Posted on 04/30/2014 2:10:56 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Saying President Barack Obama hasn’t been tough enough on Russia, a high-powered group of Republican senators introduced legislation on Wednesday aimed at imposing new sanctions on Moscow over its actions in Ukraine.
“Rather than react to events as they unfold, which has been the policy of this administration, we need to inflict more direct consequences on Russia prior to Vladimir Putin taking additional steps that will be very difficult to undo,” said Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top GOP member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who drafted the measure.
The congressional push for a harder line on Russia comes with Obama set to welcome German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one of his key partners on Ukraine, to the White House on Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Again, the debating point was that “we don’t shut down our ForPol because Norm Lenhart disagrees with Obama”
That is the point you are trying to prove. And you have failed.
I offered supporting evidence as to why the US can’t stick its head in the sand and we have a real world that we have to deal with. In “even a clock is right, once or twic a day” fashion, I offered 4 examples of foreign policy decisions that Obama was correct on.
But your grand point of “shutting our Foreign policy down” is a ridiculous point, unrealistic and in the grand fashion of conspiracy nuts and isolationists.
“Which as I already corrected you on, that ‘success’ (Drones killing terrorists), widely rtumpeted by no one as a success, has instead pissed off a lot of allies”
You asserting a correction is not a correction. You are incorrect and the policy is credited with literally 3000 kills of terrorists. And even the staunches conservatives in forpolicy and national security have credited Obama with this success. But you take an opinion poll for your foreign policy. And that is why you are to the Left of Obama, weaker than the limp-wristed Obama on Foreign Policy and National Security.
I asked you to point to a single foreign policy success. THAT is what we are discussing here. At least I am based on my actual question to you. What you are doing is obvious.
You rattled off 4 things that have nothing to do with foreign policy success and repeatedly claim to have answered the question.
I showed conclusively that they were not answers to my question. You hop around like Jay Carney avoiding the fact that you cannot point to a single actual foreign policy success.
All posted above for all to read.
You have limited ability to comprehend and can’t even focus on where the debate is. Getting off track with supporting points and not even realizing what the debate is about.
You also need to work on your refutations of points you disagree with. Simply stating that, “you’re wrong”, is not a refutation of that point. That might work on Paul Forums or other such conspiracy blackholes, but not here.
I suggest you stick to the propaganda of RT and the hyper isolation of the Paul Forums. Enjoy.
You failed Jay. Accept it.
This exchange is very interesting.
Amazing how someone can lose the debate, use dishonest tactics of every kind, and keep claiming while lying on the floor bruised, bloody and out of breath “i won...i won...” in fading voice.
Typical leftistpuke political meaningless verbiage sloganeering never answering any question while claiming to have done so tactics.
Just a typical Cheshire Conservative. He’s on another thread accusing people of being conspiracy theorists that won’t agree with him there either.
Seems FR has lots of script kiddies lately. Just bull ahead with the script ignoring all.
Same xxxx, different xxxxheads.
LOL what? Norma, you're nuts.
You start with stupid name calling, then you throw in a straw man fallacy and then you finnish with some paranoid comment that I should call the Feds on you. And that's in your first paragraph.
Now all the above is easily researched and provable/proven. As such, take your ‘appeasement’ talking point and shove it firmly yet lovingly, with special attention to social justice, homosexual rights for the military and perhaps a slice of lime for added ‘zing’.
So you got all emotional over the word "appeasement". What you are describing is appeasement. Doesn't mean that appeasement isn't the right course to take when a country as no choice for instances, because their CIC is a traitor.
For example the US has every right to send Ukraine food rations. If the US can't send food rations because they are afraid that they will start a war, that's called appeasement. Maybe it's the right decision and maybe it isn't. But it's still appeasement.
Here's a question: What does one call a thread on FreeRepublic that doesn't have Norma Lenhart flying off the handle.
Answer, an unusual event.
Losing an argument sucks I hear. Makes people haZ a sad.
You haZ a sad. Do the math.
Check your mail, Norm.
Yes, FR is lousy with them.
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.
Funny how they just wish facts away and call them ‘false premise’ and the like. I wish I had a dollar for every psuedocon that ever told n]me that one.
Open any history book and you can see this stuff played out time and again. But no, Not with these idiots. None of that ever happened. People send food and supplies and the enemy of the recipient thanks you! Of course!
I miss the days when people had self worth. But anon internet nicnames really let people indulge in some pretty fantastical thinking in public I suppose.
Show me one thing incorrect about any of that.
Just the one fact that our administration is controlled, run, headed by an enemy combatant trumps every other argument. As though 0bastard or anyone hired or appointed by him would do what is best for our country.
That’s the core of it. But what the heck. Lets have the guy that can’t get through a press conference without the aid of a teleprompter, who Freepers hammer rightly on a moment to moment basis for gross incompetence, a guy that sends fedgov agencies out to harass anyone not on his train...lets all trust that guy and his enablers to do the right thing with Russia and not get us all killed. And scream ‘appeaser” when someone won’t agree.
Gee. Almost like the Romney fiasco all over again. When his plants here did the very same thing.
Ever wonder why conservatism can’t get anything done? I don’t. Not anymore.
Do we want influential political folks focusing on regulating against Americans or focusing on declared and acting foreign enemies? It’s also an opportunity to clear up any problems in military administration—problems that otherwise fester and grow during times of laxity. That’s an opportunity that cannot be postponed for long, if we want to live. Fascist/communist buildups and expansions can happen fast.
...acting against, that is.
As it was. It was correct to begin with.
In your cherry picked “Norm Lenhart Exposed” rant above, you missed the very clear answer to your dilemma and did not chose to include it.
As I said, if we had a competent admin, many of us would be looking at this entire situation differently. Does that mean anything to you? Do you personally believe that doing wrong things are better than holding back? Because this admin had nothing but wrong things in it’s foreign policy portfolio. Egypt...disaster. Libya...dead Americans and MANPADS everywhere. Canada ...Keystone Delay, Africa...gay rights, Honduras...pissed everyone there off, Iraq...back in AQ hands, Afghanistan...lost.
Do you REALLY want that merry band of politicians to screw with RUSSIA?
Yes or no.
At this point, whatever is happening so far in Ukraine and with Russia, is so microscopic in terms of danger to CONUS, compared to the ongoing coup, that to expect the perpetrators of the coup to do the right thing over there is beyond insane.
US money help create the whole problem with the Maidan protesters in the first place.
Anything this administration does, large or small, is guaran-damn-teed to be the very worst choice that can be made. Including any kind of relationship or action with any foreign country.
And your comment:
It’s also an opportunity to clear up any problems in military administration—problems that otherwise fester and grow during times of laxity.
I don’t understand at all. How on earth with an enemy combatant as CIC help our military clear up any problems? Now that it’s stuffed with faggots and incompetent women in positions of authority, with good men and women leaving in disgust, or being fired?
Hey if he can pass judgement on what conservatives do and say or don’t do or say as he did above, why not take his word that the military purge is a good thing?
/s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.