• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Presidential Address Drinking Game

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ok, you get 2 or 3 liters of vodka, or whatever you like, and proceed as follows:

Drink a shot every time the President says "I". .... No, wait, that would kill you.

How about this: Drink a shot every time the President says "make no mistake". Mmmm - that would result in pretty severe alcohol toxicity as well.

Oh, heck. Just get blasted before the speech starts. That's more to the point.:2razz:
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm tuning into Fox News because I don't want to be the only one crying.
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ok, you get 2 or 3 liters of vodka, or whatever you like, and proceed as follows:

Drink a shot every time the President says "I". .... No, wait, that would kill you.

How about this: Drink a shot every time the President says "make no mistake". Mmmm - that would result in pretty severe alcohol toxicity as well.

Oh, heck. Just get blasted before the speech starts. That's more to the point.:2razz:

I had to get blasted just to listen/watch...
 

tessaesque

Bring us a shrubbery!
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
15,910
Reaction score
12,629
Location
Plano, Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Didn't even bother with it. Did I miss anything earth shattering?
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
He just ****ed up by blaming a potential loss in support of his resolution on the "right". This speech should have been totally nonpartisan...
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
At least it was mercifully short.

It would be wise of Russia to follow through and gain a "humanitarian" label for themselves. Will they?

In the meantime, we might have an exit strategy and we should all hope for that.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's for the churren. Democrats do the most ghastly and unspeakable things "for the children". Waco was for the children. Thousands of children killed in Syria already, but now 400 or so were killed with gas, so now we gotta go to war. Go figure.

"For the children" and "think of the children" are used to short circulate and stifle debate. We have a sorry sorry sorry President.
 

Linc

NIMBY
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
58,836
Reaction score
18,507
Location
IL—16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
If you say the "right" is the GOP, the President is correct. Without a strong hand from Congress that Obama "may" attack, the GOP ties Obama's hands and gives Putin and Assad the win. The coalition that defeated the Amash/NSA amendment must stay intact...

This is the most nonpartisan I have seen him in a while and shows how we come from such different directions in so many respects. Why did Assad finally admit he had CW???

My Repub Congressman has been with the POTUS all along. We don't cotton to this kind of bull^^^^ politics on foreign policy in Illinois. Btw, how many Dead soldiers and costly weapons so far?

He just ****ed up by blaming a potential loss in support of his resolution on the "right". This speech should have been totally nonpartisan...
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He just ****ed up by blaming a potential loss in support of his resolution on the "right". This speech should have been totally nonpartisan...

With one large exception (which you mentioned), I thought this was the best speech he has ever made.

He went down each point that a President should explain to the people.

And then there was the partisan stuff. He made it sound like the last 10 years of war was the fault of a previous President (past decade of Presidential war power growing unchecked / or something to that effect).

Plus the "to my friends on the right" comment.

All that aside, I still think it was a very good speech, where he explained his position very well, and very clearly.

On may points, no, most points, I agreed with him. He's correct regarding the risk to the US and the world. He's also correct that we cannot just stand on the sidelines, and watch such atrocities occur.

He didn't convince me that we actually have a plan, or that we understand what step two will be, or three, or four...

He didn't convince me that we know for sure that the Assad regime ordered the attack; although it appears that we have evidence that Assad's troops may have in fact been the ones that attacked.

Summary: 1) Very good speech explaining the why, and 2) should have been non-partisan, and 3) did not explain what we should expect if the planned attack doesn't change the dynamic, and lastly 4) what happens if the Russians or Chinese or Iranians (or anyone else) respond against us.
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If you say the "right" is the GOP, the President is correct. Without a strong hand from Congress that Obama "may" attack, the GOP ties Obama's hands and gives Putin and Assad the win. The coalition that defeated the Amash/NSA amendment must stay intact...

This is the most nonpartisan I have seen him in a while and shows how we come from such different directions in so many respects. Why did Assad finally admit he had CW???

My Repub Congressman has been with the POTUS all along. We don't cotton to this kind of bull^^^^ politics on foreign policy in Illinois. Btw, how many Dead soldiers and costly weapons so far?

My guess is that any vote will be bipartisan against intervention, otherwise he would still be pressing for an immediate vote. He's looking for blame as is the norm...
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
With one large exception (which you mentioned), I thought this was the best speech he has ever made.

He went down each point that a President should explain to the people.

And then there was the partisan stuff. He made it sound like the last 10 years of war was the fault of a previous President (past decade of Presidential war power growing unchecked / or something to that effect).

Plus the "to my friends on the right" comment.

All that aside, I still think it was a very good speech, where he explained his position very well, and very clearly.

On may points, no, most points, I agreed with him. He's correct regarding the risk to the US and the world. He's also correct that we cannot just stand on the sidelines, and watch such atrocities occur.

He didn't convince me that we actually have a plan, or that we understand what step two will be, or three, or four...

He didn't convince me that we know for sure that the Assad regime ordered the attack; although it appears that we have evidence that Assad's troops may have in fact been the ones that attacked.

Summary: 1) Very good speech explaining the why, and 2) should have been non-partisan, and 3) did not explain what we should expect if the planned attack doesn't change the dynamic, and lastly 4) what happens if the Russians or Chinese or Iranians (or anyone else) respond against us.

A good analysis, but no one will respond but Assad, and if he's willing to use CW on his own citizens (although not proven), then there's no telling what his response might be...
 

tessaesque

Bring us a shrubbery!
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
15,910
Reaction score
12,629
Location
Plano, Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Unless we target both sides in Syria, any strike is absolutely pointless.

Our focus should have always been on humanitarian aid to refugees. Let the region handle the chemical weapons, should they see fit. We have enough bases and water-based military presence to strike immediately on a defensive basis...we have absolutely no business launching an offensive in Syria. It entangles us in a situation where our focus is clouded at best, and it's completely reckless.

All of the contradictory reports coming from reliable sources that undermine our "evidence" should be a massive red flag. With the Iraq scenario we had over 22 countries (I believe...could be fuzzy on the number) providing damn near identical intelligence to what we had gathered. In this scenario we have many of the same countries flat out refuting our claims. And somehow THIS is supposed to be the righteous strike?
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A good analysis, but no one will respond but Assad, and if he's willing to use CW on his own citizens (although not proven), then there's no telling what his response might be...

Unfortunately there are too many people in this country, and more than is comfortable for me in our government, that actually think that a poison gas attack by a terrorist cannot happen here. That's it's too hard, or too technical.

They're wrong.
 

Linc

NIMBY
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
58,836
Reaction score
18,507
Location
IL—16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Depends on the wording...Intervention without negotiations, NO...Intervention to give him a threat to hang over ASSad's head, HELL YES.
My guess is that any vote will be bipartisan against intervention, otherwise he would still be pressing for an immediate vote. He's looking for blame as is the norm...
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Unfortunately there are too many people in this country, and more than is comfortable for me in our government, that actually think that a poison gas attack by a terrorist cannot happen here. That's it's too hard, or too technical.

They're wrong.

The problem I have is that we have no coherent plan to contain the CWs in Syria even if the President decides to strike. You can't just make serin gas weapons in your basement like you can bombs. It would be a lot easier to affect a city's water supply. My point is that if we are not "in it to win it" with any strike, we should do nothing...
 

Linc

NIMBY
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
58,836
Reaction score
18,507
Location
IL—16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I agree with both of your posts. The POTUSA also pointed to his "friends on the left".

I liked Manchin on Maddow, who along with Heitkamp from ND, have come to the President's rescue with a better Senate resolution and are mod/con Dems.
Unfortunately there are too many people in this country, and more than is comfortable for me in our government, that actually think that a poison gas attack by a terrorist cannot happen here. That's it's too hard, or too technical.

They're wrong.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavidez TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
83,356
Reaction score
36,817
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A solid majority within his own party wont sign on to his idiocy...but its "the right". The guy is a grade A douchebag. Whats laughably pathetic is he thinks the majority of people dont see right through him.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The problem I have is that we have no coherent plan to contain the CWs in Syria even if the President decides to strike.
There's no good plan or way to do so. First, the CW's are in the middle of an active war zone, therefore there's no way to safely get rid of them. Second, Al Qaeda would love to get their hands on the delivery systems alone, much less the chemicals. Third, to actually collect the weapons would take months, and to safely dispose of them would take years, maybe decades. But then we get back to my first point... It's in the middle of an active war zone for God's sake. I wouldn't want to be the guy standing in the middle of the weapons cache when a mortar hit when I was trying to move the chemicals around outside.
You can't just make serin gas weapons in your basement like you can bombs.
Unfortunately you can. Or at least a variation of it that is still just as dangerous. It's basically an organophosphate pesticide with other chemicals added to it to aerosilize it (make it into a gas) when the warhead explodes. In fact, you don't even need a warhead, just a multi-sectional glass container to keep the chemicals separate until the glass breaks.
It would be a lot easier to affect a city's water supply.
That's very true.
My point is that if we are not "in it to win it" with any strike, we should do nothing...

That I would agree with as well. That is the biggest problem we've had in this country regarding military action since Vietnam.
 
Last edited:

Mason66

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
27,415
Reaction score
6,484
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He just ****ed up by blaming a potential loss in support of his resolution on the "right". This speech should have been totally nonpartisan...

Come on, it wouldn't be an Obama speech unless he attacked or blamed his opposition for something, even though he is supposed to be everybodys President.
 
Top Bottom