The World Mocks Your President

[AmericanFirst1]

Russia hacks our country and all you can do is attack our president? Who's side are you on?

Hasn't been proved, just a lot of excuses why the hag Hillary lost.

 

[rightwinger]

You think the world mocks Obama?

Wait until President Oompa Loompa comes in

 

[AmericanFirst1]

The world's been mocking our president for at least four years. That's about the hopeychangey thing came tumbling down along with Red Lines and so on.

A dimwit homecoming?

 

[Camp]

My objection to Reagan mostly regards his poor response to terrorist attacks that I and many experts believe led to the acceptance of terrorism as a viable and acceptable political tactic. That is not a subjective opinion. It is an objective fact.

Not the sharpest tack at the best of times, I know, but see if you can spot the contradiction.

That people like you are entitled to vote is indeed disturbing, but Trump won anyway.

No contradiction. Terrorism specifically aimed at American targets by middle eastern terrorist was practically non-existent unless you count the take over of the Iranian Embassy. American targets took hold under the Reagan administration, particularly with the bombing of our Embassy in Beruit followed by the bombing of the Marine Barracks that killed over 240 Marines and maimed more. Those attacks alone caused a perceptible victory for the terrorist and caused Reagan to pull out and run without viable retaliation or justice dealt for the perpetrators or those attacks. Simply google terrorism of the eighties to see what followed and ended with the Christmas present that was given to Reagan just before he left office. It is best known as the Lockerbie Bombing when an American commercial jet full of Americans, including students, was bombed out of the sky.

Stop with all the blame republicans BS. Exactly what action did Clinton and the democrats do in regards to how terrorism needed to be dealt with? There is a vast difference to be found in finally admitting to an attack, with taking measures to actually respond and prevent them. Waiting for a devastating event to occur FIRST is not exactly a role model in how to respond towards a terrorist attack. If Clinton had any national security concerns at all, terrorists wouldn't find so many attacks they could get away with under that administration, with ample ability to comfortably plot and plan 9-11.

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

You really don't get it, do yo?. The Lt. Col.'s opinion is subjective and not "objective fact". Yours, on the other hand, is absolutely meaningless. You're getting annoying and petulant.

I am not sorry that Reagan was a prime force in toppling the USSR and I will not say so to calm your nerves. Neither do I accept that terrorism, in the modern sense, started with the Reagan administration. you need to do your homework before presuming to challenge the more learned kid.

As usual with you Mr. Head, all you have is talk with nothing to back up your claims. The lack of terrorist attacks before Reagan took office are objective facts. I asked you to provide examples of mid-east terror group attacks on America and you failed to produce examples. The fact that numerous attacks against America by mid east terrorist groups and entities began during the Reagan administration are objective facts. The bombing of the Embassy in Beirut and the Marine Barracks early in the Reagan administration and the bombing of Pan Am 103 at the very end of his second term are objective facts. All the terrorist attacks in between those attacks and the responses or lack thereof are objective facts. There is little that is remotely subjective about them. You could argue that the amount of the response, when responses were made is subjective. Go ahead, make the argument that the responses were adequate. Explain how the response to the attack on the Embassy in Beirut shortly before the attack on the barracks was adequate to prevent the attack on the barracks.

At some point you may even want to address the issue of Marines guarding the barracks being ordered to carry unloaded weapons and vehicle barriers not being in place to stop a terrorist attack like the one that occurred.

 

[Camp]

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

One of the key factors of Reagan winning was Carter's inept handling of the ME and our hostages, released hours after Ronnie took office. He shares that impression with Trump, who unlike obama has shown some spine and will likely not be used as a doormat.

Carter brough about a peace agreement in the mid east. He refused to negotiate with Iran over hostages. He refused to negotiate with terrorist. Reagan's willingness to do so is what gave birth to the terrorist campaigns against the USA in the 80's and the birth of modern-day terrorism.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Russian propaganda has done well over the last few years in the USA. Its success could and can be seen right here at USMB. A key group of posters and agent provocateurs has managed to assemble significant numbers of dupes or, unwitting and poorly informed or misinformed Americans to echo and mimic the Russian state propaganda at sites like this one as if it were viable and reliable, accurate and true. This has been made possible by the constant and persistent hate mongering towards the US government and "liberals" and "Democrats", ignoring the fact that that they are stereotyping and demonizing at least half, and probably more than half the Amerian population.
Look at the graphic in post #8 and remember it the next time Trump supporters whine and bitch about being called racist.

This post is well worth bumping. Racism, hate and fear is what attracted the deplorable to support Trump.

 

[WillowTree]

Russia hacks our country and all you can do is attack our president? Who's side are you on?

You laughed your ass off when they threw shoes at President Bush. This is your KARMA coming home to roost!

 

[rightwinger]

Russia hacks our country and all you can do is attack our president? Who's side are you on?

You laughed your ass off when they threw shoes at President Bush. This is your KARMA coming home to roost!

Sorry

But that one was funny

 

[dannyboys]

Obama's legacy failed because he was weak and facilitating.

Do you mean vacillating?

Both words work.
Obama was Putin's 'pool-boy' for eight years.

 

[Meathead]

Not the sharpest tack at the best of times, I know, but see if you can spot the contradiction.

That people like you are entitled to vote is indeed disturbing, but Trump won anyway.

No contradiction. Terrorism specifically aimed at American targets by middle eastern terrorist was practically non-existent unless you count the take over of the Iranian Embassy. American targets took hold under the Reagan administration, particularly with the bombing of our Embassy in Beruit followed by the bombing of the Marine Barracks that killed over 240 Marines and maimed more. Those attacks alone caused a perceptible victory for the terrorist and caused Reagan to pull out and run without viable retaliation or justice dealt for the perpetrators or those attacks. Simply google terrorism of the eighties to see what followed and ended with the Christmas present that was given to Reagan just before he left office. It is best known as the Lockerbie Bombing when an American commercial jet full of Americans, including students, was bombed out of the sky.

Stop with all the blame republicans BS. Exactly what action did Clinton and the democrats do in regards to how terrorism needed to be dealt with? There is a vast difference to be found in finally admitting to an attack, with taking measures to actually respond and prevent them. Waiting for a devastating event to occur FIRST is not exactly a role model in how to respond towards a terrorist attack. If Clinton had any national security concerns at all, terrorists wouldn't find so many attacks they could get away with under that administration, with ample ability to comfortably plot and plan 9-11.

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

You really don't get it, do yo?. The Lt. Col.'s opinion is subjective and not "objective fact". Yours, on the other hand, is absolutely meaningless. You're getting annoying and petulant.

I am not sorry that Reagan was a prime force in toppling the USSR and I will not say so to calm your nerves. Neither do I accept that terrorism, in the modern sense, started with the Reagan administration. you need to do your homework before presuming to challenge the more learned kid.

As usual with you Mr. Head, all you have is talk with nothing to back up your claims. The lack of terrorist attacks before Reagan took office are objective facts. I asked you to provide examples of mid-east terror group attacks on America and you failed to produce examples. The fact that numerous attacks against America by mid east terrorist groups and entities began during the Reagan administration are objective facts. The bombing of the Embassy in Beirut and the Marine Barracks early in the Reagan administration and the bombing of Pan Am 103 at the very end of his second term are objective facts. All the terrorist attacks in between those attacks and the responses or lack thereof are objective facts. There is little that is remotely subjective about them. You could argue that the amount of the response, when responses were made is subjective. Go ahead, make the argument that the responses were adequate. Explain how the response to the attack on the Embassy in Beirut shortly before the attack on the barracks was adequate to prevent the attack on the barracks.

At some point you may even want to address the issue of Marines guarding the barracks being ordered to carry unloaded weapons and vehicle barriers not being in place to stop a terrorist attack like the one that occurred.

Knock yourself out you insipid little man. In fact I was in Greece in 1975 when Richard Welch was killed, although I was not in Munich in 1972 when the Israeli team was murdered. They probably don't count because they were Jews. Of course your heroes killed a US Ambassador in Sudan in 1974. Reagan was governor of California at the time since your history is very garbled. It is not for me to do your homework for you.

These are "objective facts", not the rantings of an anonymous and ill-informed dingbat on some internet site:

Historic Timeline | National Counterterrorism Center

 

[rightwinger]

Obama's legacy failed because he was weak and facilitating.

Do you mean vacillating?

Both words work.
Obama was Putin's 'pool-boy' for eight years.

Obama imposed crippling sanctions on Putin


Putin got his "pool boy" elected President

 

[Meathead]

Obama's legacy failed because he was weak and facilitating.

Do you mean vacillating?

Both words work.
Obama was Putin's 'pool-boy' for eight years.

Obama imposed crippling sanctions on Putin


Putin got his "pool boy" elected President

Yeah, the "cripple"took over Crimea, a good chunk of Ukraine and Syria. Pajama Boy really showed him, eh?

 

[Iceweasel]

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

One of the key factors of Reagan winning was Carter's inept handling of the ME and our hostages, released hours after Ronnie took office. He shares that impression with Trump, who unlike obama has shown some spine and will likely not be used as a doormat.

Carter brough about a peace agreement in the mid east. He refused to negotiate with Iran over hostages. He refused to negotiate with terrorist. Reagan's willingness to do so is what gave birth to the terrorist campaigns against the USA in the 80's and the birth of modern-day terrorism.

How does modern day terrorism differ from the good old traditional way, except technology making it worse? His "peace deal" didn't pan out so hot did it? Liberals think they can control the world with their mouths for some reason.

No, they knew Reagan was going to back up his words because it was a campaign issue and American lost hope in Jimmy. You can spin, spew or shit but you can't rewrite history.

 

[dannyboys]

Let's get real.
Obama, even though he only sat in on half the daily security briefings when he wasn't golfing was told EVERY FUCKING DAY for EIGHT YEARS by DHS et al ALL about what the Russians/Chinese etc were doing visa vi 'hacking' into US Government computers or their attempts to do so.
It came as NO SURPRISE to ANYONE in Obama's administration that the US government computers were under hacking assaults thousands of times a day.
Now for Obamma and his asslckers to suddenly claim to just be made aware of the possible Russian hacking is total LIB bullshit.
Hillary was SOS for four years. Who believes she wasn't aware of possible hacking threats to the DNC computers???
FUCKING GOLD STAR!!!!!
She hired a bunch of 'man-bun' dopers to run her campaign servers. You'd think with 1.2 BILLION bucks to blow she would have had someone phone Debbie and warn Debbie about the inevitable hacking attempts at the DNC.
But then Hillary's fag Robby Mook was too tight to spend money on a map showing where the state of Wisconsin is.
Go figure.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Russia hacks our country and all you can do is attack our president? Who's side are you on?

You laughed your ass off when they threw shoes at President Bush. This is your KARMA coming home to roost!

It was not a Russian who tossed a shoe at President Bush, but facts never seem to make it into you interesting thought process.

 

[Iceweasel]

Russia hacks our country and all you can do is attack our president? Who's side are you on?

You laughed your ass off when they threw shoes at President Bush. This is your KARMA coming home to roost!

It was not a Russian who tossed a shoe at President Bush, but facts never seem to make it into you interesting thought process.

When did he say that?

 

[Wry Catcher]

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

One of the key factors of Reagan winning was Carter's inept handling of the ME and our hostages, released hours after Ronnie took office. He shares that impression with Trump, who unlike obama has shown some spine and will likely not be used as a doormat.

Carter brough about a peace agreement in the mid east. He refused to negotiate with Iran over hostages. He refused to negotiate with terrorist. Reagan's willingness to do so is what gave birth to the terrorist campaigns against the USA in the 80's and the birth of modern-day terrorism.

How does modern day terrorism differ from the good old traditional way, except technology making it worse? His "peace deal" didn't pan out so hot did it? Liberals think they can control the world with their mouths for some reason.

No, they knew Reagan was going to back up his words because it was a campaign issue and American lost hope in Jimmy. You can spin, spew or shit but you can't rewrite history.

Of course your biased view and half-truths are efforts - weak though they may be - are thoughtless and never thought provoking.

A lower division survey course I took asked this Mid-term question:

Q. Does a man make history, or does history make the man.

A.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Russia hacks our country and all you can do is attack our president? Who's side are you on?

You laughed your ass off when they threw shoes at President Bush. This is your KARMA coming home to roost!

It was not a Russian who tossed a shoe at President Bush, but facts never seem to make it into you interesting thought process.

When did he say that?

Willow Tree numb nuts, try to read without your usual bias.

 

[Iceweasel]

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

One of the key factors of Reagan winning was Carter's inept handling of the ME and our hostages, released hours after Ronnie took office. He shares that impression with Trump, who unlike obama has shown some spine and will likely not be used as a doormat.

Carter brough about a peace agreement in the mid east. He refused to negotiate with Iran over hostages. He refused to negotiate with terrorist. Reagan's willingness to do so is what gave birth to the terrorist campaigns against the USA in the 80's and the birth of modern-day terrorism.

How does modern day terrorism differ from the good old traditional way, except technology making it worse? His "peace deal" didn't pan out so hot did it? Liberals think they can control the world with their mouths for some reason.

No, they knew Reagan was going to back up his words because it was a campaign issue and American lost hope in Jimmy. You can spin, spew or shit but you can't rewrite history.

Of course your biased view and half-truths are efforts - weak though they may be - or thoughtless and never thought provoking.

A lower division survey course I took asked this Mid-term question:

Q. Does a man make history, or does history make the man.

A.

If I stated half truths that's twice as much as you. History is the recording of events, men only "make" history by doing something worth recording. Now go explain where the other half of my truth is.

 

[Iceweasel]

Russia hacks our country and all you can do is attack our president? Who's side are you on?

You laughed your ass off when they threw shoes at President Bush. This is your KARMA coming home to roost!

It was not a Russian who tossed a shoe at President Bush, but facts never seem to make it into you interesting thought process.

When did he say that?

Willow Tree numb nuts, try to read without your usual bias.

That's not an answer.