Arrogance- Obama said he's too Busy to Debate with GOP over Terrorism

[Geaux4it]

As I have pointed out over and over. This piss ant of a turd has no interest in governing. Arrogant pompus asshole.

Obama said he is to busy destroying what it means to be an American.

-Geaux
---------------------------------------

“I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may,” Mr. Obama said. “ “I’m too busy for that.”

President Obama showed a flash of anger Monday with Republican critics of his anti-terrorism strategy, saying he is “too busy” to engage in a rhetorical debate with them.

“What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership, or American winning or whatever other slogans they come up with, that has no relationship to what actually is going to work to protect the American people” and America’s allies, Mr. Obama said at a news conference in Turkey. “I’m too busy for that.”

Obama says he's 'too busy' to debate GOP over terrorism - Washington Times

 

[Compost]

Yep. He has always been too busy to do his fucking job.

 

[Geaux4it]

Yep. He has always been too busy to do his fucking job.

For real. Unless we count attacking the Constitution. He always has time for that.

Busy doing what? He said he has no intention in 'winning' vs ISIS... so what's he been doing besides Reggie?

-Geaux

 

[Compost]

Yep. He has always been too busy to do his fucking job.

For real. Unless we count attacking the Constitution. He always has time for that.

Busy doing what? He said he has no intention in 'winning' vs ISIS... so what's he been doing besides Reggie?

-Geaux

Selfies.

 

[Camp]

He said he did not want a rhetorical debate. Why should he debate the issue in public with publicity-seeking politicians? The debate belongs in the Congress. Republicans control congress and that is where they have the constitutional authority to influence the "debatable" issues. Elected Republican leaders have access to the President and ways to transmit their ideas and thoughts. The President would be foolish and irresponsible to publicly debate issue's of grave national security with a pack of Presidential wanna be's in a hotly contested political campaign. There is no reason for him to answer to a dozen or more unelected individuals with questionable experience and motivation.
The last part of the President's comment will as usual, be omitted to create the talking point desired by posters here.
"If they think that somehow their advisors are better than my Joint Chiefs of Staff, and folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet with them."

 

[Iceweasel]

It was a pathetic press conference. He claims his strategy is working while the evidence is the opposite and is impatient with anyone that fails to agree. He fucked up way back when when he said Assad using gas would be a red line in the sand. As it turns out he was just pounding sand up our asses.

 

[Iceweasel]

He said he did not want a rhetorical debate. Why should he debate the issue in public with publicity-seeking politicians? The debate belongs in the Congress. Republicans control congress and that is where they have the constitutional authority to influence the "debatable" issues. Elected Republican leaders have access to the President and ways to transmit their ideas and thoughts. The President would be foolish and irresponsible to publicly debate issue's of grave national security with a pack of Presidential wanna be's in a hotly contested political campaign. There is no reason for him to answer to a dozen or more unelected individuals with questionable experience and motivation.
The last part of the President's comment will as usual, be omitted

You are a confused individual. Amazing at the genuflecting one must do to support this empty suit of a man. First you say elected Republican leaders have ways to talk to obama, when he made it clear he's disinterested in hearing from them. Then you state he doesn't need to answer to unelected individuals anyway. How senseless.

 

[Compost]

He said he did not want a rhetorical debate. Why should he debate the issue in public with publicity-seeking politicians? The debate belongs in the Congress. Republicans control congress and that is where they have the constitutional authority to influence the "debatable" issues. Elected Republican leaders have access to the President and ways to transmit their ideas and thoughts. The President would be foolish and irresponsible to publicly debate issue's of grave national security with a pack of Presidential wanna be's in a hotly contested political campaign. There is no reason for him to answer to a dozen or more unelected individuals with questionable experience and motivation.
The last part of the President's comment will as usual, be omitted

Poppycock. When criticized he pouts and runs away. He's not being asked to engage in a "rhetorical debate". He's being asked to explain what he is doing and why.

No reason for him to answer questions from unelected individuals? Really? He doesn't even have to explain his actions to the "unelected" people he is working for?

 

[Camp]

He said he did not want a rhetorical debate. Why should he debate the issue in public with publicity-seeking politicians? The debate belongs in the Congress. Republicans control congress and that is where they have the constitutional authority to influence the "debatable" issues. Elected Republican leaders have access to the President and ways to transmit their ideas and thoughts. The President would be foolish and irresponsible to publicly debate issue's of grave national security with a pack of Presidential wanna be's in a hotly contested political campaign. There is no reason for him to answer to a dozen or more unelected individuals with questionable experience and motivation.
The last part of the President's comment will as usual, be omitted

Poppycock. When criticized he pouts and runs away. He's not being asked to engage in a "rhetorical debate". He's being asked to explain what he is doing and why.

No reason for him to answer questions from unelected individuals? Really? He doesn't even have to explain his actions to the "unelected" people he is working for?

The topic is not answering questions. The topic was having a public debate. Those two things are not the same. He was answering questions when he made the comment. He specifically was talking about members of an opposing political party and not the general population and media.

 

[Iceweasel]

He said he did not want a rhetorical debate. Why should he debate the issue in public with publicity-seeking politicians? The debate belongs in the Congress. Republicans control congress and that is where they have the constitutional authority to influence the "debatable" issues. Elected Republican leaders have access to the President and ways to transmit their ideas and thoughts. The President would be foolish and irresponsible to publicly debate issue's of grave national security with a pack of Presidential wanna be's in a hotly contested political campaign. There is no reason for him to answer to a dozen or more unelected individuals with questionable experience and motivation.
The last part of the President's comment will as usual, be omitted

Poppycock. When criticized he pouts and runs away. He's not being asked to engage in a "rhetorical debate". He's being asked to explain what he is doing and why.

No reason for him to answer questions from unelected individuals? Really? He doesn't even have to explain his actions to the "unelected" people he is working for?

The topic is not answering questions. The topic was having a public debate. Those two things are not the same. He was answering questions when he made the comment. He specifically was talking about members of an opposing political party and not the general population and media.

The opposing political party is exactly who he should be talking to. Why is it when a Republican is in office all we hear from the left is reaching across the isles and when a Democrat is in office the right needs to shut up, sit down and let him carry out his mandate as approved by the American people?

Do you honestly not see how childish and self absorbed that thinking is?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Commander in Chief has no time to debate with you who are interfering in the defense of America.

 

[TNHarley]

TMZ POTUS got another talk show to do

 

[Camp]

He said he did not want a rhetorical debate. Why should he debate the issue in public with publicity-seeking politicians? The debate belongs in the Congress. Republicans control congress and that is where they have the constitutional authority to influence the "debatable" issues. Elected Republican leaders have access to the President and ways to transmit their ideas and thoughts. The President would be foolish and irresponsible to publicly debate issue's of grave national security with a pack of Presidential wanna be's in a hotly contested political campaign. There is no reason for him to answer to a dozen or more unelected individuals with questionable experience and motivation.
The last part of the President's comment will as usual, be omitted

Poppycock. When criticized he pouts and runs away. He's not being asked to engage in a "rhetorical debate". He's being asked to explain what he is doing and why.

No reason for him to answer questions from unelected individuals? Really? He doesn't even have to explain his actions to the "unelected" people he is working for?

The topic is not answering questions. The topic was having a public debate. Those two things are not the same. He was answering questions when he made the comment. He specifically was talking about members of an opposing political party and not the general population and media.

The opposing political party is exactly who he should be talking to. Why is it when a Republican is in office all we hear from the left is reaching across the isles and when a Democrat is in office the right needs to shut up, sit down and let him carry out his mandate as approved by the American people?

Do you honestly not see how childish and self absorbed that thinking is?

There is nothing to indicate that the President is not listening to elected Republican officials or that his staff and advisors are not giving those Republican leaders opportunities to voice their ideas. There are normal and accepted forms of communication between the Congress and the Executive branches of government.
Does the President really need to spend time debating this issue with Donald Trump who is promoting his solution of "Bomb the shit out of ISIS", as if Russia, France and the US Coalition is not already bombing the shit out of ISIS? Huckabee is demanding troops be sent into Syria to combat ISIS on the ground. Virtually all the military advisors and experts have indicated an invasion of foreign troops will instigate recruitments and the increases in ISIS support in other areas such as Africa and Asia. So why should the President waste time debating nonsense with nonsense politicians?

 

[Iceweasel]

He said he did not want a rhetorical debate. Why should he debate the issue in public with publicity-seeking politicians? The debate belongs in the Congress. Republicans control congress and that is where they have the constitutional authority to influence the "debatable" issues. Elected Republican leaders have access to the President and ways to transmit their ideas and thoughts. The President would be foolish and irresponsible to publicly debate issue's of grave national security with a pack of Presidential wanna be's in a hotly contested political campaign. There is no reason for him to answer to a dozen or more unelected individuals with questionable experience and motivation.
The last part of the President's comment will as usual, be omitted

Poppycock. When criticized he pouts and runs away. He's not being asked to engage in a "rhetorical debate". He's being asked to explain what he is doing and why.

No reason for him to answer questions from unelected individuals? Really? He doesn't even have to explain his actions to the "unelected" people he is working for?

The topic is not answering questions. The topic was having a public debate. Those two things are not the same. He was answering questions when he made the comment. He specifically was talking about members of an opposing political party and not the general population and media.

The opposing political party is exactly who he should be talking to. Why is it when a Republican is in office all we hear from the left is reaching across the isles and when a Democrat is in office the right needs to shut up, sit down and let him carry out his mandate as approved by the American people?

Do you honestly not see how childish and self absorbed that thinking is?

There is nothing to indicate that the President is not listening to elected Republican officials or that his staff and advisors are not giving those Republican leaders opportunities to voice their ideas. There are normal and accepted forms of communication between the Congress and the Executive branches of government.
Does the President really need to spend time debating this issue with Donald Trump who is promoting his solution of "Bomb the shit out of ISIS", as if Russia, France and the US Coalition is not already bombing the shit out of ISIS? Huckabee is demanding troops be sent into Syria to combat ISIS on the ground. Virtually all the military advisors and experts have indicated an invasion of foreign troops will instigate recruitments and the increases in ISIS support in other areas such as Africa and Asia. So why should the President waste time debating nonsense with nonsense politicians?

Trump and Huckabee aren't elected to anything except maybe a board room seat somewhere. No, we are doing pin pricks, most of the time planes come back loaded because obama doesn't want to take the heat when civilians get killed. His "leadership" is to let others do the heavy lifting, period.

 

[gipper]

What we need ISIS to do is proclaim they are Republicans. Then, Big Ears and Ds everywhere will demand they be nuked.

 

[Camp]

He said he did not want a rhetorical debate. Why should he debate the issue in public with publicity-seeking politicians? The debate belongs in the Congress. Republicans control congress and that is where they have the constitutional authority to influence the "debatable" issues. Elected Republican leaders have access to the President and ways to transmit their ideas and thoughts. The President would be foolish and irresponsible to publicly debate issue's of grave national security with a pack of Presidential wanna be's in a hotly contested political campaign. There is no reason for him to answer to a dozen or more unelected individuals with questionable experience and motivation.
The last part of the President's comment will as usual, be omitted

Poppycock. When criticized he pouts and runs away. He's not being asked to engage in a "rhetorical debate". He's being asked to explain what he is doing and why.

No reason for him to answer questions from unelected individuals? Really? He doesn't even have to explain his actions to the "unelected" people he is working for?

The topic is not answering questions. The topic was having a public debate. Those two things are not the same. He was answering questions when he made the comment. He specifically was talking about members of an opposing political party and not the general population and media.

The opposing political party is exactly who he should be talking to. Why is it when a Republican is in office all we hear from the left is reaching across the isles and when a Democrat is in office the right needs to shut up, sit down and let him carry out his mandate as approved by the American people?

Do you honestly not see how childish and self absorbed that thinking is?

There is nothing to indicate that the President is not listening to elected Republican officials or that his staff and advisors are not giving those Republican leaders opportunities to voice their ideas. There are normal and accepted forms of communication between the Congress and the Executive branches of government.
Does the President really need to spend time debating this issue with Donald Trump who is promoting his solution of "Bomb the shit out of ISIS", as if Russia, France and the US Coalition is not already bombing the shit out of ISIS? Huckabee is demanding troops be sent into Syria to combat ISIS on the ground. Virtually all the military advisors and experts have indicated an invasion of foreign troops will instigate recruitments and the increases in ISIS support in other areas such as Africa and Asia. So why should the President waste time debating nonsense with nonsense politicians?

Trump and Huckabee aren't elected to anything except maybe a board room seat somewhere. No, we are doing pin pricks, most of the time planes come back loaded because obama doesn't want to take the heat when civilians get killed. His "leadership" is to let others do the heavy lifting, period.

The Huckabee's and Trump's are the people the President was referencing. Guys like Paul, Rubio, Cruz, etc. are elected officials that can make contact with the President on specifics and expect or even demand to get responses.
As for pinprick airstrikes, that is a military decision. Collateral damage does more than just PR damage. It increases recruitment for the enemy and is thus, often counter-productive. Look at the horrible PR damage done from the recent bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan.

 

[bodecea]

The Right is flailing right now....

 

[amrchaos]

He said he did not want a rhetorical debate. Why should he debate the issue in public with publicity-seeking politicians? The debate belongs in the Congress. Republicans control congress and that is where they have the constitutional authority to influence the "debatable" issues. Elected Republican leaders have access to the President and ways to transmit their ideas and thoughts. The President would be foolish and irresponsible to publicly debate issue's of grave national security with a pack of Presidential wanna be's in a hotly contested political campaign. There is no reason for him to answer to a dozen or more unelected individuals with questionable experience and motivation.
The last part of the President's comment will as usual, be omitted

Poppycock. When criticized he pouts and runs away. He's not being asked to engage in a "rhetorical debate". He's being asked to explain what he is doing and why.

No reason for him to answer questions from unelected individuals? Really? He doesn't even have to explain his actions to the "unelected" people he is working for?

The topic is not answering questions. The topic was having a public debate. Those two things are not the same. He was answering questions when he made the comment. He specifically was talking about members of an opposing political party and not the general population and media.

The opposing political party is exactly who he should be talking to. Why is it when a Republican is in office all we hear from the left is reaching across the isles and when a Democrat is in office the right needs to shut up, sit down and let him carry out his mandate as approved by the American people?

Do you honestly not see how childish and self absorbed that thinking is?

There is nothing to indicate that the President is not listening to elected Republican officials or that his staff and advisors are not giving those Republican leaders opportunities to voice their ideas. There are normal and accepted forms of communication between the Congress and the Executive branches of government.
Does the President really need to spend time debating this issue with Donald Trump who is promoting his solution of "Bomb the shit out of ISIS", as if Russia, France and the US Coalition is not already bombing the shit out of ISIS? Huckabee is demanding troops be sent into Syria to combat ISIS on the ground. Virtually all the military advisors and experts have indicated an invasion of foreign troops will instigate recruitments and the increases in ISIS support in other areas such as Africa and Asia. So why should the President waste time debating nonsense with nonsense politicians?

Because GOP candidates need soundbites for their ads?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Fuck obama and the camel he rode in on...

 

[Siete]

I heard him invite anyone with better intelligence sources than he has to step up with their solutions.

Can any of you asshats step up ? or is brainfarts all you do?