OCinBuffalo Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 I am not being flippant nor do I want to seem insensitive, but I cannot help think that 2 terrorists, killing 4 people ( at this point) will create more investigation and new laws in congress than the killing of 26 - 5 and 6 year olds (and teachers)...just one of a string of terrible tragedies.... Easy to blame a foreigner, not so easy to blame ourselves. I may be a Canadian but we have the same political issues with the border and guns registry. Cannot wait to here Boehner, etc hitting the stump on this one. They will listen to all the recommendations from police and federal agencies and react...they ignore them when the Gun lobby speaks....Just a thought at this terrible time, sorry if I insulted anyone over the timing of this opinion. My prayers are with those in Boston and the families who have lost loved ones. As B-man said, this says a hell of a lot more about you...than it does about us, our approach, John Boehner, or anything else. Let me educate you: The reason the recent gun control law failed is 100% due to Obama being a weak-ass, non-leader. He's already cashiered ALL of his political capital. Especially after the sequester debacle. DEMOCRATS, not John Boehner, in the US Senate, not the House of Representatives...killed that bill because they KNOW that having anything to do with Obama-->lose in 2014. This is because Obama's 2014 election strategy calls for forcing Republicans to make tough votes, and the hope is that Obama et al will be able to use those votes against them. This is the real agenda here. The problem is: Obama's team are too stupid to realize that forcing tough votes ALSO puts a lot of elected Democrats in precarious positions. And, these Democrats have seen enough of Obama to know that he is not only inept, but that he cannot be trusted. They learned that in 2010. Frankly, I really didn't see that much wrong with the compromise the 2 senators worked out. But, I see plently wrong with how Obama went about it. Was it about solving a problem, or was it about, yet again, political gain? Here's the part that's going to piss you off...because it's true: If that law had been worked out when Bush was still POTUS, it would have passed, and why? Because Bush wasn't weak, and Bush wasn't trying to play political games with most of his issues. He was wrong about Iraq, but he wasn't wrong beause he was trying to use Iraq as a political tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Bush wasn't trying to play political games with most of his issues. He was wrong about Iraq, but he wasn't wrong beause he was trying to use Iraq as a political tool. :lol: :lol: :lol: Yeah, Bush never used Iraq as a political tool. You are an asshat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 (edited) :lol: :lol: :lol: Yeah, Bush never used Iraq as a political tool. You are an asshat. So...you really don't understand the concept of a "political tool", do you? The above? That's not a political tool. That's a guy who was trying to do one thing = congratulate homecoming sailors, and albeit stupidly, him or more likely his staff, not realizing the larger political ramifications of what he was doing, or that saying "mission accomplished" for a ship...would be crassly distorted into "mission accomplished" in general, by a bunch of tools. Bush walked into it. That is the opposite of a "tool" that you set up and use against other people. You In contrast, Obama's ENTIRE agenda is the 2014 elections, and, since it is an "agenda" it involves all sorts of activities...and not a single speech. The agenda is to force votes and the hope is to gain politically from that. How is the above even remotely similar to that? Which Democrat(s) was targeted to lose his seat, as a result of the above? Such an unmitigated moron. Edited April 19, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 So...you really don't understand the concept of a "political tool", do you? The above? That's not a political tool. That's a guy who was trying to do one thing = congratulate homecoming sailors, and albeit stupidly, him or more likely his staff, not realizing the larger political ramifications of what he was doing, or that saying "mission accomplished" for a ship...would be crassly distorted into "mission accomplished" in general, by a bunch of tools. Bush walked into it. That is the opposite of a "tool" that you set up and use against other people. You In contrast, Obama's ENTIRE agenda is the 2014 elections, and, since it is an "agenda" it involves all sorts of activities...and not a single speech. The agenda is to force votes and the hope is to gain politically from that. How is the above even remotely similar to that? Which Democrat(s) was targeted to lose his seat, as a result of the above. Such an unmitigated moron. The unmitigated moron is the one who claims a commander in chief landing a jet on an aircraft carrier, delivering a speech in front of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished" is anything BUT a political tool. You know nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 The unmitigated moron is the one who claims a commander in chief landing a jet on an aircraft carrier, delivering a speech in front of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished" is anything BUT a political tool. You know nothing. So yes, you don't see the difference. That's hilarious. You think a single, clearly F'ed up event = a President's entire 2nd term agenda, and an entire election strategy My biggest wish: the far-left puts you in charge of something. Then, you can tell us all how, eventually, we will all love your idiocy as well, of course, once we see the benefit of it. But, for me? I've already seen the beneft of your idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 So yes, you don't see the difference. That's hilarious. You think a single, clearly F'ed up event = a President's entire 2nd term agenda, and an entire election strategy Wow. Now you're backpedaling on your backpedaling and you're not even getting that right. I never said it was his entire second term agenda, you did. By the way, you can always tell what **** you make up in your posts because you always follow it up with an emoticon. It's the worst tell I've ever seen. What you originally said was: He was wrong about Iraq, but he wasn't wrong beause he was trying to use Iraq as a political tool. When in fact Bush did try to use Iraq as a political tool, May 1st 2003 specifically. Just because Bush's Mission Accomplished speech was proven to be a failure for him politically, does not mean that the entire event wasn't originally designed to be a political tool by the administration. You don't land a jet on an aircraft carrier, assemble the entire press pool, deliver a speech carried by all the networks in front of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished" by accident. You are wrong. Again. And again you prove yourself to be an asshat. But, for me? I've already seen the beneft of your idiocy. It takes big balls for someone to call someone else an idiot when they can't spell simple words like 'benefit'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 (edited) :lol: :lol: :lol: Yeah, Bush never used Iraq as a political tool. You are an asshat. Bush never used a teleprompter. Edited April 19, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Wow. Now you're backpedaling on your backpedaling and you're not even getting that right. I never said it was his entire second term agenda, you did. By the way, you can always tell what **** you make up in your posts because you always follow it up with an emoticon. It's the worst tell I've ever seen. What you originally said was: When in fact Bush did try to use Iraq as a political tool, May 1st 2003 specifically. Just because Bush's Mission Accomplished speech was proven to be a failure for him politically, does not mean that the entire event wasn't originally designed to be a political tool by the administration. You don't land a jet on an aircraft carrier, assemble the entire press pool, deliver a speech carried by all the networks in front of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished" by accident. You are wrong. Again. And again you prove yourself to be an asshat. They guy was trying to welcome troops home. That is why he was there. That was the "event". If somebody either 1. didn't realize that saying mission accomplished would be extrapolated by the craven 2. wanted to try and benefit poltiically from it is f'ing irrelevant, because Bush didn't go to the event for the single purpose of making Democrats lose elections. Obama's Gun control, sequester approach, ALL OF IT, AND WHY HE IS DOING IT...is for political gain. There is no other objective. The only reason he is pushing on these various issues is to try and put House Republicans in a tough spot, and hope he can gain from that. The reason is: to make Republicans lose elections. You really don't understand the difference? Really? Do you really think an = belongs between these two things? So, that's why I say, I hope you work for House Democrats in 2014. Why not complete the circle of FAIL? You can really do some damage sporting this level of delusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 They guy was trying to welcome troops home. That is why he was there. Ohhhhh, so it's not that you're stupid. It's that you're naive. Gotcha. Question. If Bush and the administration's only purpose during that event was to welcome folks home, then why the jet stunt landing, the speech that was carried live by all the major networks, and the banner purposefully positioned to be in every shot? There was no political agenda there for the Bush administration? Do you really want to argue that? Or would you rather just admit that you were wrong, again, about pretty much everything? That was the "event". If somebody either 1. didn't realize that saying mission accomplished would be extrapolated by the craven 2. wanted to try and benefit poltiically from it is f'ing irrelevant, because Bush didn't go to the event for the single purpose of making Democrats lose elections. You argued Bush never used Iraq as a political tool, which is the notion I'm shooting down, and now you're saying that him wanting to benefit politically from it is "f'ing irrelevant"? In other words, your statement was shown to be wrong but instead of admitting it, you completely invent a scenario in which you argue an imaginary point. Ass. Hat. Obama's Gun control, sequester approach, ALL OF IT, AND WHY HE IS DOING IT...is for political gain. There is no other objective. The only reason he is pushing on these various issues is to try and put House Republicans in a tough spot, and hope he can gain from that. The reason is: to make Republicans lose elections. See? Inventing a scenario that has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing, then distorting it to a point where it seems to fit your argument. But it doesn't. Because you're an asshat who can't tell his elbow from his !@#$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 (edited) Ohhhhh, so it's not that you're stupid. It's that you're naive. Gotcha. Question. If Bush and the administration's only purpose during that event was to welcome folks home, then why the jet stunt landing, the speech that was carried live by all the major networks, and the banner purposefully positioned to be in every shot? There was no political agenda there for the Bush administration? Do you really want to argue that? Or would you rather just admit that you were wrong, again, about pretty much everything? What was the purpose for the event? Was Bush sitting at his desk? Was he raising money? What was he doing there? As I specifically said, of course there was politicization of it, or stupidity or both. But, why was he there? I'd love to see you try to identify the root cause of "why did the Democrats get their ass kicked in 2010". I imagine you'd end up with: "because Republicans lied". You argued Bush never used Iraq as a political tool, which is the notion I'm shooting down, and now you're saying that him wanting to benefit politically from it is "f'ing irrelevant"? In other words, your statement was shown to be wrong but instead of admitting it, you completely invent a scenario in which you argue an imaginary point. Ass. Hat. See? Inventing a scenario that has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing, then distorting it to a point where it seems to fit your argument. But it doesn't. Because you're an asshat who can't tell his elbow from his !@#$. Really? You really don't see the difference. I "invented" Obama's 2014 strategy now? Yes, I will remember that it was I who invented the fundraising, the sequester-fail, and of course, I made the Senate Democrats vote against the gun control bill. This is really hilarious now. I...invented this. Edited April 19, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 What was the purpose for the event? Was Bush sitting at his desk? Was he raising money? What was he doing there? As I specifically said, of course there was politicization of it, or stupidity or both. Actually, you didn't. What you said was: He was wrong about Iraq, but he wasn't wrong beause he was trying to use Iraq as a political tool. But on May 1st, 2003 he certainly DID use Iraq as a political tool. And that's just one example. But, why was he there? For the press, the soundbites, the imagery, and to boost his own political capital heading into his re-election campaign. Why else does a commander in chief land a !@#$ing jet on an aircraft carrier on live TV if not for the political benefits of looking like a warrior leader? I'd love to see you try to identify the root cause of "why did the Democrats get their ass kicked in 2010". I imagine you'd end up with: "because Republicans lied". Gee. Look at this! OC is bringing up a completely different topic and trying to shoe-horn into this one. I wonder why? Because he's an asshat or because he can't admit he was wrong about anything. Ever? Probably both. Really? You really don't see the difference. I "invented" Obama's 2014 strategy now? Twice in one thread he's inventing things now. Again, the key is the use of an emoticon after he makes something up. It's a dead give away EVERY time. Yes, I will remember that it was I who invented the fundraising, the sequester-fail, and of course, I made the Senate Democrats vote against the gun control bill. Dig, dig, dig, maybe one day you'll emerge back on topic. This is really hilarious now. It is. But everyone is laughing AT you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Actually, you didn't. What you said was: But on May 1st, 2003 he certainly DID use Iraq as a political tool. And that's just one example. For the press, the soundbites, the imagery, and to boost his own political capital heading into his re-election campaign. Why else does a commander in chief land a !@#$ing jet on an aircraft carrier on live TV if not for the political benefits of looking like a warrior leader? Gee. Look at this! OC is bringing up a completely different topic and trying to shoe-horn into this one. I wonder why? Because he's an asshat or because he can't admit he was wrong about anything. Ever? Probably both. Twice in one thread he's inventing things now. Again, the key is the use of an emoticon after he makes something up. It's a dead give away EVERY time. Dig, dig, dig, maybe one day you'll emerge back on topic. It is. But everyone is laughing AT you. (Psst. The topic IS the reason why Obama's gun control gambit failed.) Ok, now you can go back to operating per normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 (Psst. The topic IS the reason why Obama's gun control gambit failed.) Ok, now you can go back to operating per normal. And yet, it has absolutely nothing to do with what you and I have been talking about in this thread. Good try. Don't you get tired of being wrong? Just admit you're an asshat, it will make life easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 And yet, it has absolutely nothing to do with what you and I have been talking about in this thread. Good try. Don't you get tired of being wrong? Just admit you're an asshat, it will make life easier. Ahem (coughing loud enough to get local attention, but not loud enough to distract the entire room) In whisper voice: The topic at hand is in fact Obama's gun control failure and why it failed. I mean...the title of the thread has "Kitchen Utensils" in it. (giggle) Now, by all means, carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Ahem (coughing loud enough to get local attention, but not loud enough to distract the entire room) In whisper voice: The topic at hand is in fact Obama's gun control failure and why it failed. I mean...the title of the thread has "Kitchen Utensils" in it. (giggle) Now, by all means, carry on... Actually, the topic at hand is a joke thread about banning Kitchen Utensils in the wake of the bombings. Still not what you and I are talking about, we're talking about your complete ignorance on a specific topic that you brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 You two should get a room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Actually, the topic at hand is a joke thread about banning Kitchen Utensils in the wake of the bombings. Still not what you and I are talking about, we're talking about your complete ignorance on a specific topic that you brought up. I'm going to try something new with you, just to satisfy my curiosity. Why is that joke...funny? What makes the joke work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 I'm going to try something new with you, just to satisfy my curiosity. Why is that joke...funny? What makes the joke work? You have yet to answer one of my questions. Instead you dodge by asking bull **** ones of your own. That's not trolling. That's not debating. That's not bringing anything new to the table. That's called being an asshat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Why is that joke...funny? What makes the joke work? Because a really good joke has a glimmer of truth to it...such that I could truthfully see some bonehead congressman trying to ban the sale and distribution of a carrot peeler or a cheese grater. The humor is in believing that this could actually happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 You two should get a room. No because: he'd cry when I snuck into the bathroom whille he was showering, and turned off the hot water....every single day, not realizing that the reason I keep doing it, is because he keeps crying, and that it has nothing to do with showering, him, or anything else. I imagine he'd eventually have me arrested. Because a really good joke has a glimmer of truth to it...such that I could truthfully see some bonehead congressman trying to ban the sale and distribution of a carrot peeler or a cheese grater. The humor is in believing that this could actually happen. Is your name WCIP? Doesn't matter. Actually it works quite well. Here we have: the rational person, when asked a question, answers it reasonably. Over here we have: the alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts