• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats Don't Want to See Obama "Shamed and Humiliated on the National Stage”

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Loyalty — that is the only reason Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) can imagine supporting President Obama’s Syria resolution.

“If [Obama] gets saved at all, it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage,”...



Democrats Don't Want to See Obama "Shamed and Humiliated on the National Stage

The Demokrats openly admit their vote to send America to war is about party politics. It is not about what is best for America, but what will protect Obama from shame and humiliation.

They did the same when it came to Iraq War 2. They were seen as a party weak on matters of national defense/national security, and to help themselves politically they voted to send troops to war. The Senate Demokrats even asked for a second symbolic vote to show they were not the anti-American party they had been perceived to be after 911.

Then these same Demokrats (except one lone wolf called Lieberman) turned on a popular president and troops on the battlefield who were having a tough time... for political expediency.

The vote to send America to war is the most serious vote an elected representative can make... it's not a party politics thing, but as we have learned... for Demokrats it is. This is why these idiots should be kept as far from the reigns of power as possible.

Demokrats...

Where is Obama's Plan?
What is our exit strategy?
What happens if this starts a chain reaction involving Iran and Israel?
What will a "shot across the bow" achieve?
Obama has proven to be a liar of majestic proportions on Benghazi... do you trust him?

WHERE ARE THE LOUD AND VOCAL ANTI-WAR LEFTISTS? What happened? A massive international case of laryngitis?
 
The Demokrats openly admit their vote to send America to war is about party politics. It is not about what is best for America, but what will protect Obama from shame and humiliation.

They did the same when it came to Iraq War 2. They were seen as a party weak on matters of national defense/national security, and to help themselves politically they voted to send troops to war. The Senate Demokrats even asked for a second symbolic vote to show they were not the anti-American party they had been perceived to be after 911.

Then these same Demokrats (except one lone wolf called Lieberman) turned on a popular president and troops on the battlefield who were having a tough time... for political expediency.

The vote to send America to war is the most serious vote an elected representative can make... it's not a party politics thing, but as we have learned... for Demokrats it is. This is why these idiots should be kept as far from the reigns of power as possible.

Demokrats...

Where is Obama's Plan?
What is our exit strategy?
What happens if this starts a chain reaction involving Iran and Israel?
What will a "shot across the bow" achieve?
Obama has proven to be a liar of majestic proportions on Benghazi... do you trust him?

WHERE ARE THE LOUD AND VOCAL ANTI-WAR LEFTISTS? What happened? A massive international case of laryngitis?

Minus the partisan tone, I agree completely. I couldn't believe the equivocations being spewed by Senators like Boxer, in the hearing today.
 
The Demokrats openly admit their vote to send America to war is about party politics. It is not about what is best for America, but what will protect Obama from shame and humiliation.

They did the same when it came to Iraq War 2. They were seen as a party weak on matters of national defense/national security, and to help themselves politically they voted to send troops to war. The Senate Demokrats even asked for a second symbolic vote to show they were not the anti-American party they had been perceived to be after 911.

Then these same Demokrats (except one lone wolf called Lieberman) turned on a popular president and troops on the battlefield who were having a tough time... for political expediency.

The vote to send America to war is the most serious vote an elected representative can make... it's not a party politics thing, but as we have learned... for Demokrats it is. This is why these idiots should be kept as far from the reigns of power as possible.

Demokrats...

Where is Obama's Plan?
What is our exit strategy?
What happens if this starts a chain reaction involving Iran and Israel?
What will a "shot across the bow" achieve?
Obama has proven to be a liar of majestic proportions on Benghazi... do you trust him?

WHERE ARE THE LOUD AND VOCAL ANTI-WAR LEFTISTS? What happened? A massive international case of laryngitis?

Aside from your BS claim that it is something only dems do, I have to agree it is a pretty bad reason to vote for war and I would certainly look to a primary challenge for her position because of such idiocy.
 
The Demokrats openly admit their vote to send America to war is about party politics. It is not about what is best for America, but what will protect Obama from shame and humiliation.

They did the same when it came to Iraq War 2. They were seen as a party weak on matters of national defense/national security, and to help themselves politically they voted to send troops to war. The Senate Demokrats even asked for a second symbolic vote to show they were not the anti-American party they had been perceived to be after 911.

Then these same Demokrats (except one lone wolf called Lieberman) turned on a popular president and troops on the battlefield who were having a tough time... for political expediency.

The vote to send America to war is the most serious vote an elected representative can make... it's not a party politics thing, but as we have learned... for Demokrats it is. This is why these idiots should be kept as far from the reigns of power as possible.

Demokrats...

Where is Obama's Plan?
What is our exit strategy?
What happens if this starts a chain reaction involving Iran and Israel?
What will a "shot across the bow" achieve?
Obama has proven to be a liar of majestic proportions on Benghazi... do you trust him?

WHERE ARE THE LOUD AND VOCAL ANTI-WAR LEFTISTS? What happened? A massive international case of laryngitis?

Unfortunately we have partisan hypocrites on both sides, again, still, same old same old. But Zim, the questions you ask of congress are irrelevant considering lack of support from their constituents, the fact that (don't know how many times this must be said) an attack on Syria would be a direct violation of our constitution, a violation of international law, a violation of logic, really people, is it really so difficult?
 
Obama didn't set a red line ... humanity set a red line - Nancy Pelosi, 9/3/2013

... and the very next day damage control goes international ...

obama 2 face 2.jpg

How bad is that?
 
Aside from your BS claim that it is something only dems do, I have to agree it is a pretty bad reason to vote for war and I would certainly look to a primary challenge for her position because of such idiocy.

The BS... is all yours. I understand it is tough to have a party that uses war votes for political purposes, but that's the Demokrats.

Sending troops to war when they do not believe it is the special niche held by Demokrats. It is not Republicans who as a party vote to send troops to war for political expediency and then screw them when they're on the battlefield... also for political expediency. It's not Republican Senate Majority or Minority leaders who declare to our enemies "This War is Lost".

It's simple... SHOW ME WHERE REPUBLICANS HAVE DONE THIS.

It is not the entire Republican party that turns on its troops, and when one leaves the flock does everything in their power to rid him from their party as you had with Lieberman. THAT'S THE OPEN AND TOLERANT DEMOCRAT PARTY.

You see... according to you folks we haven't seen a war we didn't like. It's part of our DNA according to the idiot Left. In reality, we realize there are times when it was is necessary to send troops into harms way, we realize funding the military so it has the best equipment and the best preparedness is in the national interest... and is Constitutional... not "spreading the wealth around".

Like a bunch of Euro Socialists, you folks always cut and gut the military (and have done it again). You folks are notoriously anti-military and anti national security. And after 911... when people learned how important both were in the most graphic manner possible... your party freaked, and rightly so. But what resulted from that freak-a-thon was a charade. It was a lie. It was politics pure and simple.

The Demokrat party used war for political purposes... it was not a vote of conviction, and this Demokrat in the OP revealed it's the same game again. Add the Obama Propagandists... the butt plugs and butt lickers who are asking... "what is best for Obama (the Demokrats)"... instead of what is best for the nation... and asking the hard questions that go with having an informed public.
 
Unfortunately we have partisan hypocrites on both sides, again, still, same old same old. But Zim, the questions you ask of congress are irrelevant considering lack of support from their constituents, the fact that (don't know how many times this must be said) an attack on Syria would be a direct violation of our constitution, a violation of international law, a violation of logic, really people, is it really so difficult?

Show me where Republicans have sent troops to war and then stabbed them in the back when they were on the battlefield. You can't. We don't do that treasonous crap. It's the Demokrats special, and vile niche.

I understand it's hard to swallow... but tough darts. You folks did it... man up. Admit it, own up to what everyone that was over 12-years old knows as fact... for you were so proud and full of yourselves when you were smashing our men and women on the battlefield. And for what? To tear down a popular president.

Where is Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore these days, and why isn't the press camping on their doorsteps?
 
Obama didn't set a red line ... humanity set a red line - Nancy Pelosi, 9/3/2013

... and the very next day damage control goes international ...

View attachment 67153090

How bad is that?

He painted himself into a corner.

Now he's gone to Congress after all his jaw boning, and has done so for political purposes. To cover his ass and to set it up to use as a weapon for 2014. I listened to some in the US media and they were flabbergasted by his little I'm going to Congress about face.

He's played this so badly I can't see him being able to do what he and his party intend, but then... he's got one hell of a loyal propaganda machine.

Now this crap. The leaders of the world look at this clown and think what a moron. They also realize he's a snake. He must think these leaders are as stupid as much of the American electorate.

Obama is a liar, and he's made it known in the most public of ways. In Europe nobody knows of his lies and deceits concerning Benghazi, but they sure have gotten a good whiff of the Obama Administration latrine this time round.

At home, I hope Republicans in Congress realize WTF's up.
 
And to add to the whole fiasco, the UN investigation isn't even relevant to this guy. He and that two-faced John Kerry claim to have proof that Assad carried out these attacks, but don't give any. Given our recent track record on Iraq WMD intel, Benghazi, NSA, and Snowden, how can you trust anything the Executive Branch has to say? I am utterly disgusted with every single person in Congress who wants to attack Syria over a WHIM, with no proof provided whatsoever. Starting the domino affect of war over a bunch of lies to further some political agenda by dethroning Assad is a good idea? Not to mention the "rebels" we are helping are elements of Al Qaeda even! That two-face Kerry is another snake. He was buddy buddy with Assad last year, so what happened? You never hear the truth from these war mongers, only lies to perpetuate their agendas.

I bet that Nobel Peace Prize committee is feeling pretty ill about now. The whole system is a farce and most people still buy thoe whole two party system. They are all in it for themselves at this point. Not one true Dem or Rep cares about the country anymore. There are only a handful of each party who does, and they only have to claim to be a dem or rep to get elected. How sad is that? As a nation of sheep, we can't see beyond red and blue..... disgusting.
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting that you want to see the President of the United States shamed. That just doesn't seem normal.
 
Show me where Republicans have sent troops to war and then stabbed them in the back when they were on the battlefield. You can't. We don't do that treasonous crap. It's the Demokrats special, and vile niche.

I understand it's hard to swallow... but tough darts. You folks did it... man up. Admit it, own up to what everyone that was over 12-years old knows as fact... for you were so proud and full of yourselves when you were smashing our men and women on the battlefield. And for what? To tear down a popular president.

Where is Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore these days, and why isn't the press camping on their doorsteps?

Sending soldiers to fight an enemy you created IS stabbing them in the back. Then allying yourself with, training and arming those whom you sent your troops to fight and die at the hands of IS stabbing your troops in the back. STILL don't understand why this finds any support.
 
I find it interesting that you want to see the President of the United States shamed. That just doesn't seem normal.

It's not immoral to want to see crimes punished.
 
He painted himself into a corner.

Now he's gone to Congress after all his jaw boning, and has done so for political purposes. To cover his ass and to set it up to use as a weapon for 2014. I listened to some in the US media and they were flabbergasted by his little I'm going to Congress about face.

He's played this so badly I can't see him being able to do what he and his party intend, but then... he's got one hell of a loyal propaganda machine.

Now this crap. The leaders of the world look at this clown and think what a moron. They also realize he's a snake. He must think these leaders are as stupid as much of the American electorate.

Obama is a liar, and he's made it known in the most public of ways. In Europe nobody knows of his lies and deceits concerning Benghazi, but they sure have gotten a good whiff of the Obama Administration latrine this time round.

At home, I hope Republicans in Congress realize WTF's up.

Can't disagree with any of that.
But I can add to it ... besides his about face regarding going to Congress, some in the media are also flabbergasted by the red line about face and the "not my credibility at stake" comments.
Even on Morning Joe ... Howard Dean was ripped for trying to say that stuff was all inside Washington baloney ... what a schmuck.

I think it's time everyone else realizes that we very likely have a deeply flawed President ... it's easy to just call him a narcissist ... and many have ... but an actual personality disorder should not be dismissed as simply how politicians act..

Narcissistic Personality: People with a narcissistic personality have a sense of superiority, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. They have an exaggerated belief in their own value or importance, which is what therapists call grandiosity. They may be extremely sensitive to failure, defeat, or criticism. When confronted by a failure to fulfill their high opinion of themselves, they can easily become enraged or severely depressed. Because they believe themselves to be superior in their relationships with other people, they expect to be admired and often suspect that others envy them. They believe they are entitled to having their needs met without waiting, so they exploit others, whose needs or beliefs they deem to be less important. Their behavior is usually offensive to others, who view them as being self-centered, arrogant, or selfish. This personality disorder typically occurs in high achievers, although it may also occur in people with few achievements
 
Obama didn't set a red line ... humanity set a red line - Nancy Pelosi, 9/3/2013

... and the very next day damage control goes international ...

View attachment 67153090

How bad is that?

What's funny about your picture is the fact you use the word "us" when condemning him for saying it was an international red line. The word "us" could conceivably include the international community.

You would think with the incredible amount of experience Republicans have with removing context to dishonestly slam the President, they could at least recognize when removing context works against you. Apparently not.
I find it interesting that you want to see the President of the United States shamed. That just doesn't seem normal.
Over the last 5 years, the Republican party have included some of the most unpatriotic people you could ever find.
 
Where is Obama's Plan?
What is our exit strategy?
What happens if this starts a chain reaction involving Iran and Israel?

What will a "shot across the bow" achieve?
Obama has proven to be a liar of majestic proportions on Benghazi... do you trust him?

WHERE ARE THE LOUD AND VOCAL ANTI-WAR LEFTISTS? What happened? A massive international case of laryngitis?

Where were the Rightists asking these questions about Iraq? All of a sudden somebody uses WMD, someone cut from the same cloth as Saddam, and NOW it's a bad idea?

Of course Democrats don't want to see their guy look bad. Is that really a surprise?
 
What's funny about your picture is the fact you use the word "us" when condemning him for saying it was an international red line. The word "us" could conceivably include the international community.

You would think with the incredible amount of experience Republicans have with removing context to dishonestly slam the President, they could at least recognize when removing context works against you. Apparently not.

Over the last 5 years, the Republican party have included some of the most unpatriotic people you could ever find.

Except the context worked against your guy.
You want context? Go ahead and add the entire quote ... it doesn't help you ... try it ... you'll see.
He was NOT indicating it was an international red line. NOT.
Don't denigrate yourself by trying to promote that party line like Pelosi & Kerry.
I didn't use the entire quote because it was an image.
 
Except the context worked against your guy.
You want context? Go ahead and add the entire quote ... it doesn't help you ... try it ... you'll see.
He was NOT indicating it was an international red line. NOT.
Don't denigrate yourself by trying to promote that party line like Pelosi & Kerry.
I didn't use the entire quote because it was an image.
He's not my "guy". And I agree the context works against Obama, that was my point. Stripping the context, in this case, made YOU look silly because "us" could include the international community and the context surrounding the quote indicates that was not Obama's original meaning. In other words, your picture is a giant fail. I would think people like you, with such experience in stripping context to criticize would understand when stripping context would work against you, but you clearly do not.

Was my point really that difficult for you to understand? I could write it slower for you next time, if you think that may help. Oh, and you couldn't fit the entire thing on the picture? Here's an idea...don't use the picture. Free advice, you're welcome.
 
He's not my "guy". And I agree the context works against Obama, that was my point. Stripping the context, in this case, made YOU look silly because "us" could include the international community and the context surrounding the quote indicates that was not Obama's original meaning. In other words, your picture is a giant fail. I would think people like you, with such experience in stripping context to criticize would understand when stripping context would work against you, but you clearly do not.

Was my point really that difficult for you to understand? I could write it slower for you next time, if you think that may help. Oh, and you couldn't fit the entire thing on the picture? Here's an idea...don't use the picture. Free advice, you're welcome.

Yeah ... write it slower next time ... take all the time you need to explain why professional cartoonists don't reproduce entire speeches in their work ... this should be fascinating ... coming from experts like you, I mean.
See you in the Basement.
 
The Demokrats

What's a Demokrat?

openly admit their vote to send America to war is about party politics. It is not about what is best for America, but what will protect Obama from shame and humiliation.

One person speaks for all of these "Demokrats"? Wow. Thank god that isn't the case with Republicans, or else you could say "republicans openly suppport Obama's action in Syria" because one politician said so.
 
Where were the Rightists asking these questions about Iraq? All of a sudden somebody uses WMD, someone cut from the same cloth as Saddam, and NOW it's a bad idea?

Of course Democrats don't want to see their guy look bad. Is that really a surprise?

What you point to is perpetual partisan politics that keep America doing the wrong thing. Every strong partisan on this board is more concerned about their party saving face than they are about our country or the next country in our crosshairs.
 
Yeah ... write it slower next time ... take all the time you need to explain why professional cartoonists don't reproduce entire speeches in their work ... this should be fascinating ... coming from experts like you, I mean.
See you in the Basement.
You don't seem to be getting it. That's okay, I'm not really surprised. I'll explain it one last time for you, and I promise I'll type slower.

It is a bad idea to strip context from something when stripping said context makes you look foolish, rather than the person you are attacking. You posted a picture which stripped the necessary context to support your point and instead posted something which actually could be seen as supporting what Obama said. In other words, the picture was stupid and you should not have posted it because it worked against the point you made.

I don't think I could type it any slower than that.
 
You don't seem to be getting it. That's okay, I'm not really surprised. I'll explain it one last time for you, and I promise I'll type slower.

It is a bad idea to strip context from something when stripping said context makes you look foolish, rather than the person you are attacking. You posted a picture which stripped the necessary context to support your point and instead posted something which actually could be seen as supporting what Obama said. In other words, the picture was stupid and you should not have posted it because it worked against the point you made.

I don't think I could type it any slower than that
.

Here's an idea for you to consider ... don't type anything at all if it ain't WORTH anything at all.
There ... we're done now.
 
Here's an idea for you to consider ... don't type anything at all if it ain't WORTH anything at all.
There ... we're done now.
My words were actually worth quite a bit, especially had you taken my advice. I was actually advising you on how to properly criticize and when not to strip context.

What I think is funny is how you have offered every excuse in the world for why you posted that picture to the point you're not even defending it anymore, and yet you still won't admit it's a stupid picture. Is it really so hard for you to admit it's a stupid picture? It's a stupid picture and it undermines both the point you were trying to make and the truth. It's a stupid picture, just admit it.
 
What you point to is perpetual partisan politics that keep America doing the wrong thing. Every strong partisan on this board is more concerned about their party saving face than they are about our country or the next country in our crosshairs.

I agree, but I don't think you can look at "Demokrats" playing partisan politics without looking at the "Republikans" who do the same thing. The same people who ran around screaming about Saddam having WMDs are now saying we shouldn't do anything about Saddam's buddy Assad. How much of that had to do with not embarrassing THEIR guy?

I was against Iraq, and I am against involvement in Syria. Personally, I think staying out is the best thing to do.
 
I agree, but I don't think you can look at "Demokrats" playing partisan politics without looking at the "Republikans" who do the same thing. The same people who ran around screaming about Saddam having WMDs are now saying we shouldn't do anything about Saddam's buddy Assad. How much of that had to do with not embarrassing THEIR guy?

I was against Iraq, and I am against involvement in Syria. Personally, I think staying out is the best thing to do.

Oh dude I agree completely. I am indeed talking about partisans on BOTH sides that are DESTROYING America through hypocrisy.
 
Back
Top Bottom