Weak Presidents?

He has been in office for six months. I am not in favor or against what he has said. I come on this thing to read the same retoric everyday by the same "MORONS" that post it! Weak presidents! They all have bigger balls than anyone of you! Go back to the corner cafe and drink your decafe!

Thats 6 months too long for that eunuch that is now in the White House. I will be very happy when in a little over 3 yrs he is replaced with a real man or gutsy woman for that matter.

Frankly, "The Obama" is anything but a weak president.
He has control of all 4 branches of the Govt.
Making him very powerful!!

The 4 branches of Govt??
You thought there were 3??

#1--Executive
#2--Legislative
#3--Judicial
#4--Media

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by road kill

Frankly, "The Obama" is anything but a weak president.
He has control of all 4 branches of the Govt.
Making him very powerful!!

The 4 branches of Govt??
You thought there were 3??

#1--Executive
#2--Legislative
#3--Judicial
#4--Media

---

The fourth Branch is "We the People". And Obama sure doesn't have complete control of the Media since the European media does broadcast the truth, and regularly makes fun of the current president.

The foreign media does not have much if any influence over elections in the USA. The govt run media, ie PMSNBC, All Barak Network etc do and are controlled by persons who are loyal to the left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honker88

Forgive me, please. I left a key part out. Obama doesn't have the gonads to condemn the Iranian Govt on his own.

From the quote that you pulled out of the story...Under growing pressure to speak out more forcefully on Iran, President Barack Obama used his toughest language yet Tuesday to condemn its government's violent suppression of political dissent and to declare the world "appalled and outraged" by the crackdown.

How many days of protests and Govt killings did it take him to reluctantly say something? Let me answer that, 10 days! Obama was pressured into responding.



Everybody in the world believed Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction". How many UN Resolutions were issued against Iraq? I believe the number was 16 or 17. Here is a link to some quotes from people who now say what you are saying, "he attacked a country that could not defend itself" or "he attacked an innocent nation". http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

I guess hindsight is 20/20 right? ;)

This story is about Iraq's link to terrorism. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a3vvPsCY8pYA

Let's go back to early 2003, before we went into Iraq and think about this.

We have intelligence that shows Iraq has WMD's. We know Saddam used biological weapons in the past. UN has issued numerous resolutions that are ignored by Iraq. Iraq has kicked out the weapons inspectors several times. Terrorists attacked us on 9/11, just 1.5 years earlier. CIA has testified in front of the Senate in 2002 that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism.

I'm not sure there is any other logical conclusion than Iraq is a threat that must be dealt with. I guess Bush should have kicked back in his easy chair and waited for the next terrorist attack and then determine if action should be taken. If you choose to say that we, "attacked a country that could not defend itself", go right ahead; but don't forget, that country sure fooled the whole world.

---

Then why did the UN not back us in the invasion of Iraq or for that matter contribute to the enormous cost of maintaing troops in Iraq?
There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the 2nd invasion. Bush 41 should have finished the job when he had the chance. I agreed with Bush 41 for supporting our alleys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Greenwood

I come on this thing to read the same retoric everyday by the same "MORONS" that post it!

---

Let me help you make your day a little better...quit coming on this board to read what the "MORONS" have to say!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Perry

Then why did the UN not back us in the invasion of Iraq or for that matter contribute to the enormous cost of maintaing troops in Iraq?

---

The UN doesn't have the backbone to enforce it's own resolutions. That's why it took 16 or 17 resolutions and they still didn't force any changes. Saddam would appease them for a short time and then turn around and slap them in the face. The UN has pretty much turned itself into a joke. They issued resolution after resolution and didn't force any change when those resolutions were ignored. Of course they didn't do anything when we stepped up to deal with Iraq, they never had before so why would they change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Perry

Then why did the UN not back us in the invasion of Iraq or for that matter contribute to the enormous cost of maintaing troops in Iraq?
There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the 2nd invasion. Bush 41 should have finished the job when he had the chance. I agreed with Bush 41 for supporting our alleys.

---

Roger: PU-LEEEEZE. :rolleyes: The U.N. back the U.S.? Surely you jest...just whose money would they be using? Oh, that's right, our money.
Get the U.N. out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the U.N.!


As for no al Qaeda in Iraq, you know this how? Never mind, I don't think this board needs to be any more polluted with your jenkem. I'm sure there wasn't a single al Qaeda operative nor in fact any muzzie terrorist in all of Iraq when we rolled in there squashing innocent peace lovers like bugs.

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON -- Under growing pressure to speak out more forcefully on Iran, President Barack Obama used his toughest language yet Tuesday to condemn its government's violent suppression of political dissent and to declare the world "appalled and outraged" by the crackdown.

Bush had no backbone, he was a Bully. He attacked a country that could not defend itself. He caved in to N. Korea and took them off the "axis of evil" list. He did nothing to stop N. Korea or Iran from continuing on with their campaign for Nuclear Arms programs.

---

Let's examine this fervent hope of yours about "toughest language yet". Compared to what? His ass-kissing obsequious announcements that he was going to stop nuclear proliferation and we'd go first and get rid of all our nukes so we could sit around a campfire with Kim Jong-Il, Ahmadinijhad, Qaddafi, and Putin and sing Kumbayah. And oh yes, I'm sure the leadership in Iraq trembled in their kaffirs about the world being so "appalled" and "outraged". I do have to admit both terms make me snicker. When I hear the term "outrage" I think of Al Sharpton playing the race card and I believe "appalled" is a favorite of the Messiah's spiritual advisor, the America-hating but pious Rev. Wright. Forgive me for thinking that the Messiah sounds like a little pantywaist yelling from a second story window that his dad can beat up your dad. Pathetic.

Since you obviously don't mind looking ignorant, carry on calling Bush all sorts of names but your point is lost because, again (let me type this really slowly so you can process it): He is NOT president any more. You and the great unwashed masses who vote "Gimme more free sh!t" put this ignorant community organizer on a throne, deified him and now you're eating crow watching him kiss muzzie nether regions, solemnly denounce nukes and drag this country into the toilet like any other tinpot dictator ruled banana republic.

Now can anyone refresh my memory? How many times during the Bush administration did Dear Leader straight up threaten to nuke the U.S.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julie R.

Roger: PU-LEEEEZE. :rolleyes: The U.N. back the U.S.? Surely you jest...just whose money would they be using? Oh, that's right, our money.
Get the U.N. out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the U.N.!


As for no al Qaeda in Iraq, you know this how? Never mind, I don't think this board needs to be any more polluted with your jenkem. I'm sure there wasn't a single al Qaeda operative nor in fact any muzzie terrorist in all of Iraq when we rolled in there squashing innocent peace lovers like bugs.



Let's examine this fervent hope of yours about "toughest language yet". Compared to what? His ass-kissing obsequious announcements that he was going to stop nuclear proliferation and we'd go first and get rid of all our nukes so we could sit around a campfire with Kim Jong-Il, Ahmadinijhad, Qaddafi, and Putin and sing Kumbayah. And oh yes, I'm sure the leadership in Iraq trembled in their kaffirs about the world being so "appalled" and "outraged". I do have to admit both terms make me snicker. When I hear the term "outrage" I think of Al Sharpton playing the race card and I believe "appalled" is a favorite of the Messiah's spiritual advisor, the America-hating but pious Rev. Wright. Forgive me for thinking that the Messiah sounds like a little pantywaist yelling from a second story window that his dad can beat up your dad. Pathetic.

Since you obviously don't mind looking ignorant, carry on calling Bush all sorts of names but your point is lost because, again (let me type this really slowly so you can process it): He is NOT president any more. You and the great unwashed masses who vote "Gimme more free sh!t" put this ignorant community organizer on a throne, deified him and now you're eating crow watching him kiss muzzie nether regions, solemnly denounce nukes and drag this country into the toilet like any other tinpot dictator ruled banana republic.

Now can anyone refresh my memory? How many times during the Bush administration did Dear Leader straight up threaten to nuke the U.S.?

---

Beautiful!