Contributors

Monday, November 29, 2010

WTF Has Obama Done?

Have to get back on track with this one...


Of course, it hasn't been ratified yet by the Senate because...why again? Oh yeah, the GOP wants him to fail.


12 comments:

juris imprudent said...

What else has the Obama Administration pushed for? Oh yeah!!

You gonna give us a one-line blow-job on that too?

Angela said...

Let's see, juris. You bitch to Mark that he doesn't talk enough about Obama's accomplishments and policies. Then all of you give him shit when does that. Is there ever any way to get it right with you people?

Haplo9 said...

>Is there ever any way to get it right with you people?

Yes - he could actually try to defend his positions in the comments. Since he doesn't, he gets a lot of scorn and derision. Respect is earned, and running away doesn't engender respect. It's really not that complicated.

GuardDuck said...

doesn't talk enough about Obama's accomplishments and policies.

Like this one? A seven month old 'accomplishment'? An 'accomplishment' that is akin to negotiating a labor contract that's only change is a minor cost of living increase?

Did Mark bother to inform us all that Obama's 'accomplishment' was to essentially extend an agreement that the evil Bush-hitler actually negotiated in the first place. Oh, and that he was roundly criticized by the left for doing so?

Tell you what, why don't you just post that Obama got up and brushed his teeth with only the help of one secret service agent - That would rise to the same level of 'accomplishment' as this does.

GuardDuck said...

Oh, and that's without even getting into the issue of how he gave up missile defense and turned our back on our ally Poland and played all nicey-nice with the guys who were just in a shooting war with our almost ally Georgia.

daniel said...

You have you answer, Angela. It is "no."

juris imprudent said...

You bitch to Mark that he doesn't talk enough about Obama's accomplishments and policies.

Really? Where did I ever bitch about that? He had lots of valid complaints about the last Administration, not so much about the current one. Can you draw a conclusion from that - or are you just another Dem apologist?

Larry said...

That's right, Mark, there aren't any valid concerns about the treaty. Many Republicans (and some Democrats) only oppose the treaty because there's a black man in the White House. Riight.

It's not necessarily the case that failure for a President is a bad thing for the nation as a whole.

Mark Ward said...

No, Larry. There aren't. Why don't you spend a few minutes and research the people that support this bill?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703339304575240164048611360.html

The GOP always says that it supports what the military supports. Why not now? Because they want him to fail. They don't want him to win anything even if it is something that clearly good for our nation and the world.

If you have some concerns about the treaty, rebut Gates point by point. The same challenge is extended to you, Guard Duck.

Larry said...

Mark, you didn't rebut anything. You just airily dismissed any concerns about the treaty by pointing to an Obama administration official that supports the treaty. As if that's something startling. An Administration official supports the treaty? Why then, that's definitive proof that there are no valid concerns about it. Horseshit. How about you read an alternate view for once?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703618504575459511831427690.html?mod=WSJ_article_related

Mark Ward said...

Yeah, not my job to rebut. That's yours, Larry. I agree that the treaty needs to be ratified for a number of reasons. What I want to know is why you don't. And then we can have a discussion about those points. You think it's a bad decision for the President to make. Fine. Why?

I put up the link so you could not only rebut Gates but the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the service chiefs, and the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command.

GuardDuck said...

I don't need to rebut the piece Mark, I think for the most part the treaty is a good one. I just take issue with you pointing towards it as a sign of Obama's mastery of 'doing stuff'. As far as accomplishments this one didn't take a lot of effort, didn't take a lot of thought, didn't take a lot of courage or sacrifice.

It's building (slightly) on W's work, which built upon prior work. It's a step up the rung, not a new ladder.

The R's will pass it, they are just making noise to cost O some political capital. It's easy because the details are boring and Joe Voter won't dig in deeply.