Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Obama is providing weapons and training to Al-Qaeda. This has been presented repeatedly in a multitude of threads.
No, it is republican because that is the policy they have followed for a long time. We have these terrorists because reagan armed them and played a game there. We have things like iran contra. We have a history of selling arms under republican rule which will eventually come back and bite us. That history is based on american destabalization of foreign countries for political goals. It falls well within the lines of republican ideology. Still i am not saying dems are perfect. The republicans are right, they are nanny state people. Where as the republicans look for religious fascism in a sort of nanny state move, the dems are much more open about trying to be everyone's mother. From the soda ban to the recent attempt to put a waiting period on tattoos they have their own style of bad. There are lots of complaints about the left I agree with the republicans on. Welfare is a poverty trap. I do not agree we need to get rid of it, I think it clearly has a purpose of keeping people stuck on it and dependent on it which secures votes for the party that keeps it in place. But those are just examples and I am not trying to derail.
Your claims that the only reason I say this is because i want to attack republicans is silly. obama is very right. He would clearly fall into the realm of socially moderate republican. A few years back before the reps pushed so far right they left their social moderates out in the cold I would not have said this. He would have been a fiscally conservative hawkish dem. But moderate dems have gone so far right they are within what should be the moderate side of republicanism if the reps were not chasing down the loonies and going hard core white wing stupid.
You say that Obama has already harmed the USA, but you provide no proof of this.
Your word and what you 'think' means nothing to me
Therefore I will just ignore the worthless drivel that you have posted here.
And, by the way, President Obama will be staying in the White House until another Democrat takes his place in 2017.
Deal with it.
For a President(no matter which alphabet letter they carry) a to provide weapons or anything else to anyone requires money to purchase these items. Congress controls the spending in this country. So at least half of this blame game belongs to congress.
I agree.
If we don't have proof that will stand up in court maybe we shouldn't be going to war.
...I just said he is not what he says he is....
What simply is astonishing to me is we (as in Americans) are not to be trusted with certain weapons and are forced into gun free zone, yet random militants and rebels (who get no so called background check) should have them in droves according to Obama. Simply doesn't make sense no matter how you slice it.
But the rebels need to be able to protect themselves from their government because their government is bad...
I don't disagree with that, I just feel we as Americans should have them as well. To quote an overused quote (but an applicable one) "People shouldn't be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of the people".
I figured that...guess my Obama impersonation didn't translate well in text.
If all it took was for a sitting PotUS to provide material support to a Middle Eastern terrorist group for all the laws in supporting terrorists to be null, then these laws would have been made null before Obama took office.I suppose this means ALL terrorist groups can be armed now. Corporations can once again sell their wares, should be good for our MIC, too.
If all it took was for a sitting PotUS to provide material support to a Middle Eastern terrorist group for all the laws in supporting terrorists to be null, then these laws would have been made null before Obama took office.
If you have a more specific point, than, "OMG! Obama is just like other PotUSes!" now is the time to bring it up.
And yet, Obama apparently wants to go to war? That is what his actions here have shown. Personally I thought that the object of attacking Syria, according to Obama anyways, was to stop its "use" of chemical weapons. And yet despite Syria saying that they will give control of their chemical weapons over to Russia if the US stopped arming terrorists, a peaceful way to difuse the situation, Obama has said that he will not stop. The only conclusion to this is that, once again, Obama has lied to American Citizens and to everyone on the national stage.
If you don't think that doesn't harm US credibility then what does?
Because you are wrong????Care to explain Reagan arming terrorist as well
First, you need to post some ironclad proof that President Obama has lied to the American people.
Then, maybe, you might have a little credibility.
As of right now, based on your posts I have you pegged as a member of the far right, which I usually ignore.
As of right now, I have you pegged as a demagogic rabble rouser, with nothing to back up the malarkey that he spouts.
Read a little history.
Reagan transferred arms to Iran in the Iran/Contra kerfuffle.
Iran promotes terrorism. Now do you get it?
so let's see . . .
First obama signs an order that all military equipment be left behind in iraq so the terrorists can just pick them up off the streets.
Then he gets caught smuggling arms through turkey and invents "the video did it" crisis.
Next, the smartest man in the room pretends he doesn't understand the definiton of the word "coup" so he can send arms to egypt.
Now we waives off u.s. Law as if no one will notice, once again picking and choosing which laws to obey.
I would say a definite pattern is apparent here, one that would cause the casual observer to ask, "which side is this guy on anyway?"
Given that in recent years past, the chief of a PotUS's Defense Policy Board raised funds for a terrorist group* AND that we have held fundraisers for terrorist groups in the Washington DC Daughters of the American Revolution's Constitution Hall which were attended by members of Congress, I'd say that the scope and applicability of the laws is what it always has been.There has been a ban in place prohibiting manufacturers, suppliers or individuals from doing business with organisations classified as terrorist groups, with hefty penalties for violation. So the question is, does the waiver that Obama signed lift that ban completely, or just give himself a pass to arm, train and provide material aid to known terrorist groups??
Given that in recent years past, the chief of a PotUS's Defense Policy Board raised funds for a terrorist group* AND that we have held fundraisers for terrorist groups in the Washington DC Daughters of the American Revolution's Constitution Hall which were attended by members of Congress, I'd say that the scope and applicability of the laws is what it always has been.
* Same guy who tried to help a known front for the Chinese Military Intelligence buy the phone lines used by the USG and US military despite objections from the FBI and the NSA.
So Democrats are as innocent as the driven snow huh? They never once approved any of it? :roll: Whether you like it or not the democrats are just as guilty as Obama and Bush and Regan and every other President and congress critter that has voted to arm terrorists.
Oh yes! I'm really of the far right pretending to blame both republicans and democrats just so I can blame democrats. :roll:
And what do you call Obama claiming that we need to attack Syria so that Syria doesn't use any more chemical weapons and then when offered a peaceful solution which will prevent Syria from using those weapons he says no to it? A warmonger? A liar? Both.
BTW, you didn't need to add "rabble rouser" to the "demogogic" as by its very definition includes "rabble rouser". Just saying. :shrug: Other than that,think of me how you will. Don't really care.
You are absolutely right and Bush 11 gave training to MEK during a period that they were listed as a terrorist Organisation. Is that meant to exonerate Obama of his wrong doing? See this is why partisans share the blame and **** everything up. Like children, "well didn't your guy do it", its illegal people, why is this so difficult?
"Timmy did it too" never has been and never will be a valid excuse for doing bad things. Check with your mama on this.
I will not accept that excuse from anyone (Including Obama and any other Democrat.).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?