Dawgs, who won the debate?
- Thread starter PaulMaharry
- Start date
I doubt you would cross party lines to vote non-liberal. Trump has more brass in his fingernails than obama has had in his whole life.
We have the first p*ssy for a commander in chief in office now.
Got a book for you. "Gun and the olive branch". Worth a read. Like what you are saying here btw. It readily applies to the Middle East as well.
Last edited:
Why is it that makes you think trump can stand up to the Russians and Chinese? Because he chicken littles around and bellows out on TV that he can? What proof is there other than he is a son of a rich guy who is rich off daddy's money who now blurts out constantly like an over served frat boy? Why has that type of behavior now come to mean tough? It didn't before..."speak softly and carry a big stick" mean anything anymore? What trade deals has trump overseen? He's a real estate guy. Not an international trade expert. Hell, if he would have just invested the $200 million he got from daddy in an s&p index fund he'd be worth twice what he alleges he's worth now.
Last edited:
No insult intended to you Hund, Just ashamed of the pseudo-man in office now.
I just don't believe based on your numerous post you could vote for the other side, but I do not know you.
We did. Bush and Cheney with Rumsfeld. Tough talkin sum bitches that made disastrous decisions and boasted around strutting on air craft carriers about victories for wars we are still proxy fighting ten years after those tough talkers claimed victory. Maybe we need less blow hard/tough talk and more think hard/speak intelligently out of our leadership. That's the way it works at my business. Why not for government.
I think you have this wrong. Trump is a silver spoon rich kid p*ssy if there is one. Trump has never had a fight in his life....he'd pay someone to do that. Is he a blow hard who can speak out of both sides of his mouth and people will listen ONLY because he has money. If trump was in a bar drinking Beer and talking shit like he does on TV, he'd get his ass kicked...physically and intellectually. Don't confuse bravado with bravery or chicken little with tough. His only "toughness" at this point is that he has a bunch of money. Pure and simple.
I meant in the last six + years. I did not forget the real men who once led our nation. Don't forget we won the war then ears announced to the world when he would pull out the troops and allow the JV team to take over the middle east. He has to be aiding them, he can not be that stupid. It is all by design that he is weakening this nation. Bush has a lot more intelligence than the idiots stumbling through Washington now. He also had the other leaders on alert not to screw with the US. Not so with this limp wrist mama's boy. If only we could clone Reagan, we sure need someone like him.
I would never accuse Trump of being a physical fighter, but he has the attitude and he gets results, unlike mr kerry that acts like he is the great negotiator. Iran is laughing all the way to the bank as they improve their nuclear program with our money. Mr. Trump would not have brokered that type of deal.
See here's the problem with a Reagan clone these days. It wouldn't work. Reagan had a singular, definable enemy. Ussr/communism. Tell me who we are fighting now? Is it Isis, al queda, Syria, Iran, fundamentalist Moslems? The whole non Christian world? It's a bit more complex these days. I don't think we need another Reagan. I wish Jim Webb had a shot in this deal. He's a dem but a military guy through and through. He can talk the talk and walk the walk and is quite intelligent. Vp commander jones. That would be a good ticket
See you don't know that though. You just like that trump is a blow hard, tough talking guy. Don't you remember that those guys in the end get their asses beat? You have to remember that the loudest talker in a bar fight is the biggest pus right?
I think a Reagan type thinker could have the same results, no one gave him credit then either. He would delegate the proper folks to lead where we need them. Doesn't matter, obviously could never happen. I do not know Jim Webb, I will look him up. We definitely need a strong leader.
There are not many on the horizon these days.
I get your point, but we are not talking about a bar fighter leading our nation, Trump has brains and has negotiated with folks all over this world.
If we were looking for that I would select Herschel Walker.
Thanks I will read up in the am . I have to get some sleep for my morning meeting.
Good night
I understand that, was trying to make it less egalitarian. Trump has learned some things for sure but comes from a position of having predisposed wealth. Makes it a bit easier for him wouldn't you agree? Same reason we listened to ross Perot.
Not exactly true about Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. From Condi Rice AND (to be fair) Panetta's book:
Condoleezza Rice, who served as Bush’s secretary of state, wrote in her 2011 book, “No Higher Honor,” that Bush did not want to set a deadline “in order to allow conditions on the ground to dictate our decisions.” She wrote that she met with Maliki in August 2008 and secured what she thought was an agreement for a residual force of 40,000 U.S. troops. But she said Maliki soon “reneged” and insisted on “the withdrawal of all U.S. forces by the end of 2011.” She said Bush “swallowed hard” and agreed to what she called “suitable language” to do just that.
Rice, “No Higher Honor,” 2011: We’d given quite a lot of ground on issues such as a withdrawal timetable, consenting to the removal of all U.S. forces by the end of 2011, and we even conceded a limited level of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over our troops. … Ultimately, the compromises we made proved beneficial because the resulting [Status of Forces Agreement] put the end of the war in sight and left the new U.S. president a firm foundation for a successful conclusion of our presence there.
So, President Bush reluctantly agreed to a withdrawal deadline without leaving behind a residual force because of Maliki’s strong objections.
Still, Obama had three years to negotiate a new agreement prior to the Dec. 31, 2011, withdrawal date to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq. In fact, a day before Bush signed the agreement, Gen. Ray Odierno — the former commander of the U.S. troops in Iraq said the agreement might be renegotiated depending on conditions on the ground. “Three years is a very long time,” Odierno told the New York Times.
Leon Panetta, who was Obama’s defense secretary from July 2011 to February 2013, wrote in his 2014 book, “Worthy Fights,” that as the deadline neared “it was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability” in Iraq. As a result, the Obama administration sought to keep 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq, as Sullivan said in his statement.
But negotiations with Iraq broke down in October 2011 over the issue of whether U.S. troops would be shielded from criminal prosecution by Iraqi authorities. Panetta wrote that Maliki insisted that a new agreement providing immunity to U.S. forces “would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for its approval,” which Panetta said “made reaching agreement very difficult.”
Later in Panetta's book, he DID admit and was frustrated, they didn't try harder to secure protection of the troops in Iraq. But if our troops weren't immune from Iraqi prosecution, I'd have pulled them out as well. Don't forget........they were exhausted from 2, 3, 4 tours of war and so were their kids. I know one who's been 3 times........and is a reservist.
And obviously, Obama should have tried harder on a new agreement. But it's also obvious, we should have never gone to Iraq in the first place. Nothing they said back then was true. No mushroom clouds were going to happen, (and I'm one that believes the intel was manipulated, even though the admin says it was just wrong) no greeting us as liberators with flowers, etc. and most of all, Cheney said the oil we'd get would pay for the war.
Condoleezza Rice, who served as Bush’s secretary of state, wrote in her 2011 book, “No Higher Honor,” that Bush did not want to set a deadline “in order to allow conditions on the ground to dictate our decisions.” She wrote that she met with Maliki in August 2008 and secured what she thought was an agreement for a residual force of 40,000 U.S. troops. But she said Maliki soon “reneged” and insisted on “the withdrawal of all U.S. forces by the end of 2011.” She said Bush “swallowed hard” and agreed to what she called “suitable language” to do just that.
Rice, “No Higher Honor,” 2011: We’d given quite a lot of ground on issues such as a withdrawal timetable, consenting to the removal of all U.S. forces by the end of 2011, and we even conceded a limited level of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over our troops. … Ultimately, the compromises we made proved beneficial because the resulting [Status of Forces Agreement] put the end of the war in sight and left the new U.S. president a firm foundation for a successful conclusion of our presence there.
So, President Bush reluctantly agreed to a withdrawal deadline without leaving behind a residual force because of Maliki’s strong objections.
Still, Obama had three years to negotiate a new agreement prior to the Dec. 31, 2011, withdrawal date to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq. In fact, a day before Bush signed the agreement, Gen. Ray Odierno — the former commander of the U.S. troops in Iraq said the agreement might be renegotiated depending on conditions on the ground. “Three years is a very long time,” Odierno told the New York Times.
Leon Panetta, who was Obama’s defense secretary from July 2011 to February 2013, wrote in his 2014 book, “Worthy Fights,” that as the deadline neared “it was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability” in Iraq. As a result, the Obama administration sought to keep 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq, as Sullivan said in his statement.
But negotiations with Iraq broke down in October 2011 over the issue of whether U.S. troops would be shielded from criminal prosecution by Iraqi authorities. Panetta wrote that Maliki insisted that a new agreement providing immunity to U.S. forces “would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for its approval,” which Panetta said “made reaching agreement very difficult.”
Later in Panetta's book, he DID admit and was frustrated, they didn't try harder to secure protection of the troops in Iraq. But if our troops weren't immune from Iraqi prosecution, I'd have pulled them out as well. Don't forget........they were exhausted from 2, 3, 4 tours of war and so were their kids. I know one who's been 3 times........and is a reservist.
And obviously, Obama should have tried harder on a new agreement. But it's also obvious, we should have never gone to Iraq in the first place. Nothing they said back then was true. No mushroom clouds were going to happen, (and I'm one that believes the intel was manipulated, even though the admin says it was just wrong) no greeting us as liberators with flowers, etc. and most of all, Cheney said the oil we'd get would pay for the war.
What you don't understand, tough guy, is that China, Russia, and the Islo-nazi's only understand strength. And our current resident of the White House has done nothing but negotiate and run his foreign policy from a weak position. Weakest President in my lifetime, and that includes Carter.
I do agree about Jim Webb. I have met Jim Webb. It is no mistake that Jim Webb is unelectable for the Democratic Nomination. He is a Kennedy (JFK) Democrat in the mold of the 1960s. He is more Republican then Trump. So any Democrat pushing JIm Webb should just change parties. Regardless, Obama didn't talk big and he has proven to be a pushover so the whole "talk softly and take it up the rear" holds true doesn't it? Obama is awful and he caused this ISIS mess by being a weak minded leader. His passive approach has backfired and anyone who doesn't understand that does not understand history and the middle east. The countries and leaders in the middle east only respect force. They are dogs the whole lot of them and deserve to be conquered.
Not exactly true. First he can repeal executive orders that don't have the 'real Congressional' power of the law behind them. He can enforce existing laws in sanctuary cities without passing any laws. He can invoke his powers as the CIC to do whatever he wants with the military. That is just a small sample of what he can do. Due to the abuse of the Constitution and power grab of the last 2 presidents the precedent has been set that he can do pretty much whatever he wants. So how about that?...
The whole idea of shipping undocumented people from south of our borders out of The US is BS, and Trump knows it is.
Look at what happened in Alabama when state laws were passed to disallow them from working instate.
Things got so bad in critical sectors, within 3 years the laws were quietly ignored.
This in perhaps the most dogmatic state that had far less of their economy reliant on those workers than many other states. Removing 11 million or more would cost billions just in direct logistics and trillions to the overall economy.
Again, Trump knows these things, he is rabble rousing, pure and simple.
Then he says he'll bend the world to his will..because he's The Donald ? It's cartoonish in it's absurdities.
The cost of illegals to our economy is staggering. They get all the benefits allowed and do not pay back into the system.
Americans that are out of work now would have am opportunity to gain employment with them gone.
Trump never said he'd bend the world to his will. But what he will do is project strength; something we are desperately lacking in the White House now.
We keep hearing people say we can’t round up and deport illegal immigrants, but that’s exactly what Eisenhower & Truman did- 2.1 million under Eisenhower, and 3.4 million left under threat of deportation or "voluntarily" under Truman.
We wouldn't have to deport 11 million illegal immigrants so please don't pretend you know anything on the cost subject. Its cost is pure speculation on your part. Begin enforcement of our immigration laws by rounding up illegal alien felons and threaten the rest of the illegal immigrant invaders and watch what happens. They will flee on their on accord.
I prefer an all of the above approach:
E-verify
Crack down on employers
round-up illegal alien felons
threaten deportation for all illegal immigrants.
We have to start somewhere and January 20th 2016, the date President Trump takes office, is as good a day as any to start.
Last edited:
Liberals are ruining this country. The first people the Islamic Radicals will kill will be these liberals that are so bent on protecting the terrorists with their fancy explanations. If some of these liberals actually had to confront these radicals all the fancy talk in the world would go out the window. The only thing these people understand is raw strength. Thank goodness a few real Americans like myself still exist. I will be glad to take care of business even though I am old and I don't mind dying to prove my point. Also, just in case you fancy pants liberals are reading this. I have no problem dropping a few HAEs all over Iran to fix this problem our president created. The sooner the better. Me and my boys will protect your priceless liberal rear ends.
That's been proven wrong. When Alabama tried getting rid of illegals they couldn't get people to pick their fields and process chickens, just to mention a couple of industries where people from south of our border do most of the hard work. This was at a time of over 10% unemployment to boot.
Also Donald Trump has used LLC laws to file bankruptcy 4 times, while keeping his personal wealth. He also has a long history of bribery and other such unscrupulous dealings.
How exactly do those tactics work in running a country ? Maybe he'll write off unprofitable states like Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi, claim national bankruptcy to hide what pocket change might be in The Treasury and bribe foreign officials to give us more of their money.
How exactly do those tactics work in running a country ? Maybe he'll write off unprofitable states like Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi, claim national bankruptcy to hide what pocket change might be in The Treasury and bribe foreign officials to give us more of their money.
Oh okay. Thanks for the tough talk. Appreciate it gramps. Exactly what other strength do you want? We have the worlds largest, most powerful, most expensive by a factor of 100 military. You clearly don't understand that when you are the strongest by a wide margin you dont have to always talk like it. Kinda like when you have a big dick you don't have to show it. guys like trump who run around boasting and "talking tough" are always the weakest. I linked a vp candidate above. James jones. That guy is smart and one tough sob. Would mentally and physically at 64 kick all of our asses. I've personally met him and heard him speak. You think he parades around "talking tough" or "projecting strength"? Umm,no he speaks quite softly actually. Read up on him and others that are real "tough" guys.
"They are dogs the whole lot of them and deserve to be conquered". Ahh, the Christianity of it all. So Jesus like you are. One side bar, I assume when you say the countries in the Middle East that need to be conquered you're including isreal right?
That's because 48% of the populace are receiving some form of benefits from the government. You turn that off and I bet you won't have a problem filling those jobs.
That has not in fact been proven wrong. Common sense alone will tell you you can not have a populace enter a region taking freebies and sendind their money back to the mother country. They spend as little as they can to live here. Many live 10+people per apartment. The so called cheap labor is not so cheap when you factor in the expenses they receive from the state and federal government.As stated By Dieharddawwg when you cut off the freebies the legals (living on welfare) will also be forced to get those jobs.
I agree he can do some thing by exec order. They all have that right and have done it.
But if it's something that big $$ has to be appropriated for instance, he's going to have to a Congress willing to deal.
@Riotch So you think Christians are weak both physically and can't stand up for themselves. So you think Christians are just going to let you atheists run all over us? Really...You are the one spouting profanities in your posts so that is your version of being tough. Also, I'm very interested in how you have a friend that is a real tough guy. Wow....you are something else if not a very talented troll. As far as Israel goes I'm with the Jews and hope we wipe the desert with the radicals in the middle east. Also the ruling elite of Saudi and other areas such as Jordan have kept this powder keg going and been jacking our economy for 50 years. You think I give one iota that American blood has been spilled to keep these kingdoms intact? I do, and because of that not a one of these countries deserves anything from us. When Christian Lebanese were forced out by radicals in Lebanon did anyone care? No. By the way some of my relatives are Christian Lebanese. When the Egyptians allowed the Christians to have their businesses destroyed and when they sat idly by and let the Christians get beheaded where was the outrage? So no I don't have a lot of compassion. Sorry but a lot of us Christians are fed up with you liberal pansies who try to use our prior niceness against us. Better get ready because a bunch of us are going to change your world.
You're about as Christian as Attila The Hun was. Your thinking is the kind of sword over the plow thinking that so many people find hypocritical and worse.
I haven't seen anybody else on here wanting to murder Palestinians, it's just you as far as I can tell.
I actually hope you're having a bit of fun trolling, otherwise you're seriously messed up.
So you just ignore the results in Alabama in favor of your NOTIONS about things ? It was found over half the workers at a NYC worksite of The Donald's were illegals. He is a huge douchebag hypocrite.
He will absolutely not round up even a majority of illegals if he is elected, it's pure bull shit.
So now you want me to be nice to you Heulen Hund or whoever you are? Right...you come on here insulting me and saying profane things and then get offended that Christians might actually stand up and wipe out these Muslims that stand idly by while their radical elements destroy Christianity and kill Christians who lived there before there were any Muslims at all? Really...how dare we stand up and put an end to this madness We are supposed to pontificate endlessly and hope that reason will convince these Jackals? Really? These people only know the sword and I have no problem using the tool of the United States military to make them the martyrs they desire to be. In your world it is fine to ridicule and murder Christians and make their lives miserable but we aren't supposed to defend ourselves. I can tell you that a lot of us are getting fed up with your type.
