I think it is safe to say that we all agree on this but...

[JD Barleycorn]

there are a couple of people...

Iran has chosen a terrorist, a student protester, an invader of sovereign American territory in 1979 as the new ambassador to the UN. His name will not be directly written here but the former hostages agree that this piece of shit is the same asshole who made them play Russian roulette, made up fake firing squads, and abused the hostages. He is going to be allowed into this country by the Obama administration.

Do you all agree that this piece of shit should be refused entry?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Do you all agree that this piece of shit should be refused entry?

If only this country would have refused entry to JD Idiot's ancestors.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by bigtex

If only this country would have refused entry to JD Idiot's ancestors.

Or the millions of poor, unskilled workers and their families using government services over the last couple of decades.
Since we have 61 million people on Medicaid as it is, we have enough poor people to take care of already.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

there are a couple of people...

Iran has chosen a terrorist, a student protester, an invader of sovereign American territory in 1979 as the new ambassador to the UN. His name will not be directly written here but the former hostages agree that this piece of shit is the same asshole who made them play Russian roulette, made up fake firing squads, and abused the hostages. He is going to be allowed into this country by the Obama administration.

Do you all agree that this piece of shit should be refused entry?

If it can be done legally, I agree. It looks like the option are limited in terms of us, or anybody else, dictating to another country who their ambassador is going to be.

What is your source for your statements that he made the hostages play Russian roulette, made up firing squads, etc? I don't find those references even in the foaming at the mouth Fox News coverage.

It's amusing to see the usual suspects lining up to denounce Obama because of this bullshit. Lindsey Graham, John Bolton, Ted Cruz....none of them could care less about this crap except for the fact it gives them another opportunity to attack the POTUS for political gain.

[JD Barleycorn]

We can't tell them who to appoint or not but we do control (stop laughing) who comes into the country.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We can't tell them who to appoint or not but we do control (stop laughing) who comes into the country.

Apparently only by passing a new law. Look, your boy finally proposed some legislation that passed. First time for everything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...bc3_story.html

[UB9IB6]

I agree with Cruz and the wingnuts on this one.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by timpage

It's amusing to see the usual suspects lining up to denounce Obama because of this bullshit.

It's not bullshit. It's a deliberate slap in the face. The Iranians keep demanding respect while never missing an opportunity to shit on us. Why do Cruz and Schumer have to do the obvious right thing? Odumbo should have rejected this guy right out of the box. The Iranians carterized Jimmy Carter during the hostage crisis and now they're carterizing Odumbo.

Why do the rest of us always have to buck up Odumbo? When will he show any backbone on his own? Does he like to be pushed around? Having a known wuss in the Oval Office is making the world a more dangerous place every day. And we're stuck with the wimp for another 1,017 days.


http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown...eaves%20office

[i'va biggen]

LMAO again

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by lustylad

It's not bullshit. It's a deliberate slap in the face. The Iranians keep demanding respect while never missing an opportunity to shit on us. Why do Cruz and Schumer have to do the obvious right thing? Odumbo should have rejected this guy right out of the box. The Iranians carterized Jimmy Carter during the hostage crisis and now they're carterizing Odumbo.

Good thing our founding Fathers weren't considered terrorists by the British.....oh, wait, yes they were.

Then they let that damn John Adams (who was a grown man helping lead the Revolution, not a student storming an embassy) into Britain in 1885 as the Ministers Plenipotentiary to the Court of St. James's (ambassador) just a few years later. Imagine that!

Originally Posted by lustylad

Why do the rest of us always have to buck up Odumbo? When will he show any backbone on his own? Does he like to be pushed around? Having a known wuss in the Oval Office is making the world a more dangerous place every day. And we're stuck with the wimp for another 1,017 days.

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown...eaves%20office

Neo-con much lately? So you want us to be the world's policeman now? You willing to pay for it in blood and treasure? Maybe we should have an empire and conquer some places where we can extract a bunch of revenue to pay for all the military action and hardware?

Seems to me that Obama is more doing a Roosevelt, Teddy that is, walking software and carrying a big stick. He did get Osama and support getting rid of Ghadaffi as well as bringing Syria, Iran and Russia to the table. In a world that is more globalized than ever before it is stupid to threaten military action and start wars because it hurts you just about as much as it hurts your enemy when it screws everyone's economy. It may be a lot more courageous to not go to war and be patient for diplomacy and sanctions to work than to be so Jingoistic. But that is just my two cents.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by UB9IB6

I agree with Cruz and the wingnuts on this one.

Well, then, your avatar is correct!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

the British.....let that damn John Adams (who was a grown man helping lead the Revolution, not a student storming an embassy) into Britain in 1885 as the Ministers Plenipotentiary to the Court of St. James's (ambassador) just a few years later. Imagine that!

No kidding? John Adams? You mean the guy who was President from 1797 to 1801? Let's see, in 1885 he would have been 150 years old, right? Who knew?

Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

Neo-con much lately? So you want us to be the world's policeman now?.... Seems to me that Obama is more doing a Roosevelt, Teddy that is, walking software and carrying a big stick.... In a world that is more globalized than ever before it is stupid to threaten military action and start wars....

Every time anyone criticizes Odumbo's foreign policy, you libtards always default to the same stupid, unthinking, hyper-sensitive knee-jerk defense - so you wanna drag us into a war, do you? No diddlydick, where do I say that? We're talking about the US declining to issue a diplomatic visa to someone who thumbed his nose at centuries of diplomatic protocol in 1979 by seizing another country's sovereign territory (embassy grounds) and holding its diplomats as hostages for 444 days. Are you afraid Iran will go to war with us if we reject its proposed UN ambassador, diddlydick? What do you think Teddy Roosevelt ("Pedricardis alive or Rasuli dead") would do? Wait for Congress to tell him how to act?

On a more general level, perhaps you can explain something to me, LordDiddlydick.... How does drawing red lines and letting other countries cross them with impunity help preserve the peace?

.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

Good thing our founding Fathers weren't considered terrorists by the British.....oh, wait, yes they were.

Then they let that damn John Adams (who was a grown man helping lead the Revolution, not a student storming an embassy) into Britain in 1885 as the Ministers Plenipotentiary to the Court of St. James's (ambassador) just a few years later. Imagine that!



Neo-con much lately? So you want us to be the world's policeman now? You willing to pay for it in blood and treasure? Maybe we should have an empire and conquer some places where we can extract a bunch of revenue to pay for all the military action and hardware?

Seems to me that Obama is more doing a Roosevelt, Teddy that is, walking software and carrying a big stick. He did get Osama and support getting rid of Ghadaffi as well as bringing Syria, Iran and Russia to the table. In a world that is more globalized than ever before it is stupid to threaten military action and start wars because it hurts you just about as much as it hurts your enemy when it screws everyone's economy. It may be a lot more courageous to not go to war and be patient for diplomacy and sanctions to work than to be so Jingoistic. But that is just my two cents.

You forgot to mention that Britain and the United States signed a treaty. The new American government allowed the British to peacefully leave the country and the colonials never took hostages and tortured them.

Getting rid of Ghadaffi was a tactical error, killing OBL was a strategic error both happened on the orders of Obama. Obama screwed up both times on purpose because he does not the sense to pour piss out of a boot.

Mrs. Pedicaris, you are a difficult woman...Wind and the Lion, good movie.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

killing OBL was a strategic error both happened on the orders of Obama. Obama screwed up both times on purpose because he does not the sense to pour piss out of a boot.

Brought to us by the same Idiot who was trying to make the claim that the 777 may be hidden beneath the cover of thousands of pot plans on a remote island.

[i'va biggen]

[QUOTE=JD Barleycorn;1055180041]You forgot to mention that Britain and the United States signed a treaty. The new American government allowed the British to peacefully leave the country and the colonials never took hostages and tortured them.

Getting rid of Ghadaffi was a tactical error, killing OBL was a strategic error both happened on the orders of Obama. Obama screwed up both times on purpose because he does not the sense to pour piss out of a boot.


But but but you were all for Bush when he said " we will get him dead or alive"