Kerry nailed Rand Paul

[Avatar4321]

Kerry couldn't nail a board to the wall. You're delusional if you think he nailed Rand with anything.

The White House hasn't proven a single thing with Assad. And those who are warmongering for Syria and opposed Iraq are completely hypocrites because we had far more evidence for Iraq, even if some of the intel was wrong.

 

[Asclepias]

So we dont need proof of guilt. We'll go on say so.


Definitely extra bread crumbs for you.

Pretty simple. I you dont want the responsibility of doing the job let the person you elected to do the job speak for you.

What's pretty simple, is that you are a full lbown Statists. You believe whatever your "leaders" tell you. Without demanding any proof. You will simply go along like a good little pleb.

That's all fine adn good. But that doesn't mean the rest of us don't have to demand proof of guilt and ask the tougher questions. In this case, there are lots of conflicting reprots on who is guilty of the use of chimcal weapons. And hearsay from known liars isn't going to cut it.

Furthermore, it's devastatingly obvious to anyone with two working brains cells that this Syrian intervention hasn't a single thing at all to do with the use of chemical weapons.

LOLberals have terrible poker faces when it comes to war. You should vote for more Bush type neocons if you're leg tingles for war so badly.

Why do you bother voting then? Do you know what a leader is? If you cant trust yours to make the correct decisions then you need to run for office and take the responsibility. All you are doing is flapping your jaws until then. Where did I state I want to go to war?

 

[Stephanie]

Pretty simple. I you dont want the responsibility of doing the job let the person you elected to do the job speak for you.

What's pretty simple, is that you are a full lbown Statists. You believe whatever your "leaders" tell you. Without demanding any proof. You will simply go along like a good little pleb.

That's all fine adn good. But that doesn't mean the rest of us don't have to demand proof of guilt and ask the tougher questions. In this case, there are lots of conflicting reprots on who is guilty of the use of chimcal weapons. And hearsay from known liars isn't going to cut it.

Furthermore, it's devastatingly obvious to anyone with two working brains cells that this Syrian intervention hasn't a single thing at all to do with the use of chemical weapons.

LOLberals have terrible poker faces when it comes to war. You should vote for more Bush type neocons if you're leg tingles for war so badly.

Why do you bother voting then? Do you know what a leader is? If you cant trust yours to make the correct decisions then you need to run for office and take the responsibility. All you are doing is flapping your jaws until then.

omg, it's NOT LIKE these masters, I mean Leaders can't take a path the WE THE PEOPLE their boss put them in THERE in for...with your attitude it's no wonder they think they think they can tell people WHAT Size SODA they need...
we are so screwed if this is the attitude of the people today...We don't have a government to do as WE SAY, we have a full blown DICATORSHIP

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Pretty simple. I you dont want the responsibility of doing the job let the person you elected to do the job speak for you.

What's pretty simple, is that you are a full lbown Statists. You believe whatever your "leaders" tell you. Without demanding any proof. You will simply go along like a good little pleb.

That's all fine adn good. But that doesn't mean the rest of us don't have to demand proof of guilt and ask the tougher questions. In this case, there are lots of conflicting reprots on who is guilty of the use of chimcal weapons. And hearsay from known liars isn't going to cut it.

Furthermore, it's devastatingly obvious to anyone with two working brains cells that this Syrian intervention hasn't a single thing at all to do with the use of chemical weapons.

LOLberals have terrible poker faces when it comes to war. You should vote for more Bush type neocons if you're leg tingles for war so badly.

Why do you bother voting then? Do you know what a leader is? If you cant trust yours to make the correct decisions then you need to run for office and take the responsibility. All you are doing is flapping your jaws until then.

US classified intelligence has determined that all (insert your ethnicity and religion here) are guilty of plotting to wage a terror war with the US government. They are going to round them all up and put them in detention centers (indefinitely).

Hey, the proof is above your pay grade. Shut up and let the leaders worry about. it's none of your business about their proof. Just get in line for your number at the detention center.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Kerry didn't nail Rand. Objectively, Rand kind of poked the weak spots in the Obama case and tweaked the arrogant former Senator John F'n Lurch Kerry in the process.

If we do not "act" against Assad, according to Lurch, Assad WILL do it again.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But if we do lob in some missiles and even if we temporarily "degrade" the Assad military capacity, unless there is a rgegime change there (allegedly NOT our objective) then what makes Lurch or anybody else think that Assad will not simply get resupplied and reconstituted?

The better question, Secretary Lurch, is if we DO lob in missiles, will that PREVENT Assad from doing "it" again?

And there is no credible reason to believe it will UNLESS it turns the civil war against his regime into a route and he loses that war and his hold on power forever.

So, perhaps the subtext is really that we ARE seeking "regime change" but for some reason don't want to say so?

And one more thing. If it does cause Assad and his regime to topple, is THAT going to put the U.S. in a good position? Better than we were before we intervened? Or worse? Because, let's say it again, if Assad is OUT, we kind of already know who is likely to be "in." Don't we?

 

[Asclepias]

What's pretty simple, is that you are a full lbown Statists. You believe whatever your "leaders" tell you. Without demanding any proof. You will simply go along like a good little pleb.

That's all fine adn good. But that doesn't mean the rest of us don't have to demand proof of guilt and ask the tougher questions. In this case, there are lots of conflicting reprots on who is guilty of the use of chimcal weapons. And hearsay from known liars isn't going to cut it.

Furthermore, it's devastatingly obvious to anyone with two working brains cells that this Syrian intervention hasn't a single thing at all to do with the use of chemical weapons.

LOLberals have terrible poker faces when it comes to war. You should vote for more Bush type neocons if you're leg tingles for war so badly.

Why do you bother voting then? Do you know what a leader is? If you cant trust yours to make the correct decisions then you need to run for office and take the responsibility. All you are doing is flapping your jaws until then.

US classified intelligence has determined that all (insert your ethnicity and religion here) are guilty of plotting to wage a terror war with the US government. They are going to round them all up and put them in detention centers (indefinitely).

Hey, the proof is above your pay grade. Shut up and let the leaders worry about. it's none of your business about their proof. Just get in line for your number at the detention center.

There are several huge gaping holes in your logic. How do you propose the public gets shown proof without compromising our intelligence capabilities? Once you solve that problem how do you ever come to a consensus this century in time to actually take action? You need to think less about your belief or disbelief and the actual reality of the situation.

 

[Flopper]

God DAMN it.

The case against Assad is quite clear.

That does NOT answer the questions about what (if anything) we should or might do about it.

However, to deny that the proof is crystal clear is a non starter.

I believe the proper questions are: (1) IF we take it now as a given (which I do) that Assad and his regime used the chemical weapons to slaughter so many of his own innocent civilian population, what is the proper response of the United States? And, (2) what is the justification for that response?

I think the proof is about as good as it could get. The question of whether we should attack Syria is a tough one. Long ago we assumed the role of policeman of the world which I thing was a mistake. However, in that role an attack on Syria for these atrocities is certainly justified.

For the US to back away from the attack will certainly be a huge blow to the rebels and would also be a clear signal that use of chemical and biological weapons will be condoned.

 

[Asclepias]

Kerry didn't nail Rand. Objectively, Rand kind of poked the weak spots in the Obama case and tweaked the arrogant former Senator John F'n Lurch Kerry in the process.

If we do not "act" against Assad, according to Lurch, Assad WILL do it again.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But if we do lob in some missiles and even if we temporarily "degrade" the Assad military capacity, unless there is a rgegime change there (allegedly NOT our objective) then what makes Lurch or anybody else think that Assad will not simply get resupplied and reconstituted?

The better question, Secretary Lurch, is if we DO lob in missiles, will that PREVENT Assad from doing "it" again?

And there is no credible reason to believe it will UNLESS it turns the civil war against his regime into a route and he loses that war and his hold on power forever.

So, perhaps the subtext is really that we ARE seeking "regime change" but for some reason don't want to say so?

And one more thing. If it does cause Assad and his regime to topple, is THAT going to put the U.S. in a good position? Better than we were before we intervened? Or worse? Because, let's say it again, if Assad is OUT, we kind of already know who is likely to be "in." Don't we?

While you present a debatable point, make no mistake about it, Kerry handed Rand his ass. I just noted that Rand was actually in a physically elevated position of authority and it still looked like Kerry was running the show.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why do you bother voting then? Do you know what a leader is? If you cant trust yours to make the correct decisions then you need to run for office and take the responsibility. All you are doing is flapping your jaws until then.

US classified intelligence has determined that all (insert your ethnicity and religion here) are guilty of plotting to wage a terror war with the US government. They are going to round them all up and put them in detention centers (indefinitely).

Hey, the proof is above your pay grade. Shut up and let the leaders worry about. it's none of your business about their proof. Just get in line for your number at the detention center.

There are several huge gaping holes in your logic. How do you propose the public gets shown proof without compromising our intelligence capabilities? Once you solve that problem how do you ever come to a consensus this century in time to actually take action? You need to think less about your belief or disbelief and the actual reality of the situation.

Same thing goes with that intelligence about rounding up your kind. We have to let the "leaders" act now, or you may attack them. We can not show any proof because it compromises our intelligence. Just get in line for your numebr and shut up. Or the guards will give you special treatment to help you shut up.


As for your "logic", if their is PROOF then it can not undermineintelligence. it's alsready happened. Not something going to happen. Jeebus.....

 

[Asclepias]

I think the proof is about as good as it could get. The question of whether we should attack Syria is a tough one. Long ago we assumed the role of policeman of the world which I thing was a mistake. However, in that role an attack on Syria for these atrocities is certainly justified.

For the US to back away from the attack will certainly be a huge blow to the rebels and would also be a clear signal that use of chemical and biological weapons will be condoned. [/B]

Bingo!! I couldn't agree more.

 

[Stephanie]

these are the people IN CHARGE of our country TODAY folks

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...f-bush-criticism-meets-assad.html#post7763727

DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country.

the Democrats were in LOVE with Assad when Bush President...so much so Pelosi stepped over our Sec. of State to go sit on Assada lap and gush all over him..

and NOW you are going to take their word today?

if so you are pathetic sheep

 

[IlarMeilyr]

God DAMN it.

The case against Assad is quite clear.

That does NOT answer the questions about what (if anything) we should or might do about it.

However, to deny that the proof is crystal clear is a non starter.

I believe the proper questions are: (1) IF we take it now as a given (which I do) that Assad and his regime used the chemical weapons to slaughter so many of his own innocent civilian population, what is the proper response of the United States? And, (2) what is the justification for that response?

I think the proof is about as good as it could get. The question of whether we should attack Syria is a tough one. Long ago we assumed the role of policeman of the world which I thing was a mistake. However, in that role an attack on Syria for these atrocities is certainly justified.

For the US to back away from the attack will certainly be a huge blow to the rebels and would also be a clear signal that use of chemical and biological weapons will be condoned.

I agree. There is a huge downside to NOT doing as we (i.e., Obama's stupid fat mouth) said we were "going" to act.

On the other hand, I also see a huge downside to ACTING as he said we were going to act.

This is an amazingly tangled thorny problem.

And as I said in another thread (echoing what many others have said): if we are going to act like we think we are the world's policeman, and intercede because of the Assad atrocities against his own innocent civilians, then what is the basis for doing so in Syria but not doing so in Darfur (and other God-forsaken shitholes)?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Kerry didn't nail Rand. Objectively, Rand kind of poked the weak spots in the Obama case and tweaked the arrogant former Senator John F'n Lurch Kerry in the process.

If we do not "act" against Assad, according to Lurch, Assad WILL do it again.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But if we do lob in some missiles and even if we temporarily "degrade" the Assad military capacity, unless there is a rgegime change there (allegedly NOT our objective) then what makes Lurch or anybody else think that Assad will not simply get resupplied and reconstituted?

The better question, Secretary Lurch, is if we DO lob in missiles, will that PREVENT Assad from doing "it" again?

And there is no credible reason to believe it will UNLESS it turns the civil war against his regime into a route and he loses that war and his hold on power forever.

So, perhaps the subtext is really that we ARE seeking "regime change" but for some reason don't want to say so?

And one more thing. If it does cause Assad and his regime to topple, is THAT going to put the U.S. in a good position? Better than we were before we intervened? Or worse? Because, let's say it again, if Assad is OUT, we kind of already know who is likely to be "in." Don't we?

While you present a debatable point, make no mistake about it, Kerry handed Rand his ass. I just noted that Rand was actually in a physically elevated position of authority and it still looked like Kerry was running the show.

The mistake is yours. Kerry sounded all authoritative, but he lacked logic and substance. Mild mannered Rand didn't behave as rudely or as arrogantly, but his moderately-toned questioning put it to Kerry.

Your analysis on who "prevailed" in that exchange is faulty. Period.

 

[asaratis]

Kerry is a complete fool, he runs ram-shod over anyone that doesn't agree with him. He's acting like a bully. BTW, where are his medals today?

Now the Secretary of State Falsehoods has provoked the anger of Putin more than Obama did. Putin called Kerry a liar. (I cannot disagree with that.)

Putin calls Kerry a liar on Syria

Give Obama, Kerry, Hagle and other Obamaroids enough rope and they will hang us all and start WWIII...

Fucking incompetent, idiotic, arrogant asses!

 

[Asclepias]

US classified intelligence has determined that all (insert your ethnicity and religion here) are guilty of plotting to wage a terror war with the US government. They are going to round them all up and put them in detention centers (indefinitely).

Hey, the proof is above your pay grade. Shut up and let the leaders worry about. it's none of your business about their proof. Just get in line for your number at the detention center.

There are several huge gaping holes in your logic. How do you propose the public gets shown proof without compromising our intelligence capabilities? Once you solve that problem how do you ever come to a consensus this century in time to actually take action? You need to think less about your belief or disbelief and the actual reality of the situation.

Same thing goes with that intelligence about rounding up your kind. We have to let the "leaders" act now, or you may attack them. We can not show any proof because it compromises our intelligence. Just get in line for your numebr and shut up. Or the guards will give you special treatment to help you shut up.


As for your "logic", if their is PROOF then it can not undermineintelligence. it's alsready happened. Not something going to happen. Jeebus.....

Clearly youre not thinking this through rationally. If there is an internal issue we wouldnt be exposing our intelligence community to danger world wide by showing proof. To address your last point. Do you realize that intelligence gathering and its methods are ongoing? It doesnt matter if it already happened. The people and the methods of gathering it would be compromised.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Seriously.....

 

[TakeAStepBack]

How quickly the LOLberals turn into chickenhawks at the sign the dear leader needs a war..... Amazingly predictable.

 

[dcraelin]

Kerry and his attitude in these hearings is going to hurt the president.

 

[rhodescholar]

And there are several conflicting reports on who used those chemical weapons. So again, you have no proof. You have hearsay.

In other words, you're in it for the boot licking. If this was a Romney administration, you'd be having a full blown meltdown tantrum over it.

It is astounding how stupid some people are, just mind boggling. The mass media says: "be an armchair isolationist", so the drones fall right into places with ready-made lines: "this is not our war!" and "let them fight it out, we need to take care of our own problems!" and other simple-minded tripe.

Do you have any fucking clue how sarin gas works, and how it has to be VERY carefully mixed en route to the bombing site or it will evaporate and become unusable?

The technology, skills and delivery systems for sarin gas are WAY beyond what the rebels or jihadists can accomplish. The SG has to be kept in liquid form, inserted into delivery canisters, then mixed with other elements within the canisters en route, right before being delivered in a payload.

The rockets carrying SG have to be multi-compartmental, with balanced mixing and perfectly-milled parts. This is not something the jihadists or rebels can perform, do you understand? Only highly trained personnel in lab-like conditions, with an assembly line process to insert the chemicals into the rockets can do this, especially in the numbers of rockets fired into the two different, far apart sections of Damascus into which they were sent.

The rebels lack the quantities of SG, the lab conditions, the rocket delivery systems, etc. If they could do this, why the fuck would they have waited 3 years to do so?

To anyone with brains or knowledge of chem warfare, it is laughable that anyone is trying to put this on some psychotic muslims screaming allahu akbar.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

All I saw was Kerry get mad and double down on his lies.