Obama;' Hi Michelle'

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
This is NOT earth shattering, won't help or hurt our economy, can't cure the common cold but it IS funny.

If you ONLY read threads on serious important issues this is NOT the thread for you.Stop now.


A getty's photo of world leaders at UN yesterday.
The Link

edited to correct error in spelling
 
And half of the other leaders are staring off in the wrong direction. So what? The photographer was snapping shots while they were prepping for what looks like an official photo. The President saw someone and waved...this makes him a moronic tool? Damn, think.
 
Geez louise
this was just a funny photo. It would have been funny if it was Bush or Cliinton or Metta Whirled pease

However in the effort to defend Obama silly things were made up. Why? Why not just laugh
But since someone posted a defense, provide the proof
Cyclist
how many of the 25 or so are not looking at the camera? You said half? count again


and please provide a link that this was taken while the photog was ' prepping"
 
I wasn't defending the photo, and only said something after someone used it to justify calling Obama a moronic tool. It's a goofy shot and Obama certainly doesn't look Presidential there. Then, he also doesn't look presidential when he takes a piss or many times through the day. This says nothing about his intelligence or fitness for the office.

To answer your two questions Horn,

I'm sorry, it looks like like 9 of the 24 are looking away from the camera. This is not half, my mistake.

I do not have a link that says it was prepping for an official photo. I do not however know any other reason why they would line up 24 world leaders to take a bad photo when not all of them appear ready and many are not in the shot. It must have been taken before or after the official photo they lined up for was. I went with before, because people usually clear out after a photo is taken. No link, just logic.

Finally...yeah, I have about 500 posts. I go through periods when I start posting a little more frequently, but I haven't been a long time active poster. I have never declared George W. Bush a moron based on a goofy photo, and I don't think I would do it with any politician. I might laugh at the photo like this one was intended to be for, but I would not make the leap of "he/she is a moron," which prompted my initial response.
 
6721 - so you put up a thread that you say is intended to be a joke, the very first guy comes out swinging with nasty **** against the POTUS, but instead you skip over that to nit-pick the very first "Obama defender" you can. there's certainly a joke here but it's the author, not the picture.

if you really intended this to be a brief moment of levity on an otherwise mud-slinging forum, one would think you'd want to reel in one of your own, who threw the first punch, rather than jumping into the mud along partisan lines. oh well, just another in a long line of the same old ********.

the picture IS pretty funny, btw. it's too bad the mud had to be slung so quickly.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
For starters, what the above poster fails to grasp is the difference between talking about WMD and starting wars over WMD.
 
Perham:

What if........

Are you reactive or proactive?

If you could have prevented 9/11 would you have?

Or are you the kind of guy to let something happen and then try to prevent it from happening in the future?
 
How could I have prevented 9/11?

Are you suggesting that invading Iraq would have accomplished that?

Rather then spouting off some disorganized, nebulous, and meaningless grand questions please try to stick to the concrete.

I am very interested in how you seem to be linking invading Iraq on the grounds they have WMD to preventing 9/11. Please flesh this out further. I eagerly anticipate your analysis and conclusions.

Or are you saying that Iraq was going to engage in US terrorism if we didn't invade? Which leads me to think that you bought into Cheney's "AQ in Iraq" nonsense.

The problem here is that too many people suspend what little cognitive abilities they do have when the President says "either you're with me or you're with the terrorists". This leads to things like invading Iraq over WMD, thinking that Iraq was behind 9/11, and accepting the US engaging in torture.

My big complaint was starting a war over WMDs. That clearly was not needed. The goal was not to find WMDs, for we didn't need an expensive (both in $ and in lives) war to do that, but to remove Saddam from power. Even now, it seems, people fail to grasp that.

In case you forgot, it took longer than 3 months; we weren't hailed as liberators; we didn't instill western-style democracy... need I go on?

Bush going into Iraq was a total f***-job on America. It was not needed. Not to say that Iraq wasn't bad, or that some kind of response to 9/11 wasn't needed, but going to war in Iraq was not the thing. But since it's "unpatriotic" to disagree, because by disagreeing one doesn't "support the troops" (and all the other specious statements) we revert to "Saddam bad, US good" thinking and ignorantly gloss over the details.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top