Thanks for that fantastically informative addition to this wonderful discussion.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Thin skinned Obama responds to Hillary's criticism Warning: language
- Thread starter carpro
- Start date
Thanks for that fantastically informative addition to this wonderful discussion.
My thread.
I can do whatever I want with it.
Your first comment was inserted sarcastically to make fun of the whole premise.
I fed your sarcasm back to you with the facts and suddenly you wanted to get back on track. As stated, you were done before you got started. You got hammered on your cutesy remark and now you don't want to be cute.
But, in reality, you were successful at what you set out to do, destroy the continuity of the thread. My fault I decided to have you for lunch over your first comment. Your fault for making it, getting your head handed to you, then wanted to be "reasonable".
Then you misstate the premise and try to reframe the whole thing. Man, you're a card. :smilewinkgrin:
but not an Ace.
BTW Some time back you said you were done here. About as honest with that remark as you have been with the rest. :wavey::wavey:
Reconcile your first and second post and I'll eat crow. That is all I ask. I suspect I will be waiting for for quite some time.
There is nothing to reconcile and no need to eat crow.
When I read the source article, my only thought was how poorly Obama takes criticism. How defensive and thin skinned he is. I believe that comes largely from an elitest attitude that resents any disagreement.
I explained that in my second post. I also made it clear I differed with the source article in that I believed we had been arming the syrian rebels. But that information really had nothing much to do with the reason I posted the article.
I added a remark that illustrated my distrust of Obama because of his terrorist sympathies. You took that remark and ran with it...
and here we are.
Could I have been clearer? Perhaps.
Could you have asked for clarification before posting a snarky comment? I think so.
You are new here, appear to be pretty intelligent and are very sure of yourself. You present a lot of your remarks as if there is no room for disagreement. You'll find that is not the case. People will disagree with you. You'll also find that some of us rarely say anything we can't back up. It would be a mistake to think otherwise. If it's an opinion, we usually say so. A couple of people posting here never back up anything they say. I consider them trolls. They are here to disrupt, not discuss.
Welcome to the board. Intelligent discourse is always welcome.
Back to Hillary a minute. Victor Davis Hanson said on Indianapolis radio today on the Greg Garrison Show (Garrison is the one who successfully prosecuted Mike Tyson for rape) that Hillary cannot blame Bush any longer for her mistakes and her miserable record as Secretary of State (and Senator from New York) so now she is trying to blame Obama. He said that Obama would get even with her by using his powers against her.
Hanson said that he is wondering if Hillary will run? She is quite old and not in good health but he thinks that she looks better than Bill who has more wrong with him. He thinks that the Dems will run Warren.
Hanson said that he is wondering if Hillary will run? She is quite old and not in good health but he thinks that she looks better than Bill who has more wrong with him. He thinks that the Dems will run Warren.
Fair enough. I do not believe that I present my remarks without any room for argument. Getting people to put in the effort to do that has been the difficulty. Usually, I just get some drive by comment from someone attempting to belittle me. I've made it very clear I'll stand down if proven wrong. I've done that for two posters already. As for snarky? You bet. In the past two days I have been called a troll (by a Pastor of a church if you can believe that), a supporter of the Islamic state and apparantly I have a reading comprehension problem. Most of those I got simply for having the audacity to post a counterargument.
As far as Obama being a terrorist sympathizer. Nope. He is currently rescuing Christian refugees from a mountain range while killing the terrorist that surround them. Now, how has he played some risky shellgames in the middle east? Yes, and the United States has a history of this biting them dating back to the Carter administration. Every president that tries to get out ahead of a crisis by backing a certain usually ends up regretting it. These people are no more guilty of being terrorist sympathizers than Obama. We have done the same thing in South America. It's kind of our thing.
Thank you for the welcome.
Last edited by a moderator:
You have to admit that you are a radical.
A radical what?
I've already presented a good case that he is. His rescuing of Christian refugees means nothing. He doesn't really have a choice.
We will have to agree to disagree.
I'm sorry but that was not a good case. Those were simply conspiracy theory level accusations without any substantial connection to anything remotely resembling proof. If that is all it takes to make "a case" for being a sympathizer I could make a pretty good one that Ronald Reagan is the most guilty as he essentially created Al Qaeda right?
Back to Hillary and Obama a minute, Victor Davis Hanson seems correct that she is attacking because she cannot defend her own record.
Both of them have records that are hard to defend.
It's kinda fun to watch them go at each other. :thumbs:
I believe Hillary has the advantage if she decides to use it though. Her problem is that she delivered his messages as if she agreed with them. She'd have more credibility if she had protested some of his more boneheaded moves in the foreign affairs theater.