Putin schools Obama again

[IIFFOFRDB]

[DSK]

Originally Posted by WTF

Do you support the new legislation to export our oil?

FUCK YES!!!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by DSK

Are you the former Jewish Lawyer?

FUCK YES!!!

At least you were honest this time.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by DSK

FUCK YES!!!

Tell the Lama...he is scared shitless that Russia may control half the worlds oil supply. Yet numbnuts like you want to sell our oil to other nations! He wants to go to war over oil and you want to sell ours! God Damn...

[lustylad]

Even the left-leaning but staid and sensible London Economist magazine is fed up with Odumbo's feckless, incompetent Syria policy:


Mr Obama seeks to “degrade and ultimately destroy” IS, but his military campaign has been half-hearted and is fatally flawed by the lack of a plan for Syria. He said he would train and equip a moderate Sunni force in Syria—to fight only IS, not Mr Assad. That notion was doomed from the start. It attracted only a pitiful number of recruits, and the first batch sent into Syria was all but annihilated. Now the White House says, in effect, that arming Syrian rebels was an idea foisted on Mr Obama, who never believed in it. Rarely has an American president so abjectly abandoned his global responsibility.

In case you missed the last line, I'll repeat it again for everyone:

"Rarely has an American president so abjectly abandoned his global responsibility."


http://www.economist.com/news/leader...-doing-nothing

.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Even the left-leaning but staid and sensible London Economist magazine is fed up with Odumbo's feckless, incompetent Syria policy:


Mr Obama seeks to “degrade and ultimately destroy” IS, but his military campaign has been half-hearted and is fatally flawed by the lack of a plan for Syria. He said he would train and equip a moderate Sunni force in Syria—to fight only IS, not Mr Assad. That notion was doomed from the start. It attracted only a pitiful number of recruits, and the first batch sent into Syria was all but annihilated. Now the White House says, in effect, that arming Syrian rebels was an idea foisted on Mr Obama, who never believed in it. Rarely has an American president so abjectly abandoned his global responsibility.

In case you missed the last line, I'll repeat it again for everyone:

"Rarely has an American president so abjectly abandoned his global responsibility."

Who gives a fuck what the Limeys think? It's funny how fickle you are about when and why you give a shit what foreigners think of the US.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Who gives a fuck what the Limeys think? It's funny how fickle you are about when and why you give a shit what foreigners think of the US.

Because the Economist is a publication that is staid and sensible and fact-based and deep-thinking and strategic and perceptive and forward-looking and worth reading - all the things you will never be, shitbrain!

And btw they're not telling us what they think "of the US" - only what they think of the idiot in the White House, who lacks the integrity to own his own policy failures.

So douchebag, are you going to be the last rat to jump ship?

.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Because the Economist is a publication that is staid and sensible and fact-based and deep-thinking and strategic and perceptive and forward-looking and worth reading - all the things you will never be, shitbrain!

And btw they're not telling us what they think "of the US" - only what they think of the idiot in the White House, who lacks the integrity to own his own policy failures.

So douchebag, are you going to be the last rat to jump ship?

.

They must be like republicans in this country, sit on their hands and blame someone else. Did Europe come to the forefront in Syria?

[RedLeg505]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

blame someone else.

You mean like Obama and his supporters spent the last 7+ years blaming everything, including the weather on Bush?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

They must be like republicans in this country, sit on their hands and blame someone else.

???

Can someone please explain this stupid comment? Does our military take its orders from Congress? Can the "republicans in this country" direct our troops to do something in Syria if the Commander-in-Chief won't?

How does that work?



.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Tell the Lama...he is scared shitless that Russia may control half the worlds oil supply. Yet numbnuts like you want to sell our oil to other nations! He wants to go to war over oil and you want to sell ours! God Damn...

Wanna explain exactly why we shouldn't lift the export ban? Or why lifting it is inconsistent with worrying about the rest of the world's oil?

.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Because the Economist is a publication that is staid and sensible and fact-based and deep-thinking and strategic and perceptive and forward-looking and worth reading - all the things you will never be, shitbrain!

And btw they're not telling us what they think "of the US" - only what they think of the idiot in the White House, who lacks the integrity to own his own policy failures.

So douchebag, are you going to be the last rat to jump ship?

.

[QUOTE=lustylad;1057278071]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

They must be like republicans in this country, sit on their hands and blame someone else.

???

Can someone please explain this stupid comment? Does our military take its orders from Congress? Can the "republicans in this country" direct our troops to do something in Syria if the Commander-in-Chief won't?

How does that work?



.

Look at your first post, then tell me how the military got into it lustylady. The Economist was what you were babbling about. Working on dipshit of the year?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Look at your first post, then tell me how the military got into it lustylady. The Economist was what you were babbling about. Working on dipshit of the year?

Keep trying, Ekim. You're still not connecting the dots. This thread is about Syria, remember? How are Republicans sitting on their hands? What should they be doing about Odumbo's failed policy besides holding hearings?

.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Because the Economist is a publication that is staid and sensible and fact-based and deep-thinking and strategic and perceptive and forward-looking and worth reading - all the things you will never be, shitbrain!

And btw they're not telling us what they think "of the US" - only what they think of the idiot in the White House, who lacks the integrity to own his own policy failures.

So douchebag, are you going to be the last rat to jump ship?

.

And left-leaning, which you point out. So are you the first republicunt ON the ship?

It's still funny that you're so desperate to make a point, you'll use a publication you would otherwise never touch. The President is our representative, so in a sense they are telling us what they think about the US. Fuck them and fuck you. Say hello the ivy league professor

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Keep trying, Ekim. You're still not connecting the dots. This thread is about Syria, remember? How are Republicans sitting on their hands? What should they be doing about Odumbo's failed policy besides holding hearings?

.

You were the one who brought up the Economist. I was commenting on it's content, was it just supposed to be a hijack? What are republicans supposed to be doing? Hell you sound like them, where is the big change promised? Was it hope and change also? they need to be doing something besides holding hearings .Oh right campaigning.