The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Obama Might be More Stupid Than GWB

"Your plan"
the word YOUR means ME !!!!!!!!!!

Get your grammar correct,,please & T.Y.


Actually, no, it doesn't. And I cant believe someone who expresses thoughts as a 2nd grader would, is seriously attempting to give me a lesson in grammar.

What I said : "Maybe it's just me, but I dont understand how 19 Saudi hijackers turns into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." (Meaning, why wasn't Saudi Arabia even an option to Bush after 9-11?)

"Then again, why invade the country that helped carry out your plan? But thats another thread completely." (Meaning, why would Bush invade Saudi Arabia when they've been helping him carry out his plans from day one, including, in my opinion, the attacks in NY and D.C. on 9-11.)

It really wasn't that difficult of a statement to digest, but then again, the opening sentence in your thread was as follows:

"Many,Many ,Many of the 80 or the Left or the Evil War Machine mind set, spew often that GWB is staging a war against Iran.and Iraq is his platform. If "W" would do this,the world eill be in a Nuke War."

A sentence that sends me reaching for my Rufus Decoder Ring.

Let's be a bit more thoughtful before we call people "Stupider Then" or give unneccesary grammar lessons.
 
So now we have idiots on both sides who want to bomb their ALLIES!](*,)
 
it didn't take long for Obama the Boy-President to become all grown up.
it's just a "stunt" but i respect him more for it. it says: i'm willing to make the hard decisions to protect america. whether or not he'd actually do it, well, who knows (doubtful). it shows him as responsible, now all he needs to do is not rule out military action against Iran.
 
Many,Many ,Many of the 80 or the Left or the Evil War Machine mind set, spew often that GWB is staging a war against Iran.and Iraq is his platform. If "W" would do this,the world eill be in a Nuke War.

It's not that simple.

Even before any nuke concerns, there is the practical concern that Bush has already spread our military very thin and if he starts another war he will leave us vulnerable, unable to prevail if we're attacked without warning.

And in addition, some believe diplomacy, sanctions and vigorous international pressure may be sufficient with Iran.


Now WTF does a 2 1/2 year Jr. Senator think this idea of his would do ? Lets just Storm into an Allies Country that has nuke bombs and just rape it's country side to find some wanted criminals.

You're overblowing what Obama said. Obama talked about using the aid money we send to Pakistan as leverage. And he didn't suggest anything like raping its countryside. What was missing --and maybe that's what you're getting at-- in Obama's "plan" was nuance and finesse.

He's right that the terrorists that are the biggest threat to us are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He's also right that Bush & Co were incompetent in failing to act on the knowledge in 2005 that a group of high level al Qaeda leaders were meeting in Pakistan. Bush & Co are too cowardly and too weak. They start a war in Iraq where it's easy (and they even screw that up) and they let the Taliban and al Qaeda gain strength in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Dealing with Musharraf is tough, no question about it, but the answer is not to let him have his way. Because the problem with Musharraf is that he's afraid of terrorists and lets them ride roughshod over him.

As I said, the problem with Obama's plan is that it lacks nuance and finesse, it's half-baked because he's inexperienced. That's where Hillary Clinton is head and shoulders over him. But Obama's right that we have to take control of Musharraf because unless we do, al Qaeda and other groups will continue to prosper in Pakistan. We should use the leverage of the millions we send to Pakistan, as Obama suggests, but that's really not going to change anything. What we have to do, in my opinion, is sit down with Musharraf and tell him we have to work together, that we've got his back but he has to let us in and help him put terrorist cells out of business. If he doesn't go along with that then we have to --with a strong coalition and cohesive plan-- go in and do it ourselves. That Bush & Co haven't done that, that they've concentrated most of our resources on Iraq, only proves that all the BushRepublican bleating about War on Terrorism is absolute bullshit.


Bush fucked things up w/o having an after plan.BUT We did have the rights afforded to use by the U.N. to go into Iraq.

Ah the BushRepublican essential: self-deception.

No, the UN did not sanction Bush's attack on Iraq.
 
Get serious, terrorists are in many countries (including our own).
The terrorists aren't from and don't represent any given country.
Some countries are just more open in giving refuge and financial support to them.
The govts of Afganistan, Pakistan & Syria for example don't want an al Qaeda/Taliban take over anymore than Saddam Hussein did.
If we invaded Pakistan we would create another garden plot for al Qaeda recruitment just as we have in Iraq.
We just need more support and cooperation from the Pakistani govt and the Afgani tribal leaders. That should be accomplished through diplomatic channels and financial aid (in the long run it will still be cheaper than war both in money and lives).
Obamas' statements on this issue will probably ruin his chance of victory.
 
I don't see that Obama's desire to go after bin Laden is any different from the other candidates in either party. Some positions may be more nuanced, but nobody is going into a general election and not call for bin Laden's head and a more aggressive stance in Pakistan.

I agree with Alfie that Obama's big mistake was in saying he would meet with US enemies without precondition. Does he intend to bowl them over with his charisma? I can just imagine the Republican morphing and photoshopping of Barrack Hussein Obama meeting with Fidel, Mahmoud and Kim Jong.
 
I had initial respect for Obama, but not so much now, because, his Pakistan invasion idea will only fuel more U.S. hatred.
I remember reading somewhere that he voted for the Patriot act---not very wise in my opinion.
His statement is a huge disappointment.
Hillary said, "The U.S. should go in with Pakistani's if we are to go into the tribal region where Bin Laden is".

I think that Obama is extremely naive and irresponsible and he will lose to a sizeable Democratic constituency which is anti war and he also undermines his own dovish talk that he was anti-war while his opponents voted for the Iraq war.
 
The original post is laughable.

Hardly -- I've seen this from two other news sources.
It may not make him as stupid as GWB is reputed to be (his IQ has been shown to be around 135, equivalent to JFK), but it does show a lack of awareness of realities.
The problem in Pakistan is the tightrope Musharaf is walking -- if he helps us too much, Islamic extremists will topple his government, and we'd have a new Afghanistan -- except one with nukes, this time. If he helps us too little, the more progressive elements in that country will end the little backing they give him now... which they give him mostly because he does stand against the terrorists to some degree.
What we really ought to be looking for in Pakistan is a way to aid those progressive elements, who favor a non-religious government a la Turkey, open markets, and a diminished role for the military. Landing troops there would be about the worst thing we can do.

If Obama wants something that can deal with the terrorists in those mountains, he'd do better to propose building THOR than promising to engage in more adventurism.
 
I like Obama, but he is too young and untested. In retrospect, even JFK was too young and inexperienced. I would fear the outcome of an Obama/Giulliani race.

Hillary has the experience and grit, and Bill is a major asset overseas, he is the only American with favorable ratings in some countries. The two of them could go a long way in undoing the damage done by the traitors currently in office.

Of course a Clinton Presidency would gin up the hate and invective from the lunatic right. (She killed Vince Foster!)

I guess we will have to wait awhile for someone to "bring us all together", that is, if anyone really wants to be "brought together" with any of those howl at the moon lunatics.
 
I like Obama, but he is too young and untested. In retrospect, even JFK was too young and inexperienced. I would fear the outcome of an Obama/Giulliani race.

Hillary has the experience and grit, and Bill is a major asset overseas, he is the only American with favorable ratings in some countries. The two of them could go a long way in undoing the damage done by the traitors currently in office.

If Hillary stuck to that, I'd be happy with her in the Oval Office. Odds are, though, that she'd push socialist programs and throw in her own pieces towards making this a (worse) police state.

Of course a Clinton Presidency would gin up the hate and invective from the lunatic right. (She killed Vince Foster!)

And forty-'leven other people...

I guess we will have to wait awhile for someone to "bring us all together", that is, if anyone really wants to be "brought together" with any of those howl at the moon lunatics.

I think Richardson could pull us together.
I'm certain Obama couldn't.
 
Obama Might be More Stupid Than GWB

If this is true, then he is the only one who is! ](*,)
 
I think That Tom Tancredo(R) can be added to the list of being MORE STUPID.
Hillary is pushing the edge of the list,,but not yet....yet

U.S. State Department cringes as presidential hopefuls muddy diplomatic waters


2007-08-03 19:39:38 -




2007-08-03 19:39:38 -

WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department has a message for White House candidates wanting to expound on sensitive diplomatic issues: Shut up.
Traditionally silent during presidential campaigns filled with divisive foreign policy debates, the department on Friday delivered a rebuke to would-be nominees of both parties whose recent comments have complicated U.S. efforts to overcome deep suspicion about the war on terrorism in the Muslim world.
«Those who wish to hold office can speak for themselves and whoever is elected in 2008 and comes into office in 2009 will then be in a position to talk about what they intend or plan to do,» said deputy spokesman Tom Casey, a career foreign service officer.
First it was Barack Obama's talk of dialogue with dictators and invading Pakistan to kill Islamist militants, then it was Hillary Rodham Clinton refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons to that end. Now, the Democratic front-runners have been joined by radical Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who threatened to bomb Muslim holy sites to stop terror attacks.
The State Department had hoped to steer clear of controversy, complaints and public protests sparked by Obama and Clinton, but Tancredo's comments bumped up against the limit of diplomatic patience.
Casey had unusually harsh words for Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado, who said this week that if elected he would threaten to bomb the Saudi cities of Mecca and Medina, Islam's two holiest sites, to deter attacks on the United States.
«It is absolutely outrageous and reprehensible for anyone to suggest attacks on holy sites, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish or those of any other religion,» a clearly agitated Casey told reporters, shaking his head in disgust.
«To somehow suggest that an appropriate response to terrorism would be to attack sites that are holy and sacred to more than a billion people throughout the world is just absolutely crazy,» he said, denouncing «any suggestion that the defense of the American homeland or the defense of American interests would ever justify attacking holy sites.
Tancredo's suggestion to bomb Mecca and Medina came as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were on a sensitive mission to the Middle East that included a stop in Saudi Arabia.
Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Iowa on Tuesday that he believes a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.
«If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do,» he said.
Despite his fringe status in the presidential race, Tancredo's statement prompted angry reactions among Muslims in countries deemed critical to the fight against Islamic extremism, notably Pakistan, where U.S. intelligence believes al-Qaida has regrouped.
In Pakistan, the country's Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said Friday he would open debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including remarks by Senators Obama and Clinton and Tancredo.
It is a matter of «grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election,» he said.
Obama said last week he was willing to sit down with pariah leaders like North Korea's Kim Jong-il and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and on Wednesday said he would send U.S. troops into Pakistan after Osama bin Laden and other extremists.
On Thursday, he ruled out the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan but was quickly derided by Clinton, who signaled she would keep the option on the table.
At the State Department, diplomats fear that Tancredo's remarks, coupled with those of Obama and Clinton, will be seen as a broader trend of animosity by U.S. politicians to Muslims, especially in Pakistan, officials said.
In 1979, rumors that Israel was going to bomb Mecca and Medina led to the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad and the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in European publications prompted violent protests two years ago.
Casey had unusually harsh words for Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado, who said this week that if elected he would threaten to bomb the Saudi cities of Mecca and Medina, Islam's two holiest sites, to deter attacks on the United States.
«It is absolutely outrageous and reprehensible for anyone to suggest attacks on holy sites, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish or those of any other religion,» a clearly agitated Casey told reporters, shaking his head in disgust.
«To somehow suggest that an appropriate response to terrorism would be to attack sites that are holy and sacred to more than a billion people throughout the world is just absolutely crazy,» he said, denouncing «any suggestion that the defense of the American homeland or the defense of American interests would ever justify attacking holy sites.
Tancredo's suggestion to bomb Mecca and Medina came as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were on a sensitive mission to the Middle East that included a stop in Saudi Arabia.
Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Iowa on Tuesday that he believes a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.
«If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do,» he said.
Despite his fringe status in the presidential race, Tancredo's statement prompted angry reactions among Muslims in countries deemed critical to the fight against Islamic extremism, notably Pakistan, where U.S. intelligence believes al-Qaida has regrouped.
In Pakistan, the country's Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said Friday he would open debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including remarks by Senators Obama and Clinton and Tancredo.
It is a matter of «grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election,» he said.
Obama said last week he was willing to sit down with pariah leaders like North Korea's Kim Jong-il and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and on Wednesday said he would send U.S. troops into Pakistan after Osama bin Laden and other extremists.
On Thursday, he ruled out the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan but was quickly derided by Clinton, who signaled she would keep the option on the table.
At the State Department, diplomats fear that Tancredo's remarks, coupled with those of Obama and Clinton, will be seen as a broader trend of animosity by U.S. politicians to Muslims, especially in Pakistan, officials said.
In 1979, rumors that Israel was going to bomb Mecca and Medina led to the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad and the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in European publications prompted violent protests two years ago.
 
Even Bush has more sense than Tancredo -- that's ridiculous. It reminds me a lot of the kindergarten sandbox sort of threats!
It's also a typical ignorant sort of concept that springs from bigotry. Of course, in the past, our government has encouraged such bigotry -- "Japs", "Huns", "Gooks", etc. -- so it's a little hard to get people out of such a simpleminded rut of classifying "the enemy" as somehow less human, and then separating the real enemy from a whole class.
But, then, clear thinking such as is required here hasn't exactly been a hallmark in D.C. for a long time, and has had to lurk in dark corners of the present administration, especially with enemies of the truth such as Dick "Shotgun" Cheney throwing their weight around.
 
And people wonder why other counties want nuclear weapons.
 
IMHO, if Obama were to actually be elected and then invade Pakistan, he would in one fell swoop be no different than GWB. The crime GWB committed when he let the neocon conspirators insist on the Iraq invasion on trumped up grounds (without proof incontrovertible, or an outright attack by Saddam on anything American), It changed the face America presented to the rest of the nations of the world. We were suddenly no longer the one place in the world where Democracy ruled and fair policies were practiced, into just another punk aggressor country. Talk about getting punked, GWB did us all when he took office.

Since Saudi Arabia, was ruled by his family friends, why should he even think about dealing with them. Why bother rounding up Osama Bin Laden, since he must have fond memories playing with his childhood friend.

IMPEACH THE BASTARDS NOW!!!!!
 
Putin and Bush between them have managed to do more to make the world less stable than every other world leader combined....

What candidate will address these issues? I say we'd be better off going isolationist than have any candidate address them the way Obama did (following the Bush blindness).
 
Back
Top