I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled the trigger. Would you guys? He ordered an assassination of OBL deep into Pakistan and green lit the war against Qaddafi. I know this would be a much more serious issue, but I think he's shown that at least on Foreign Policy he's willing to make the hard choices.
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/04/the_world_is_misreading_obama_on_iran
Quote
The world is misreading Obama on Iran
Posted By David Rothkopf Friday, November 4, 2011 - 10:58 AM
The government of Iran, much like many across the Middle East, believes that the Obama administration is so consumed with a desire to undo the wrongs of the Bush era and get out from under the costs of two difficult, hard-to-justify wars in the region that it would never intervene against them militarily. Iranian leaders seem to believe that the United States would not risk another war in the region just to stop their development of nuclear weapons.
The government of Israel, also worried that its number one ally has lost its appetite for complex entanglements in the region, seems to think that by playing the Iran card it can goad the U.S. into action that will restore the bonds between the two nations. Israeli leaders believe that they can translate their perception of Iran as an existential threat against them and a brazen, rising regional hegemon into a new renewed U.S. commitment to the region and closer ties with Israel.
Both are wrong.
According to the U.K. newspaper the Guardian, which has an extraordinary package of stories on the growing Iran risk and the escalation of that risk associated with an upcoming International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report that will reveal game-changing progress by Iran in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons capabilities, even America's closest allies in Britain believe "President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election." Wrong.
Here in the U.S., analysts believe that Obama would not risk being drawn into a war in the region or the upheaval a series of attacks might cause. Even though tensions are definitely rising and those familiar with the IAEA report that will be circulated next week say, "It is going to be hard for even Moscow or Beijing to downplay its significance," there is a sense that Obama won't pull the trigger. Iran analyst Karim Sadjadpour was quoted by the Guardian as saying, "A U.S. military attack on Iran is not going to happen during Obama's presidency. If you're Obama, and your priority is to resuscitate the American economy and decrease the U.S. footprint in the Middle East, bombing Iran would defeat those two objectives. Oil prices would skyrocket." While an attack is no sure thing yet, the analysis is wrong.
Certainly no one in the Obama Administration is eager to launch an attack on Iran. Taking steps that would risk being drawn into another war or that might damage the global economy further or could distract from the world at home would be vigorously opposed by several of the President's most senior advisors, and he undoubtedly would be deeply divided on the issue himself.
But in the end, as dangerous as an attack might be militarily and politically, if the President believes there is no other alternative to stopping Iran from gaining the ability to produce highly enriched uranium and thus manufacture nuclear weapons, he will seriously consider military action and it is hardly a certainty he won't take it. From a domestic political perspective, right now Obama's strong suit is his national security performance. For the first time in years, he has taken the issue away from the Republicans. Right now they simply cannot attack him as being weak or assert they understand defense better. That is why they are so silent on the issue. Obama has only four real areas of vulnerability on this front. First, if he pushes too hard for defense budget cuts before the election, the Republicans will go after him. He won't. He will seek cuts but will be comparatively cautious. Next, if there were a terrorist attack of some sort and the administration seemed unprepared or responded weakly, that would create a problem. But that is a perennial wild card. Third, if he distances himself from Israel, the Republicans will seek to capitalize on the sense some supporters of that country have that Obama is not a committed friend. There is already plenty of activity in that area ... and the Israelis are eager to take advantage of their perceived election year leverage. And finally, if Iran were to detonate a nuclear bomb, Obama would be blamed and fiercely attacked for a policy of engagement that ultimately proved to be toothless.
As a consequence, the President and his advisors are acutely aware of the Iran issue. But their concerns go much deeper. The President and his national security leadership are deeply worried about the potential consequences associated with an Iranian nuclear breakthrough. It would likely trigger an arms race in the region at a time of considerable instability. It would immediately ratchet up tensions between Iran and Israel ... but also between Iran and its historic enemies in the Gulf. It would both raise Iran's perceived clout and underscore the absence of a counterweight either from the U.S., the West, or the international community at large.
While an attack on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities almost certainly would produce a spike in oil prices, those prices would stabilize if the attacks were successful and did not produce a protracted war. Further, with the world economy in a slump, prices are feeling less upward pressure anyway these days. However, if Iran gained nuclear weapons, it might trigger a kind of uncertainty that would be protracted and would have a longer-term effect on oil prices.
The British assumption that the President would not take this action close to the election is mistaken on two levels. First, from the most cynical perspective possible, a strong action right before the election in response to a genuine threat after an extended effort to pursue more peaceful options to resolving the issue might well work very well for the President politically. The American people's reaction to an attack at any time is likely to give the President the benefit of the doubt. That said, it would be a mistake to think this President would make such a cynical analysis. Should he act on an issue like this, he will do so without making any political calculus. He's a politician to be sure. But on national security matters he has grown both increasingly self-confident and proven himself to be exceptionally disciplined. Indeed, the calculus as to what he might do needs to factor in that he has achieved some success taken strong military actions of a focused nature. The "no more Middle East wars" notion went out the window with Libya. The "Obama is timid on these matters" thesis was actually silently put to an early death when the President, just in office, ordered the ultimately successful effort to eliminate Osama bin Laden.
Finally, the Israelis are wrong if they think that U.S. cooperation on this issue will restore the bond between the two nations. They may work side-by-side on this as they did on the Stuxnet intervention. They share close ties. But so long as Israel pursues settlements and other policies that inflame the Palestinian situation and make a solution less likely, this administration will be more divided internally in its views on Israel than its public statements may suggest. Further, the reality is that history is moving against the Israelis. Not only are America's strategic priorities shifting -- the end of the Cold War and the War on Terror were both blows to the "indispensability" of Israel to the U.S. -- but other countries, like China and India, are gaining more influence in the region as they become more important consumers of the region's oil. And they view the Israeli-Palestinian issue as an irritant, a risk to their interests and a matter that needs to be disposed of, one way or another, whichever serves their ultimate goal of stable, cheap supplies of energy. In fact, paradoxically, it is probably a nuclear Iran that stands the best chance of keeping Israel more relevant to America.
None of this means America will act. But it would be a mistake to bet against it or to consider U.S. threats to be mere posturing.
In world politics, being incorrectly regarded as unwilling to use force is not exactly a good kind of understatement.
I would be very, very surprised. Essentially a mathematical impossibility.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:13:52 PM
I would be very, very surprised. Essentially a mathematical impossibility.
Why are you so certain?
I'm not really expecting it. I'd say there's a 40% chance it happens.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:33:02 PM
I'm not really expecting it. I'd say there's a 40% chance it happens.
Then you should be happy with a 3/2 bet. To make it irresistable I'll offer 7/4. How much would you like to wager?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:33:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:13:52 PM
I would be very, very surprised. Essentially a mathematical impossibility.
Why are you so certain?
I'm not really expecting it. I'd say there's a 40% chance it happens.
Political ideology. Republican dogma says Democrats can't be tough, therefore Obama can't bomb Iran.
We need a GA pamphlet for Yi, stat!
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 07:35:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:33:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:13:52 PM
I would be very, very surprised. Essentially a mathematical impossibility.
Why are you so certain?
I'm not really expecting it. I'd say there's a 40% chance it happens.
Political ideology. Republican dogma says Democrats can't be tough, therefore Obama can't bomb Iran.
I voted for W twice and for McCain.
That doesn't effect my ability to analyze a situation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:34:56 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:33:02 PM
I'm not really expecting it. I'd say there's a 40% chance it happens.
Then you should be happy with a 3/2 bet. To make it irresistable I'll offer 7/4. How much would you like to wager?
It's the internet, what could we wager? :huh:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:40:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:34:56 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:33:02 PM
I'm not really expecting it. I'd say there's a 40% chance it happens.
Then you should be happy with a 3/2 bet. To make it irresistable I'll offer 7/4. How much would you like to wager?
It's the internet, what could we wager? :huh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:40:00 PM
I voted for W twice and for McCain.
That doesn't effect my ability to analyze a situation.
Maybe you aren't as Dogmatic.
I don't see what canines have to do with this.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 07:50:20 PM
Maybe you aren't as Dogmatic.
You consider yourself blessed with a dogma-free mind, don't you Raz? What do you put the chances at?
Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2011, 07:44:46 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:40:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:34:56 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:33:02 PM
I'm not really expecting it. I'd say there's a 40% chance it happens.
Then you should be happy with a 3/2 bet. To make it irresistable I'll offer 7/4. How much would you like to wager?
It's the internet, what could we wager? :huh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar
Yeah, but we're never gonna meet in real life, and I ain't wiring him money.
What is this thing you call check, Captain Kirk?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:58:17 PM
Yeah, but we're never gonna meet in real life, and I ain't wiring him money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheque
EDIT: This will address Yi's curiosity as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 07:35:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:33:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:13:52 PM
I would be very, very surprised. Essentially a mathematical impossibility.
Why are you so certain?
I'm not really expecting it. I'd say there's a 40% chance it happens.
Political ideology. Republican dogma says Democrats can't be tough, therefore Obama can't bomb Iran.
Part of the problem is that the last tough Democrat was LBJ.
Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2011, 08:06:48 PM
EDIT: This will address Yi's curiosity as well.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:58:17 PM
Yeah, but we're never gonna meet in real life, and I ain't wiring him money.
:huh: http://www.paypal.com
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2011, 08:07:35 PM
Part of the problem is that the last tough Democrat was LBJ.
:yes: How can you not admire a president who regularly whips out his, eh, never mind.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:56:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 07:50:20 PM
Maybe you aren't as Dogmatic.
You consider yourself blessed with a dogma-free mind, don't you Raz? What do you put the chances at?
Nope. I'm not a betting man. Last time I had a bet with you, I won though.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 08:16:55 PM
You consider yourself blessed with a dogma-free mind, don't you Raz? What do you put the chances at?
Nope. I'm not a betting man. Last time I had a bet with you, I won though.
[/quote]
If you read the two posts above this one, you'll see that your answer doesn't match my question.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 08:18:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 08:16:55 PM
You consider yourself blessed with a dogma-free mind, don't you Raz? What do you put the chances at?
Nope. I'm not a betting man. Last time I had a bet with you, I won though.
If you read the two posts above this one, you'll see that your answer doesn't match my question.
[/quote]
Wait what?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 08:21:59 PM
Wait what?
"What do you put the chances at" is not a yes or no question.
Oh, well you messed up the formatting so I was confused. "Nope" was to answer your first question.
QuoteYou consider yourself blessed with a dogma-free mind, don't you Raz?
The answer was "Nope".
Gotcha.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:34:56 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:33:02 PM
I'm not really expecting it. I'd say there's a 40% chance it happens.
Then you should be happy with a 3/2 bet. To make it irresistable I'll offer 7/4. How much would you like to wager?
How about the collapse of the PRC before 2030? (Ungovernable mess still recognized as a coherent government, ala Chiang's China, still counts as collapse.)
Also, uninterrupted Democratic presidencies till 2024. I'll go 1/1 on that.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 08:30:40 PM
How about the collapse of the PRC before 2030? (Ungovernable mess still recognized as a coherent government still counts as collapse.)
Too long.
QuoteAlso, uninterrupted Democratic presidencies till 2024. I'll go 1/1 on that.
I'm in. How much?
Razz: how does your dogmatic mind assess the chances of a strike by Obama against Iran?
Quote from: YiToo long.
Hm. :huh:
QuoteI'm in. How much?
$100, plus, if I win, an admission by you I was always right about everything; if you win, I will acknowledge your pet names for things make sense.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 08:36:56 PM
$100, plus, if I win, an admission by you I was always right about everything; if you win, I will acknowledge your pet names for things make sense.
No can do.
Lets keep this simple, how about adding a line to the losers signature about how they were wrong and having to keep it there for a month?
I changed my mind Ide. I take the deal.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 08:38:42 PM
Lets keep this simple, how about adding a line to the losers signature about how they were wrong and having to keep it there for a month?
Writing a check and putting it in the mail is pretty fucking simple.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 08:38:42 PM
Lets keep this simple, how about adding a line to the losers signature about how they were wrong and having to keep it there for a month?
Will they have sig lines in 2024?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 08:33:22 PM
I'm in. How much?
Razz: how does your dogmatic mind assess the chances of a strike by Obama against Iran?
Dunno, I have to ask my handlers what I should think.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 08:39:27 PM
I changed my mind Ide. I take the deal.
I also just realized it's actually less than 1/1; you could (conceivably; obviously you won't) get cashed out in 2012 while I would have to wait till 2020. Unless we agree that regardless of winner, cashout occurs in 2020, I think I should modify the odds that reflect prevailing commercial rates.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 08:40:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 08:38:42 PM
Lets keep this simple, how about adding a line to the losers signature about how they were wrong and having to keep it there for a month?
Writing a check and putting it in the mail is pretty fucking simple.
I'm not betting money on an online forum, sorry.
Ide, the limit would be the last day of Obama's term.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 08:48:53 PM
I also just realized it's actually less than 1/1; you could get cashed out in 2012 while I would have to wait till 2020. Unless we agree that regardless of winner, cashout occurs in 2020, I want odds that reflect prevailing commercial rates.
Discounting is a bit cumbersome. How about we set the base year at 2012 and adjust up by the CPI from there.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 08:52:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 08:40:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 08:38:42 PM
Lets keep this simple, how about adding a line to the losers signature about how they were wrong and having to keep it there for a month?
Writing a check and putting it in the mail is pretty fucking simple.
I'm not betting money on an online forum, sorry.
Ide, the limit would be the last day of Obama's term.
So I should insist on waiting until it was clear Obama had not assumed lifetime control at the head of a coup? C'mon. Disregarding another Bush v. Gore scenario, I think I'd be willing to concede in early November 2012.
That said, if Herman Cain spends December 2012 getting hosed out of the treads of an M1A2, I would want my money back.
Quote from: YiDiscounting is a bit cumbersome. How about we set the base year at 2012 and adjust up by the CPI from there.
Fair enough.
As for the actual thread, I ain't betting on Obama bombing Iran. As cool as it would be, I'm not sanguine on the prospects. 7/3 doesn't come close.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 08:58:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 08:52:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 08:40:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 08:38:42 PM
Lets keep this simple, how about adding a line to the losers signature about how they were wrong and having to keep it there for a month?
Writing a check and putting it in the mail is pretty fucking simple.
I'm not betting money on an online forum, sorry.
Ide, the limit would be the last day of Obama's term.
So I should insist on waiting until it was clear Obama had not assumed lifetime control at the head of a coup? C'mon. Disregarding another Bush v. Gore scenario, I think I'd be willing to concede in early November 2012.
I meant January 20th 2013
No, I know when he would leave office (if he is not reelected, which is of course preposterous), but I would lose the bet should he lose the election, absent a scenario where American democracy ceased to exist, because that would put paid to my predictions of an uninterrupted Democratic victory streak.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 09:05:21 PM
No, I know when he would leave office (if he is not reelected, which is of course preposterous), but I would lose the bet should he lose the election, absent a scenario where American democracy ceased to exist, because that would put paid to my predictions of an uninterrupted Democratic victory streak.
What? I'm only betting on the attack Iran issue.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 09:17:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 09:05:21 PM
No, I know when he would leave office (if he is not reelected, which is of course preposterous), but I would lose the bet should he lose the election, absent a scenario where American democracy ceased to exist, because that would put paid to my predictions of an uninterrupted Democratic victory streak.
What? I'm only betting on the attack Iran issue.
Well we're not, so that's not really germane.
I think he could bomb Iran. If he does I imagine Britain'll join in. I'd say it's possibly slightly more likely that we see that sort of 'Western' action than an Israeli attack - and that'd be right.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:38:01 PM
If he does I imagine Britain'll join in.
You guys really are good friends. This is why I never have anything bad to say about the United Kingdom.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 11:13:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:38:01 PM
If he does I imagine Britain'll join in.
You guys really are good friends. This is why I never have anything bad to say about the United Kingdom.
What about the police state? I figure you must oppose that.
Something tells me Ahmajiathingy is really looking forward to the American-British-Israeli attack and the nationalist frenzy he'll be able to whip up over it: gotta love the Iranians and their living in the past, still seeing Britain as a key big bad!
Of course, if we don't do this then they'll get the bomb which would also be bad.
Ack.
I think the uncovering of the plot against the Saudi ambassador in the US demonstrates that Iran really shouldn't have a nuke. I'm not sure how effective air strikes will be though. They can always rebuild. Of course we can always rebomb, but I'm not sure we can keep it up indefinably. Of course, if we do launch an airstrike you can bet the Iranians will retaliate. Probably blow up an airliner or something.
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2011, 11:56:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 11:13:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:38:01 PM
If he does I imagine Britain'll join in.
You guys really are good friends. This is why I never have anything bad to say about the United Kingdom.
What about the police state? I figure you must oppose that.
I dunno. Do you mean the CCTVs everywhere? On one hand, it's off-putting, but on the other, an absolute right to privacy--in the narrow sense of being able to keep activities absolutely secret, as opposed to a right to be free of unwarranted physical harassment by the state or private actors--really only makes a great deal of sense if one is implicitly assuming that the state has enacted a great many laws which have no real moral force and can be justifiably broken, so long as they do not interfere with the wider public sphere. A surveillance society doesn't bother me, but a proper police state would. Can't speak entirely knowledgeably on how things are in the U.K. on that front.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 08:25:29 PM
Gotcha.
According to Sheilbh's standards, you are now a journalist.
Actually, a decision to bomb Iran would be 100% in Obama's interest and he has a classic motive for a war: trouble at home and reelection vote next year.
Colour me isolationist, but I am skeptical about yet another middle east engagement for the US.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsimpsonspedia.net%2Fimages%2F3%2F3e%2F5F09.jpg&hash=bb4f844fe2743ed4a600d541b198819f60f61f83)
In the words of Homer Simpson, "can't someone else do it?"
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2011, 06:00:16 AM
Actually, a decision to bomb Iran would be 100% in Obama's interest and he has a classic motive for a war: trouble at home and reelection vote next year.
Unless the Iranians retaliate with a terrorist bombing in the US. Then Obama is quickly defeated in an election. The Iranians have already caused the defeat of one Democrat, they could do it again.
Rainbow - I surrender
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZPXO-tHZjc
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2011, 11:31:32 AM
Unless the Iranians retaliate with a terrorist bombing in the US. Then Obama is quickly defeated in an election.
Agreed. Dubya would have been a two-term president if it hadn't been for the terrorist bombing in the US.
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2011, 07:52:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2011, 11:31:32 AM
Unless the Iranians retaliate with a terrorist bombing in the US. Then Obama is quickly defeated in an election.
Agreed. Dubya would have been a two-term president if it hadn't been for the terrorist bombing in the US.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2011, 11:31:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2011, 06:00:16 AM
Actually, a decision to bomb Iran would be 100% in Obama's interest and he has a classic motive for a war: trouble at home and reelection vote next year.
Unless the Iranians retaliate with a terrorist bombing in the US. Then Obama is quickly defeated in an election. The Iranians have already caused the defeat of one Democrat, they could do it again.
Yeah. Pearl Harbor. 911. We all know Americans fold like a house of cards if their territory is hit by an attack.
Different situation. A successful terrorist attack on Obama's watch would seem like vindication of Republican policies. Bush kept us safe (as he was always so fond of saying), and wishy-washy Obama let the terrorists hit again. It may not make sense, but that's how it would play out politically.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 08:35:56 AM
Different situation. A successful terrorist attack on Obama's watch would seem like vindication of Republican policies. Bush kept us safe (as he was always so fond of saying), and wishy-washy Obama let the terrorists hit again. It may not make sense, but that's how it would play out politically.
Agreed. I just don't see Republican voters getting behind Obama the way Democratic voters got behind Bush. Some people just strike me as much more willing to put politics aside for the sake of the country than others, and this willingness is not equally distributed on the political spectrum. I think Bush got the 9/11 bump because he was a Republican, and because he wasn't in the office long.
I think it has more to do with terrorism not being considered such a big deal. Before terrorism was considered a crime. After 9/11 GWB declared war on terrorism. While that is absurd, it did change perception of terrorism. I suspect that more Americans have been killed by terrorist road-side bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan then Americans who died on 9/11, still it's perceived differently. If someone blew up an airliner or something in the US in say, the spring of 2004, GWB would have easily lost the election.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 08, 2011, 08:30:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2011, 07:34:56 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2011, 07:33:02 PM
I'm not really expecting it. I'd say there's a 40% chance it happens.
Then you should be happy with a 3/2 bet. To make it irresistable I'll offer 7/4. How much would you like to wager?
How about the collapse of the PRC before 2030? (Ungovernable mess still recognized as a coherent government, ala Chiang's China, still counts as collapse.)
Also, uninterrupted Democratic presidencies till 2024. I'll go 1/1 on that.
YI PLEASE DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS THREAD. :P
Excellent work Ide. I will adjust my sig accordingly.
I'm fucked.
I did offer you a cashout you know. :P
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2011, 08:42:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2011, 08:35:56 AM
Different situation. A successful terrorist attack on Obama's watch would seem like vindication of Republican policies. Bush kept us safe (as he was always so fond of saying), and wishy-washy Obama let the terrorists hit again. It may not make sense, but that's how it would play out politically.
Agreed. I just don't see Republican voters getting behind Obama the way Democratic voters got behind Bush. Some people just strike me as much more willing to put politics aside for the sake of the country than others, and this willingness is not equally distributed on the political spectrum. I think Bush got the 9/11 bump because he was a Republican, and because he wasn't in the office long.
Gee wiz Dguller, Looks like we were wrong. Republicans did stand behind President Obama after the Benghazi attack and the Boston attacks.
Yi has a gambling problem.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 25, 2013, 01:45:23 PM
Yi has a gambling problem.
It's only a problem when you lose.
Who's Before?