0
airdvr

Liberal Theatrics

Recommended Posts

Quote

quade

I'm sorry, who was it that gave Usama bin Laden his start?



I bet there may be one or two Bin Laden's in Syria getting there start from Obama right now. And as long as we continue with the " The enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit, it's just going to keep on continuing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jclalor

Quote

***I'm sorry, who was it that gave Usama bin Laden his start?



I bet there may be one or two Bin Laden's in Syria getting there start from Obama right now. And as long as we continue with the " The enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit, it's just going to keep on continuing.

Drone strikes have that effect.
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, because even though some small funding was authorized in 1979 . . .

That's some purely rationalized bullshit right there. Reagan had plenty of time to stop funding, but what did he do? He increased it, many, many times and supplied huge shipments of weapons including Stinger missiles in 1986.

The funding under Carter was essentially enough to run some human intelligence. It was Reagan who funded the all out weapons programs.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
airdvr

***

Quote

***I'm sorry, who was it that gave Usama bin Laden his start?



I bet there may be one or two Bin Laden's in Syria getting there start from Obama right now. And as long as we continue with the " The enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit, it's just going to keep on continuing.

Drone strikes have that effect.***

I was making the point that while the US had the best of intentions in dealing with Bin Laden and his efforts to fight the Soviets, it had consequences, that at the time we never could have imagined. Now we are giving support to Syrian crazies who will side with the Islamic extremist as soon as the dust settles. It's time to take a deep breath and take a step back in the ME. the shit aint been going our way for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
airdvr

***

Quote

***I'm sorry, who was it that gave Usama bin Laden his start?



I bet there may be one or two Bin Laden's in Syria getting there start from Obama right now. And as long as we continue with the " The enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit, it's just going to keep on continuing.

Drone strikes have that effect.

Invading countries also have that effect.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You asked where he got his start. I answered it. You didn't like it and moved on to another topic.

[Reply]That's some purely rationalized bullshit right there. Reagan had plenty of time to stop funding, but what did he do? He increased it, many, many times and



Reagan - like Obama - can't increase funding one cent. But yes. I think it is appropriate to blame Reagan (who actually never had a friendly House of Representatives) for increasing the scope and breadth many times over.

What other President do we have who expands the scope and breadth of things he opposes. Gee, Paul, he's the President. He's the chief executive. What does the President do when Congress doesn't give him what he wants? He issues an executive order to do it, anyway. He's done it a lot on a plethora of issues.

Fact - Obama had what Reagan NEVER had - a friendly House and a Friendly Senate. The President, however, is out there defending human rights abuses. The Nobel Peace laureate has had 4.5 years to show the world that we don't hold people indefinitely, torture or execute enemies. Which is why Holder is writing letters promising not to do it.

The President blames blames blames. And you enable him to be the worst that he can be by supporting him in his endeavors. As shown, you expected more from Reagan than you did from Obama. Your description of what Reagan did is a close mirror to what Obama does, has done, and unlike Clinton - he'll continue to do it.

Why? Why not. Quade won't blame him. It's somebody else's fault. It's the GOP. Point the finger elsewhere! That's not leadership. That's gutless.


Edited to add: recall that Bin Laden loved the US because of what Reagan did. Then he hated American after the first Gulf War (GHW Bush).


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket


Fact - Obama had what Reagan NEVER had - a friendly House and a Friendly Senate.



Reagan had a very friendly Senate for most of his 2 terms. And he had both Dixiecrats in the House along with the rest of the Democrats mindful of the damage done to the party by the Carter Administration.

Obama had a friendly Senate for a fairly short period of time for non contiguous portions of the first 2 years. And he used that to get a version of health care reform passed. In time that could prove to be as significant as the New Deal reforms of the 30s, or the Medicare/War on Poverty stuff of LBJ's time. Or it could just fizzle out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reagan did something different - he found areas of agreement. He worked for years patiently about it. And he told the American people what was up. Reagan didn't try to take stands on big areas of disagreement. The Cold War was there, he was a Cold Warrior, and the Democrats were all for that, too. He didn't take stands against welfare, medicare, social security (a mistake, in my view). He spent YEARS working at tax reform and building a coalition and got it done.

In that way, Reagan and Clinton were exceptional. They could politic. They could use the bully pulpit and do so gently.

[Reply]Obama had a friendly Senate for a fairly short period of time for non contiguous portions of the first 2 years. And he used that to get a version of health care reform passed



Right. The Congressional Democrats jammed it down the GOPs throats. Unstoppable. The GOP not only had no power to oppose it, but didn't even have time to read the bill to point out problems with it. NOTHING could have stopped the President and the Democrats from doing whatever the hell they wanted. If they could pass the ACA they could have closed Gitmo, ended DOMA, etc.

They didn't. Because they didn't want to.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket

Reagan did something different - he found areas of agreement. He worked for years patiently about it. And he told the American people what was up. Reagan didn't try to take stands on big areas of disagreement. The Cold War was there, he was a Cold Warrior, and the Democrats were all for that, too. He didn't take stands against welfare, medicare, social security (a mistake, in my view). He spent YEARS working at tax reform and building a coalition and got it done.

In that way, Reagan and Clinton were exceptional. They could politic. They could use the bully pulpit and do so gently.



Clinton had just as little success with nearly 60 Senators as Obama did, floundering most of the first 2 years in office.

Reagan benefited greatly from the party imbalances of the early 80s.

[Reply]Obama had a friendly Senate for a fairly short period of time for non contiguous portions of the first 2 years. And he used that to get a version of health care reform passed



Right. The Congressional Democrats jammed it down the GOPs throats. Unstoppable. The GOP not only had no power to oppose it, but didn't even have time to read the bill to point out problems with it. NOTHING could have stopped the President and the Democrats from doing whatever the hell they wanted. If they could pass the ACA they could have closed Gitmo, ended DOMA, etc.

They didn't. Because they didn't want to.



Perhaps they didn't want to (particularly with Gitmo and Doma), but it's hardly accurate to say they could have done whatever they wanted. It took most of the window of opportunity to get ObamaCare passed, and it was left for dead on the first main push.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

***Reagan benefited greatly from the party imbalances of the early 80s.



Reagan also didn't have to put up with this filibuster bullshit.

it was present in his time. A bit more than half what Clinton saw, and a bit more than a quarter of what Obama has seen. But 40 per 2 year session is still something, and a lot more than was typical pre Watergate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0