Are you guys still buying this shit?

Love how you guys argue over figure heads.

Love how you guys argue over figure heads. Originally Posted by Gotyour6

It's figureheads. All one word. You know what I love? People who drop in and offer commentary.

When did RoseAnn Barr cut her hair and start walking the piers?

Goes well with this idiot from your side

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yD5ICJcJyw Originally Posted by WombRaider

This video sadly shows that so many people don't learn the topics and form educated opinions on them. Its true on both sides of the aisle.

With President Obama, it strikes me that he wants to be viewed as a leader of change but has no idea how to build consensus with those opposed to his POV. He references Ronald Reagan, known as a consensus builder, quite often so I believe he would like to be remembered the same way.

But he doesn't know how to do that...simple example:

President Obama states in his speech that if congress does not vote to support the Iran deal, we will be left standing alone after being a member of the group that put it together. Standing alone is what leaders have to do sometimes...he is interested in looking good now that his Secretary of State has lead the other countries to this point. But if it looks like he was acting alone without support, it will make him look weak. But he doesn't say it that way...he says we will isolate our allies. The spin is incredible.

If our president didn't want to stand alone, why did he not build that consensus with members of congress prior to going to the negotiating table? You don't build consensus after the fact! And there was time to do that prior to the negotiations...Lord knows the Iranians stalled long enough.

I don't know if he really want to build consensus badly enough...it takes determination and perseverance and commitment and once the other side sees that they will raise their level of respect for him and what he stands for. I speculate his advisers tell him, "You're the president. You should not have to given in to much of anything. They <sic Congress> need to follow along because you are the president."

At times it seems like president Obama treats summoning members to the White House like calling a student to the principal's office as if that is supposed to make them behave and do as he says. That is not consensus building.

When did RoseAnn Barr cut her hair and start walking the piers?

This video sadly shows that so many people don't learn the topics and form educated opinions on them. Its true on both sides of the aisle.

With President Obama, it strikes me that he wants to be viewed as a leader of change but has no idea how to build consensus with those opposed to his POV. He references Ronald Reagan, known as a consensus builder, quite often so I believe he would like to be remembered the same way.

But he doesn't know how to do that...simple example:

President Obama states in his speech that if congress does not vote to support the Iran deal, we will be left standing alone after being a member of the group that put it together. Standing alone is what leaders have to do sometimes...he is interested in looking good now that his Secretary of State has lead the other countries to this point. But if it looks like he was acting alone without support, it will make him look weak. But he doesn't say it that way...he says we will isolate our allies. The spin is incredible.

If our president didn't want to stand alone, why did he not build that consensus with members of congress prior to going to the negotiating table? You don't build consensus after the fact! And there was time to do that prior to the negotiations...Lord knows the Iranians stalled long enough.

I don't know if he really want to build consensus badly enough...it takes determination and perseverance and commitment and once the other side sees that they will raise their level of respect for him and what he stands for. I speculate his advisers tell him, "You're the president. You should not have to given in to much of anything. They <sic Congress> need to follow along because you are the president."

At times it seems like president Obama treats summoning members to the White House like calling a student to the principal's office as if that is supposed to make them behave and do as he says. That is not consensus building. Originally Posted by CS25

I think it's pretty clear that conservatives had no interest in a consensus. What with the letter and all. They made their position clear.

Here is a good dissection of just how awful Odumbo's speech was:

Full Orwell

The deeper logic of Obama’s partisan smear.

By JAMES TARANTO
Aug. 6, 2015 1:33 p.m. ET

Was that the worst speech ever delivered by a U.S. president? Maybe not—our knowledge of 226 years worth of presidential oratory is less than comprehensive—but no rival comes to mind.

Rather than enumerate every flaw of Barack Obama’s defense of his Iran deal yesterday, we’d like to look deeply at the most glaring one, namely this passage:

"Just because Iranian hard-liners chant 'Death to America' does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those hard-liners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hard-liners chanting 'Death to America' who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus."

Unsurprisingly, that partisan smear, vicious even by Obama’s standards, has drawn a good deal of comment from the right. Fox News reports that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell demanded a retraction, and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican, said: “I think it’s beneath that office to be able to make these analogies.” A National Review headline asks incredulously: “Is This Seriously a Line from a Speech by the President of the United States?” A Wall Street Journal editorial observes facetiously: “Name-calling and immoral equivalence are always the best way to win over skeptics.”

Surprisingly, the left has had very little to say about this particular calumny. There’s probably a forthright defense of it out there somewhere—but we couldn’t find one, and we looked. The New York Times editorial board attempted to clean up after the president with this gentle paraphrase: “He likened Republicans to Iranian hard-liners, saying both are more comfortable with the status quo.”

That is inaccurate. What Obama said was that Republicans and “Iranian hard-liners” are “making common cause.” Not only did he not describe the former as “comfortable with the status quo,” he explicitly acknowledged they are not:

"Among U.S. policymakers, there’s never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world’s most unstable region, and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, and pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to non-proliferation that the world has done so much to defend. The question, then, is not whether to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but how."

According to Obama, there are only two ways of answering that question:

"So let’s not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war—maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon."

“Let’s not mince words” serves the same function as “let me be clear”: It prompts the reader to ignore the mincing of words that immediately follows. The next sentence, all of two dozen words, includes two maybes. It asserts that a choice we face “ultimately” will have consequences “soon”—which seems achronological, though maybe Obama means “soon” relative to the age of the universe.

Most telling is the equivocation “some sort of war.” Does Obama really think that by choosing his form of “diplomacy,” America would prevent war of any sort? No. In fact, he acknowledges it will foment several sorts of war:

"Now, this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military. Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to. We have no illusions about the Iranian government, or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies—including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq. They try to destabilize our Gulf partners. But Iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. They engaged in them before sanctions and while sanctions were in place. In fact, Iran even engaged in these activities in the middle of the Iran-Iraq War—a war that cost them nearly a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."

You might say we’ve always been at war with Westasia. Obama has gone full Orwell here. He claims that his “diplomacy” precludes the possibility of any “sort of war” while acknowledging it will feed a war machine. He is quite literally claiming that war is peace.

Which brings us back to the “common cause with the Republican caucus” line. The most obvious interpretation is that the “common cause” is war. The president’s speech opened with a lengthy argumentum ad hominem to the effect that “many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.” Both positions, he said, arise from an unacceptable “mindset,” which “we” have to “end.”

Obama’s “common cause” argument rests on several factual premises that seem to us obviously false, and that certainly are not obviously true—among them, that Republicans desire war, that there is a meaningful distinction between “Iranian hard-liners” and the Iranian regime, and that those hard-liners would prefer American military action to American appeasement.

But there is an even more basic objection to Obama’s statement. Assume for the sake of argument that the “Iranian hard-liners” and the Republicans really do want an all-out military confrontation. Now, consider an example from history when such a result actually obtained. On Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. On Dec. 8, Congress declared war on Japan. Would it make any sense to say that the Japanese and the U.S. Congress had made “common cause”?

Obama is equating mutual antagonism with its opposite, “common cause.” Again, Orwell put it more pithily: War is peace.

If Republicans who oppose the deal are “making common cause” with “Iranian hard-liners,” does it not follow that so are the Israelis—as well as those Democratic lawmakers who’ve announced opposition to the deal (seven so far, all in the House, according to the Hill), and 57% of the American public (including 55% of independents and 32% of Democrats), according to the latest Quinnipiac poll?

That one’s too easy. After denouncing Republicans, Obama acknowledges—accurately if not sincerely—that some opponents have an “understandable motivation,” namely “a sincere affinity for our friend and ally, Israel.” He adds that “no one can blame Israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with a government like Iran’s.”

The political logic here is transparent. As Rich Lowry observes, it’s “base mobilization as [the president] seeks to hold the Democrats he will need for the one-third+1 of Congress necessary to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval.” A vicious display of contempt for Republicans won’t hurt him much among congressional Democrats, and could even help.

It’s all quite a diminution for the man who said, in accepting the Democratic nomination in 2008:

"These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain. But what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes, because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and each other’s patriotism. The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain."

What accounts for Obama’s change in mindset? Are the times less serious now? Are the stakes lower?

Once they get around to defending yesterday’s partisan smear, the president’s defenders will no doubt say—as they have said often in the past—that Republicans are the aggressors, that the partisan antagonism may be mutual now but started with them.

In response, suffice it to say that by Obama’s logic, it follows that he is making common cause with the Republican caucus.

.

That was an absolutely braindead critique of his speech. Goddamn. I would be embarrassed to put my name in the byline on a story like that. The beautiful part is their return to 2008, as if times haven't changed since then.

SLOBBRIN merely cuts and pastes the most outrageous shit he can turn up in a Google search.

For him, the content is irrelevant, the searching is.

We should take that into consideration before criticizing him too harshly as a mental incompetent.

Naaaahhhh! He's certifiably retarded.

Here is a good dissection of just how awful Odumbo's speech was:

Full Orwell

The deeper logic of Obama’s partisan smear.

By JAMES TARANTO
Aug. 6, 2015 1:33 p.m. ET

Was that the worst speech ever delivered by a U.S. president? Maybe not—our knowledge of 226 years worth of presidential oratory is less than comprehensive—but no rival comes to mind.

Rather than enumerate every flaw of Barack Obama’s defense of his Iran deal yesterday, we’d like to look deeply at the most glaring one, namely this passage:

"Just because Iranian hard-liners chant 'Death to America' does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those hard-liners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hard-liners chanting 'Death to America' who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus."

Unsurprisingly, that partisan smear, vicious even by Obama’s standards, has drawn a good deal of comment from the right. Fox News reports that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell demanded a retraction, and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican, said: “I think it’s beneath that office to be able to make these analogies.” A National Review headline asks incredulously: “Is This Seriously a Line from a Speech by the President of the United States?” A Wall Street Journal editorial observes facetiously: “Name-calling and immoral equivalence are always the best way to win over skeptics.”

Surprisingly, the left has had very little to say about this particular calumny. There’s probably a forthright defense of it out there somewhere—but we couldn’t find one, and we looked. The New York Times editorial board attempted to clean up after the president with this gentle paraphrase: “He likened Republicans to Iranian hard-liners, saying both are more comfortable with the status quo.”

That is inaccurate. What Obama said was that Republicans and “Iranian hard-liners” are “making common cause.” Not only did he not describe the former as “comfortable with the status quo,” he explicitly acknowledged they are not:

"Among U.S. policymakers, there’s never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world’s most unstable region, and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, and pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to non-proliferation that the world has done so much to defend. The question, then, is not whether to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but how."

According to Obama, there are only two ways of answering that question:

"So let’s not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war—maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon."

“Let’s not mince words” serves the same function as “let me be clear”: It prompts the reader to ignore the mincing of words that immediately follows. The next sentence, all of two dozen words, includes two maybes. It asserts that a choice we face “ultimately” will have consequences “soon”—which seems achronological, though maybe Obama means “soon” relative to the age of the universe.

Most telling is the equivocation “some sort of war.” Does Obama really think that by choosing his form of “diplomacy,” America would prevent war of any sort? No. In fact, he acknowledges it will foment several sorts of war:

"Now, this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military. Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to. We have no illusions about the Iranian government, or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies—including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq. They try to destabilize our Gulf partners. But Iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. They engaged in them before sanctions and while sanctions were in place. In fact, Iran even engaged in these activities in the middle of the Iran-Iraq War—a war that cost them nearly a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."

You might say we’ve always been at war with Westasia. Obama has gone full Orwell here. He claims that his “diplomacy” precludes the possibility of any “sort of war” while acknowledging it will feed a war machine. He is quite literally claiming that war is peace.

Which brings us back to the “common cause with the Republican caucus” line. The most obvious interpretation is that the “common cause” is war. The president’s speech opened with a lengthy argumentum ad hominem to the effect that “many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.” Both positions, he said, arise from an unacceptable “mindset,” which “we” have to “end.”

Obama’s “common cause” argument rests on several factual premises that seem to us obviously false, and that certainly are not obviously true—among them, that Republicans desire war, that there is a meaningful distinction between “Iranian hard-liners” and the Iranian regime, and that those hard-liners would prefer American military action to American appeasement.

But there is an even more basic objection to Obama’s statement. Assume for the sake of argument that the “Iranian hard-liners” and the Republicans really do want an all-out military confrontation. Now, consider an example from history when such a result actually obtained. On Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. On Dec. 8, Congress declared war on Japan. Would it make any sense to say that the Japanese and the U.S. Congress had made “common cause”?

Obama is equating mutual antagonism with its opposite, “common cause.” Again, Orwell put it more pithily: War is peace.

If Republicans who oppose the deal are “making common cause” with “Iranian hard-liners,” does it not follow that so are the Israelis—as well as those Democratic lawmakers who’ve announced opposition to the deal (seven so far, all in the House, according to the Hill), and 57% of the American public (including 55% of independents and 32% of Democrats), according to the latest Quinnipiac poll?

That one’s too easy. After denouncing Republicans, Obama acknowledges—accurately if not sincerely—that some opponents have an “understandable motivation,” namely “a sincere affinity for our friend and ally, Israel.” He adds that “no one can blame Israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with a government like Iran’s.”

The political logic here is transparent. As Rich Lowry observes, it’s “base mobilization as [the president] seeks to hold the Democrats he will need for the one-third+1 of Congress necessary to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval.” A vicious display of contempt for Republicans won’t hurt him much among congressional Democrats, and could even help.

It’s all quite a diminution for the man who said, in accepting the Democratic nomination in 2008:

"These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain. But what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes, because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and each other’s patriotism. The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain."

What accounts for Obama’s change in mindset? Are the times less serious now? Are the stakes lower?

Once they get around to defending yesterday’s partisan smear, the president’s defenders will no doubt say—as they have said often in the past—that Republicans are the aggressors, that the partisan antagonism may be mutual now but started with them.

In response, suffice it to say that by Obama’s logic, it follows that he is making common cause with the Republican caucus.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Senator Chuck Schumer (Amy's cousin) is going to oppose the "deal" with Iran. Does this mean that he is like some kind of terrorist or Iranian hardliner? What about the other senators who will follow him? Are they terrorists too? You know what this mean? That maybe since Schumer is against the "deal" that the GOP may be opposing this on principle and not politics. Ooohhh! Imagine that! That means that Obama was wrong again.

That was an absolutely braindead critique of his speech. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Your "critique" of the critique is braindead. You are too intellectually stunted and lazy to refute any of it. Why bother posting if all you can do is call another POV braindead? That doesn't advance the discussion one iota.
.

Senator Chuck Schumer (Amy's cousin) is going to oppose the "deal" with Iran. Does this mean that he is like some kind of terrorist or Iranian hardliner? What about the other senators who will follow him? Are they terrorists too? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

+1

Yes, according to the Orwellian logic of our Capitulationist-in-Chief, Senator Chuck Schumer is making "common cause" with the Iranian hard-liners and they are morally equivalent.

.

+1

Yes, according to the Orwellian logic of our Capitulationist-in-Chief, Senator Chuck Schumer is making "common cause" with the Iranian hard-liners and they are morally equivalent.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

So what if he is? The rigidity of your thought is funny and quite a contrast to the state of your dick

Your "critique" of the critique is braindead. You are too intellectually stunted and lazy to refute any of it. Why bother posting if all you can do is call another POV braindead? That doesn't advance the discussion one iota.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

But copying and pasting someone else's words is the height of advanced discourse? Please, you fucking dumbass.

At least Schumer took the time to learn what the deal was before opposing it. . . Republicunts opposed it before knowing what it was.

At least Schumer took the time to learn what the deal was before opposing it. . . Republicunts opposed it before knowing what it was. Originally Posted by southtown4488

Nancy ? ! Nancy Pelosi.. is that you ? Is this another issue that we should all defer to odummer and the liberals "honesty" about what's in something, like odummer care " You can KEEP your healthcare plan, you can KEEP your Doctor, you WON'T pay more than $ 2500 in a year for your insurance deductible ! " So this is just like another odummercare hustle that we should all be like GOOD sheep and take YOUR word that it's what's best for US ? !! Sure Nancy ! We SURE wouldn't want you to wave your witchy-poo finger at us when you get upset now !! Are you still heart broken that Abortion Barbie Wendy Davis got her ass handed to her last November along with Mizz Piggy Van De Putte getting her first of TWO losses in a years time ? :laughing1 :

Nancy ? ! Nancy Pelosi.. is that you ? Is this another issue that we should all defer to odummer and the liberals "honesty" about what's in something, like odummer care " You can KEEP your healthcare plan, you can KEEP your Doctor, you WON'T pay more than $ 2500 in a year for your insurance deductible ! " So this is just like another odummercare hustle that we should all be like GOOD sheep and take YOUR word that it's what's best for US ? !! Sure Nancy ! We SURE wouldn't want you to wave your witchy-poo finger at us when you get upset now !! Are you still heart broken that Abortion Barbie Wendy Davis got her ass handed to her last November along with Mizz Piggy Van De Putte getting her first of TWO losses in a years time ? :laughing1 : Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Republicunts haven't won a national election in 11 years. . . they keep insulting Women, Gays, Blacks and Hispanic. . . u might be an uncle tom cum sucker but most people aren't so blind.