear a standard in there so i can't answer yes or no to it. And closed question are those answered with a yes or no, not open ended.

Obama is supporting the Ukraine people who are disgusted and revolted against their democratically elected president who acted in ways the people would no longer tolerate.

 

You don't see the similarities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you didn't have a comment or response to the post, why are you making this about me?

 

Respond to my comment. Or ignore it.

 

Instead, you have now made me an adjective.

 

I made a comment to the post. You incorrectly called it deflection and acted like it was this easy open-ended question, which it was not.

 

That's on you, not me. Your the one throwing all the bullshit in the question and then when you you got called on it you then doubled down the bullshit.

Edited by Langston Hughes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is supporting the Ukraine people who are disgusted and revolted against their democratically elected president who acted in ways the people would no longer tolerate.

 

You don't see the similarities?

 

No, not really. I'm sorry, but there's no correlation between the two. Let me know when Obama has Mitt Romney charged by the justice dept. and then i might see a resemblance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Susan Rice on "Meet The Press" today...

 

David Greggory: "Is the United States on the side of the protesters?"

 

Susan Rice: "The United States is on the side of the Ukrainian people. And the Ukrainian people have indicated from the outset, three months ago when this began, that, that, uh, President Yanukovych at the time, his decision to turn away from Europe was not the choice of the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian people, um, expressed themselves peacefully, they were met with violence. Uh, and that did not, uh, end well for Yanukovych."

 

 

 

 

With the revelations of NSA spying, drones over US territory, political dissent met with government iron-fisted tactics of intimidation, accusations, interference and IRS manipulations, does anyone believe, naively in my opinion, the US government under Obama would be held to the same standard as it holds Ukraine?

 

 

 

Why does he always ask leading questions that are from way out there in conspiracy land that none of us have joined him in?

Why do you respond to comments you don't have any intent to discuss, other than me?

 

You seem to be the only one who cannot grasp the concept.

 

And you deflect rather than respond to the "open ended" question....

 

"does anyone believe, naively in my opinion, the US government under Obama would be held to the same standard as it holds Ukraine?"

 

 

 

It's not deflection. You said a whole bunch of shit and I disagree with the ridiculous stuff. I am allowed to comment on what i would like, and do not have to accept what you wrote about the "Iron-fisted tactics" just because you put a question mark at the end.

 

And once again your intellectual dishonesty comes out, as you know that is not a open ended question at all. It's a loaded question and a closed one at that.

 

Sure, you're allowed to comment on what you like. Just don't be a rectal sphincter by attacking me instead of the issue at hand.

 

And you don't want to get into intellectual dishonesty debate. You are king of that. You attack me/us for calling out Obama for his wrongs. Yet, you have yet to lead the way in ANY criticism of him, only defending him and attacking us for being less sycophantic.

 

By the way what is the standard that the Ukraine is being held too? You posted some blah, blah blah stuff by Susan Rice, but i didn't hear a standard in there so i can't answer yes or no to it. And closed question are those answered with a yes or no, not open ended.

Obama is supporting the people in their revolt against their renegade leader. But, if the tables were turned, you'd be on his Royal Guard. You refuse to see a corollary in the Ukrainian people and those in the US who are equally dissatisfied with the leader who creatively interprets his sworn oath of office.

 

If you didn't have a comment or response to the post, why are you making this about me?

 

Respond to my comment. Or ignore it.

 

Instead, you have now made me an adjective.

 

 

Obama is supporting the Ukraine people who are disgusted and revolted against their democratically elected president who acted in ways the people would no longer tolerate.

 

You don't see the similarities?

 

 

 

I made a comment to the post. You incorrectly called it deflection and acted like it was this easy open-ended question, which it was not.

 

That's on you, not me. Your the one throwing all the bullshit in the question and then when you you got called on it you then doubled down the bullshit.

Your comment was only directed at me for having the audacity to ask the question.

Even when I narrowed the comment to the core question, your "comment" was about me.

Is that a hint to what "fetishes" an eagle scout wouldn't like to know about? If I was the age of an Eagle Scout, you might sound like a pedo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And you don't want to get into intellectual dishonesty debate. You are king of that. You attack me/us for calling out Obama for his wrongs. Yet, you have yet to lead the way in ANY criticism of him, only defending him and attacking us for being less sycophantic.

 

Obama is supporting the people in their revolt against their renegade leader. But, if the tables were turned, you'd be on his Royal Guard. You refuse to see a corollary in the Ukrainian people and those in the US who are equally dissatisfied with the leader who creatively interprets his sworn oath of office.

 

Your comment was only directed at me for having the audacity to ask the question.

Even when I narrowed the comment to the core question, your "comment" was about me.

Is that a hint to what "fetishes" an eagle scout wouldn't like to know about? If I was the age of an Eagle Scout, you might sound like a pedo.

 

Fired,

It's dishonest to call what you wrote a open ended question? It was clearly a loaded question with all that stuff about iron-fisted and stuff like that and you are aware that it was. That's why I accused you of being dishonest because you are smart enough to know that your playing bullshit word games and yet you continue, taking umbrage when i remind you it's bullshit. Stop getting defensive about it.

 

Beside, the Ukraine is nothing like America under any recent president. As bad as Bush was, he's a sweetheart compared to what they had. Instead of bogus comparisons to Viktor Yanukovych, perhaps you should take some time to relax and be thankful our country is what it is.

 

Again, stop with the bullshit comparisons. This is not the Ukraine and Obama is not Yanukovych. simple enough

 

My comment was directed at you because you threw in all the bullshit at the beginning. Come on son, you know that was some silly shit so let it go, and realize that even when you said you narrowed the question that you really didn't.

 

FiredMotorCompany, on 24 Feb 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:
You seem to be the only one who cannot grasp the concept.
And you deflect rather than respond to the "open ended" question....
"does anyone believe, naively in my opinion, the US government under Obama would be held to the same standard as it holds Ukraine?

 

 

Yeah, see it's hard to get around that you didn't just narrow the question.

 

And thanks for the gay pedophile insinuation. Wow, you must have felt that your argument was pretty fucking weak to go there. All that dishonest bullshit and then a personal attack, you are really not doing well here are you?

 

Needless to say my kinks are all consenting ADULT ones, thank you very much.

Edited by Langston Hughes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And thanks for the gay pedophile insinuation. Wow, you must have felt that your argument was pretty fucking weak to go there. All that dishonest bullshit and then a personal attack, you are really not doing well here are you?

 

Needless to say my kinks are all consenting ADULT ones, thank you very much.

 

You left the question open to wide interpretation while trying to insult me with your intentional "eagle scout" assertions and saying your fetishes were too extreme for me.

 

Try omitting the personal attacks and I'll reciprocate the courtesy.

 

So, you disagree that Obama would react similarly if the American people reacted en masse to his continuing to selectively interpret the law of the land and other actions the people find untenable, and if the people revolted, he would ultimately use force against the people of the US, where he says they were justified in their revolt in Ukraine?

Edited by FiredMotorCompany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And you don't want to get into intellectual dishonesty debate. You are king of that. You attack me/us for calling out Obama for his wrongs. Yet, you have yet to lead the way in ANY criticism of him, only defending him and attacking us for being less sycophantic.

What is your response to this? You brought up intellectual honesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IRS manipulations?? You still beating that dead and untrue horse?

 

I'm not sure that anyone cares if you think people are naive given your paranoia, but what iron-fisted tactics are you referring to?

 

 

Well, I didn't just make this up. And you're off your meds if you deny this.

 

Obama’s proposed IRS rules to limit tax-exempt status concern liberals, too

The Obama administration’s proposed crackdown on tea party and other nonprofit groups that want to play a role in politics is quietly crumbling as opposition builds across the political spectrum to new IRS rules.

Almost all of the nearly 70,000 public comments submitted as of Monday night were vehemently opposed to the proposal, which would limit the ability of social welfare nonprofits — those organized under 501©(4) of the tax code — to even talk about candidates in the two months before an election.

Conservatives have been battling the Internal Revenue Service, with the Republican-controlled House planning votes this week to try to halt the rules. But opposition from the other side of the political spectrum also is growing as liberal groups take a deeper look at the rules and realize they would affect more than just tea party and high-dollar conservative organizations.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the proposed rule “threatens to discourage or sterilize an enormous amount of political discourse in America.”

The Alliance for Justice, a coalition of more than 100 progressive groups, was opposed from the start. It led a signature drive on a letter asking the IRS to withdraw the series of changes, which it called “a very deep and troubling line in the sand.”

The League of Conservation Voters, one of the highest-spending nonprofits in the past election cycle, said it appreciates the IRS motives but worries that the agency is going too far.

“We have always been supportive of real reform that gets special interest money out of politics, and we welcome additional clarity. This is just the first step and, as always, the devil is in the details,” said David Willett, vice president of communications. “We want to make sure that any final rules do the right job of curtailing shadowy c4s and don’t end up hurting legitimate groups who represent large public constituencies.”

In the wake of the tea party targeting scandal, the IRS announced last year that it would try to rewrite rules to limit how much political activity nonprofits can do and still qualify for tax-exempt status.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the hits just keep coming.

 

Anyone remember Ralph Nader? Anyone think he's a TEA Party member? A Conservative? A Republican? A Liberal? BINGO!

 

Well, add him to the growing list of Americans who accuse Obama of overstepping the authority of office and abusing the constitution while selectively enforcing the law of the land, in effect usurping the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Or writing new law out of thin air, usurping the powers delegated to the Congress.

 

I am not alone, and more are joining the party, in feeling Obama thinks he is more a King than a president.

 

Ralph Nader: Obama the ’executioner’

In his new book, Ralph Nader calls for the end of “unconstitutional wars and unchecked militarism” — and lays blame on President Barack Obama for going beyond even George W. Bush.

Nader writes in “Unstoppable” that Obama “has extended the Bush doctrine by declaring his unilateral right, as secret prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, to destroy anybody, anywhere in the world, including American citizens, suspected to be engaged in alleged terrorist activities, all this vaguely and loosely defined as anti-U.S. security.”

He continues, “Inspired by the military actions of the Clinton administration, the Obama and Bush teams made a seamless transition into a militarized foreign policy, extending even further the illegal reach of wars of choice, invasions, incursions, and drone attacks, carried out irrespective of national sovereignties.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You left the question open to wide interpretation while trying to insult me with your intentional "eagle scout" assertions and saying your fetishes were too extreme for me.

 

Try omitting the personal attacks and I'll reciprocate the courtesy.

 

So, you disagree that Obama would react similarly if the American people reacted en masse to his continuing to selectively interpret the law of the land and other actions the people find untenable, and if the people revolted, he would ultimately use force against the people of the US, where he says they were justified in their revolt in Ukraine?

 

1. You've told us and me specifically all about your goody goody nature and the element of people that I engage with is outside of your realm.

 

2. You've claimed your above them and now your admitting that you are not. Further evidence of the dishonesty.

 

3. Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your response to this? You brought up intellectual honesty.

 

The same as i always have said. The things i criticize Obama for you don't want to hear because it's all moves to your political side, so there's no point in mentioning it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I didn't just make this up. And you're off your meds if you deny this.

 

Obama’s proposed IRS rules to limit tax-exempt status concern liberals, too

 

 

Sorry but i'd be off my meds to read the Washington Times so I looked it up on a less biased site and found that while they proposed rules are not liked by certain groups, it is not anything like you suggest, a leader trying to silence opposition. Clearly you are feeling very paranoid again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The same as i always have said. The things i criticize Obama for you don't want to hear because it's all moves to your political side, so there's no point in mentioning it.

Care to restate that? It's written such that it could be read several ways. One such interpretation implies your moves are TOWARD my political side, so it's unnecessary to mention. Edited by FiredMotorCompany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to restate that? It's written such that it could be read several ways. One such interpretation implies your moves are TOWARD my political side, so it's unnecessary to mention.

 

No, there is no interpretation that says that. Read it the same way it's always been. The things i disagree with Obama on mostly are when his policies move to the right, so it's not worth my time criticizing him here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, there is no interpretation that says that. Read it the same way it's always been. The things i disagree with Obama on mostly are when his policies move to the right, so it's not worth my time criticizing him here.

So you'd only criticize him when he moves to the left? I guess that's why we have seen SO MUCH of your comments aimed at his failures and excesses.

 

You are now officially an employed tool of the administration. Jay Carney has done worse in defending and deflecting criticism. And he makes the point to never mention Obama's faults.

Edited by FiredMotorCompany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you'd only criticize him when he moves to the left? I guess that's why we have seen SO MUCH of your comments aimed at his failures and excesses.

 

You are now officially an employed tool of the administration. Jay Carney has done worse in defending and deflecting criticism. And he makes the point to never mention Obama's faults.

 

No.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there is no interpretation that says that. Read it the same way it's always been. The things i disagree with Obama on mostly are when his policies move to the right, so it's not worth my time criticizing him here.

 

 

So you'd only criticize him when he moves to the left? I guess that's why we have seen SO MUCH of your comments aimed at his failures and excesses.

 

You are now officially an employed tool of the administration. Jay Carney has done worse in defending and deflecting criticism. And he makes the point to never mention Obama's faults.

 

 

No..

 

Thanks.

Obviously.

 

So you'd only criticize him when he moves to the left? I guess that's why we have seen SO MUCH of your comments aimed at his failures and excesses.

 

You are now officially an employed tool of the administration. Jay Carney has done worse in defending and deflecting criticism. And he makes the point to never mention Obama's faults.

 

No.

 

Thanks.

Sycophant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sycophant.

 

Naw, just not wasting my time complaining about things where Obama is acting more conservative to the conservative crowd here. I can bitch to my lefty friends about that.

 

 

edit: Like this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/27/democrats-trans-pacific-partnership_n_4868262.html

Edited by Langston Hughes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama now faces the consequences for his 5 year campaign of dismantling the image of a powerful and resolute United States. And Putin is calling Obama's hand.

Imagine the outcome if Putin was Khrushchev and Obama was Kennedy.

We'd have nukes aimed at us from Cuba. And Europe would still be divided, the Berlin Wall would still be standing and we'd have continued provocative overflights by soviet bombers.

Just like the good old days.


Does anyone think our "community organizer" is any threat to the KGB Lieutenant Colonel?
Putin knows Obama's "All hat, no cattle."

Now the mistake of the liberals love of Obama's passivism is obliterated by his weakness.

How does he respond to Putin? With threats of a multinational, "Stern warning".
polls_ObamaFingerPointing_5702_725127_an

No, not that. More like this.......8C8781103-130829-miley-finger-tease.bloc



And Putin calls his bluff.

Peace through strength beats pleas for peace on quivering knees.

Kremlin Clears Way for Force in Ukraine; Separatist Split Feared

Russia Executes De Facto Takeover of Crimea Region


Obama's response? RUN!
article-2570085-1BE8A74E00000578-845_634

 

Obama Skips National Security Team Meeting on Russia, Ukraine

A White House official emailed some reporters to say that President Obama's team met today to discuss the ongoing situation on Ukraine. It appears President Obama did not attend.

"The President's national security team met today to receive an update on the situation in Ukraine and discuss potential policy options. We will provide further updates later this afternoon," reads the full statement.

 

Edited by FiredMotorCompany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obama now faces the consequences for his 5 year campaign of dismantling the image of a powerful and resolute United States. And Putin is calling Obama's hand.

 

Imagine the outcome if Putin was Khrushchev and Obama was Kennedy.

 

We'd have nukes aimed at us from Cuba. And Europe would still be divided, the Berlin Wall would still be standing and we'd have continued provocative overflights by soviet bombers.

 

Just like the good old days.

 

 

Does anyone think our "community organizer" is any threat to the KGB Lieutenant Colonel?

Putin knows Obama's "All hat, no cattle."

 

Now the mistake of the liberals love of Obama's passivism is obliterated by his weakness.

 

How does he respond to Putin? With threats of a multinational, "Stern warning".

 

No, not that. More like this.......

 

And Putin calls his bluff.

 

Peace through strength beats pleas for peace on quivering knees.

 

Kremlin Clears Way for Force in Ukraine; Separatist Split Feared

 

Russia Executes De Facto Takeover of Crimea Region

 

 

Obama Skips National Security Team Meeting on Russia, Ukraine

 

 

Where did you steal that from?

 

Seems to me that I saw this same scenario play out before. Do you have any idea where that might be and when it was? Oh yeah, it was Georgia and under president Bush. Yes, the man who saw Putin's soul issued these stern warnings...

 

"We strongly condemn the bombing outside South Ossetia," President Bush said in a Rose Garden speech Monday afternoon.

 

 

Yeah, Ole Vlad's doing this in the Ukraine because of Obama.

 

I understand that you don't like Obama or his policies but you should understand that Putin is going to do what he wants because he's a bit how you say, mad with power. it has nothing to do with Obama, or fiver years of blah blah blah because the reality is that he started consolidating power and looking to do this more than five years ago. I'd like to think that you got snowed by bush's quote about Putin's soul, but it seems obvious that you are just being your less than honest self again.

 

If anything Obama has shown a willingness to engage our enemies just as aggressively as Bush ever did, and actually engaging our enemies, unlike bush who attacked a non threat and made us the laughing stock of the world by invading Iraq. Again you may not like him, but he has taken a free hand with surgical military and drone strikes more so than the previous president all while maintaining a less vocally aggressive posture. I thought they called that something like "talk quietly but carry a big stick."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny we say this after how our foreign policy works. Pretty much the same as we do.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/kerry-condemns-russian-action-ukraine-invasion-n42251

 

 

Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday condemned Russia’s “invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory” and warned that its relations with the U.S. were at risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where did you steal that from?

 

Seems to me that I saw this same scenario play out before. Do you have any idea where that might be and when it was? Oh yeah, it was Georgia and under president Bush. Yes, the man who saw Putin's soul issued these stern warnings...

 

 

Yeah, Ole Vlad's doing this in the Ukraine because of Obama.

 

I understand that you don't like Obama or his policies but you should understand that Putin is going to do what he wants because he's a bit how you say, mad with power. it has nothing to do with Obama, or fiver years of blah blah blah because the reality is that he started consolidating power and looking to do this more than five years ago. I'd like to think that you got snowed by bush's quote about Putin's soul, but it seems obvious that you are just being your less than honest self again.

 

If anything Obama has shown a willingness to engage our enemies just as aggressively as Bush ever did, and actually engaging our enemies, unlike bush who attacked a non threat and made us the laughing stock of the world by invading Iraq. Again you may not like him, but he has taken a free hand with surgical military and drone strikes more so than the previous president all while maintaining a less vocally aggressive posture. I thought they called that something like "talk quietly but carry a big stick."

Are you accusing me of plagiarism? If so, wouldn't you think I'd steal a better worded and constructed comment. Rather, it was developed point by point after multiple edits that developed my take on the inept response of the administration.

 

 

BTW, Obama's boots need licking. He certainly isn't going to lick anyone with his leadership and decisive actions.

 

 

 

If anything, Obama has shown a willingness to make sure the image of the US is one of a country of lip service and paperwork, posturing, photo-ops, pandering, kowtowing, apologizing, limp wrists, dis-arming national security, bureaucratic gamesmanship and spinelessness.

 

 

I don't see Putin shaking in his high boots in fear Obama will do ANYTHING to stop him except talk about asking him to please leave Ukraine.

Edited by FiredMotorCompany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you accusing me of plagiarism? If so, wouldn't you think I'd steal a better worded and constructed comment. Rather, it was developed point by point after multiple edits that developed my take on the inept response of the administration.

 

BTW, Obama's boots need licking. He certainly isn't going to lick anyone with his leadership and decisive actions.

 

If anything, Obama has shown a willingness to make sure the image of the US is one of a country of lip service and paperwork, posturing, photo-ops, pandering, kowtowing, apologizing, limp wrists, dis-arming national security, bureaucratic gamesmanship and spinelessness.

 

I don't see Putin shaking in his high boots in fear Obama will do ANYTHING to stop him except talk about asking him to please leave Ukraine.

 

No, I wouldn't think so. I thought it looked just like the type of thing you'd find on an email and think is cute. If you must insist that it was your own work, then i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but only because i thought you could put something better together rather than that bag of flaming dogshit.

 

How do you know they need licking, you been down there looking at them?

 

The only one kowtowing to Putin was Bush and his looking into his soul comments. Obama has taken a harder line on the activities of Russia then his predecessor ever did and the relationship has been much more combative. Unfortunately, the years under his predecessor were ones where Putin's power was not challenged and now after all those years, he is willing to exert it full extent.

 

I don't see Putin shaking in his boots at all to anyone. Your being really ignorant if you think he would be scared of anyone.

 

And given the way that conservatives responded to Obama's Syrian plans, it's no wonder that he wouldn't be scared. Instead of standing behind Obama and pushing harder on a Russian proxy, conservatives cut the nuts off our foreign policy for political points. If anyone made the US look weak to Russia it certainly was the conservatives in that episode. They made us look weak to a Russian vassal state and you want to blame Obama because Putin knows that they might do it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stole this from another pages comment section.

 

What do you get when America has a "leader" who follows the Jimmy Carter doctrine of weakness and appeasement? A "leader" who refuses to take a stand, who "votes present" during world crisis, who dramatically issues empty threats and "red lines" that everyone knows he will shrink away from? When America has a weak, pompous coward who denigrates and sneers at the real men who are willing to go in harm's way to protect others, who is intent upon slashing our military and destroying the massive deterrent that has kept us relatively safe....How do real leaders react?

By spanking our feckless "leader" like a little bitch. By further reinforcing the world's view of him as a completely ineffective, incompetent, and pathetically weak coward.

Syria was just the beginning. The Ukraine is the next humiliation. This is like watching an evil version of Reagan humiliate that sad little peanut farmer.....Over and over.

Hell, I couldn't stand little Bushy. He grabbed disgusting amounts of power for the Executive Branch, and weakened the Constitution. But, at least the rest of the world respected or feared him.

Well, America.....You elected a dope smoking community organizer from shithole Chicago....and pitted him against the former head of the KGB.

Congratulations. You idiots managed to buy into promises of "free" health care, "fairness", and an arrogant ass who told you that successful people were somehow wrong because they had achieved more than you.

Your weakness has now translated into the world sneering at us....and licking their chops while laughing about how weak we are.

1926816_1478543662366953_1921284158_n.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×