You realize the 'thugs are laughing their asses off at us don't you?

[Rosco T.]

All the Obama hatred, all the vile comments.

Think.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. So? Fuck 'em. Why should we care what they think?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. Ding Ding Ding! we got's us a winner here.

Besides, Obama demanded that we keep his feet to the fire and force him to push certain agendas.
That is not hatred, that is merely doing his bidding. And besides, every president ends up being stuck in a bubble. Top aides control access, info, and what he learns about our positions and our reactions.

[Scuba]

25. +1

[yourout]

30. you mean...."Top DONORS control access..."

[Segami]

54. +2

[DinahMoeHum]

16. Love it!! Two thumbs up. . .

. . .the GOP's ass.

[Laelth]

23. Hear, hear!

Pure demographics suggest they can't win the Presidency in the next 2 to 4 cycles. I don't care what they think on the national level. On the local level they remain obnoxious, but even that is certain to change soon in most parts of the country.

-Laelth

[Abq_Sarah]

2. Luckily

I don't base my opinions on what the 'thugs think about any given issue.

[The Straight Story]

3. According to them, they love america and will back a president in a time of war

So I am the one laughing.

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. Really? You're laughing because he's likely to get into another war, and

that amuses you why?

Some Syrian kids are going to be killed and maimed for your "lulz" at the Republicans. I hope you savor them.

[The Straight Story]

11. Wow, right over your head

I am laughing at the idiots on the right who are complaining about it all. They said people who didn't back the president in a time of war were not patriots, etc.

Now that it is not their choice of president in power they quickly show their true selves. They are being unpatriotic and anti-American, next thing you know they will be out in the streets protesting the war....something else they condemned last time.

So yes, I am laughing at them and their hypocritical ways. At least those on the left do what they did last time - question the president and the war, etc.

The RW has, once again, shown that they are biased idiots who kneel before their party and lick the boots of their masters - and they will do it again and again because they haven't got a patriotic bone in their body to stand up to their own party.

I would bet my very life that if Romney was in power and doing what Obama is now they would be bowing before him with praise for being strong, etc.

The only sheep have RW branded on their asses.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Actually, we're the ones in greater danger of hypocrisy

Unlike the Democratic party during Iraq they didn't discuss at length the potential for impeaching Obama for going to war in Libya without congressional sanction. You won't see them pushing for impeachment over Syria either.

Why?

Because Obama is endorsing -- practicing -- their policy of unilateral military action. He is setting a precedent that grants them license in the future. Why would they destroy their best argument for what they want? You'll get a token bleating out of Rand Paul and that will be that. Meanwhile, the Democratic party won't impeach their president because -- he's their president.

You can also bet when it comes time for cutting government waste Libya and Syria will be listed as reasons as to why the DoD should be spared the brunt of the cuts. What are we going to say to that?

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. where do you get this "unilateral" business....I think thats why we are in a holding pattern

don't you? The U.N. has been contacted have they not?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. "Contacted"? That's the standard now? Merely contacted.

No need for resolutions, let alone actual debate, just slip a "Gone bombing, be back Monday" note under the door and it's all good? And here I remember being all upset that Bush was not living up to the spirit of the UN resolution against Iraq. Now we've come to the point where apparently Bush went the extra mile. No mere "contact" for him, he went above and beyond by today's standard.

Meanwhile, there's our own congress who has yet to hold any public debate or issue an AUMF (something else Bush had, if memory serves).

And the American people may have been contacted but only a scant 10% approve.

Have we contacted common sense, yet? Last I heard she couldn't be reached for comment.

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. well we are not in there yet are we?

You are calling it Unilateral and we haven't done a thing yet except go to the UN...thats hardly Unilateral is it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. If we go in it will be far more unilateral than anything we complained about over Iraq.

There will be no UN resolution, AUMF or "Coalition of the Willing." It will be the US and a few other nations that can't even cross the street without US support. The only way for it to not be unilateral will be to stay out.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. We shall see....seems France and the British are leaning toward us.

the U.S. and "a few other nations"....is not Unilateral then is it? Uni means one right?

[cherokeeprogressive]

44. "Uni", as in whose wings the bombs drop from, or whose ships the missiles fly from...

Or "Uni" as in whose opinion simply supports the action?

Does context matter in this instance?

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. Uni as....that hasn't happened yet has it? Aren't you putting the cart before the horse

or does context not matter in that instance?

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. well they are almost certainly going to attack sometime very soon and it will certainly be without

UN approval.

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. Because Russia will veto it...and why is that you might ask...

because Russia supplies oil to Europe nearly monopolistically. They want Assad to stay to prevent that natural gas pipeline that Europe would like to have built through Syria from happening. Russia has been propping up Assad for that reason. Syria doesn't have an oil reserve....but it stands in the way of a pipeline. So all of that needs to also be considered.

Along with the fact that Syria controls a stockpile of Chemical weapons. If Assad falls those weapons could go into the hands of the opposition....which is also not a good option for the rest of the world.

Also, do we really want to signal that we (meaning the Western world) no longer care if you gas your own people....so then the gassing begins. Are you ready to see a lot more dead babies who died in agony writhing in excruciating pain foaming at the mouth? You ready for that?

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. well the U.S. didn't care at all when Saddam was using chemical weapon until after he invaded Kuwait

So suggesting that the western world formerly cared about whether or some dictator gassed their own people is disingenuous to the extreme. But all of that aside - What will be the consequences of the U.S. attacking Syria? Will it make things better? Or will it make things worse? If Assad falls - there will be a state of chaos in Syria that will last for along time to come. As the slogan in the Syrian opposition movement goes, "Christians to Beirut - Alawites to the grave." If the U.S. gets involved - it is far more likely that we will see even more babies dying in agony.

This article was written more than a year ago when at the time no one was suggesting direct U.S. military involvement - but the points are still the same:

Liberals arguing that the U.S. should give weapons to Syrian rebels underestimate Assad's power

I strongly recommend reading this article in salon.com by Gary Kamiya:

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/dont_arm_syrias_rebels/singleton/

snips:

This is not a knee-jerk left-wing response. It has nothing to do with Iraq. Nor does it have anything to do with the proxy war between the U.S. and its allies and Iran and its allies. It is not driven by pacifism or opposition to all war. All U.S. wars are not axiomatically foolish, evil or driven by brutal self-interest (although most of them since World War II have been). The airstrikes on Kosovo and the Libya campaign were justified (although the jury is still out on the latter intervention). If arming the Syrian opposition would result in fewer deaths and a faster transition to a peaceful, open, democratic society, we should arm them.

That analysis has been provided by a number of in-depth reports, most notably a new study by the International Crisis Group, as well as the excellent on-the-ground reporting of Nir Rosen for Al-Jazeera. The bottom line is simple. The war has become a zero-sum game for Assad. If he loses, he dies. But the only way he can lose is if he is abandoned by his crucial external patron, Russia, which is extremely unlikely to happen absent some slaughter so egregious that Moscow feels it has to cut ties with him. Assad has sufficient domestic support to hold on for a long time, and a huge army that is not likely to defect en masse. Under these circumstances, giving arms to the rebels, however much it may make conscience-stricken Western observers feel better, will simply make the civil war much bloodier and its outcome even more chaotic and dangerous.

The key point concerns Assad’s domestic support. Contrary to the widely held belief that most Syrians support the opposition and are opposed to the Assad regime, Syrians are in fact deeply divided. The country’s minorities – the ruling Alawites, Christians and Druze – tend to support the regime, if only because they fear what will follow its downfall. (The grocery on my corner in San Francisco is owned by a Christian Syrian from a village outside Damascus. When I asked him what he thought about what was going on in his country, he said, “It’s not like what you see on TV. Assad is a nice guy. He’s trying to do the right thing.”) As Rosen makes clear, Syria’s ruling Alawite minority is the key to Assad’s survival: Absent an outside invasion, the regime will not fall unless the Alawites turn on it. But the Alawites fear reprisals if the Sunni-dominated opposition, some of whose members have threatened to “exterminate the Alawites,” defeats the Assad regime. The fear of a sectarian war, exacerbated by the murky and incoherent nature of the opposition, means that the minorities are unlikely to join the opposition in large numbers.

...

Our national instinct is to come riding to the rescue. It goes against our character to simply sit on our hands. Our sincere, naive and self-centered belief that America can fix everything, and our equally sincere, naive and self-centered belief that moral outrage justifies intervention, is a powerful tide, pulling us toward getting directly involved in Syria’s civil war.

But in the real world, we cannot always come riding to the rescue. Sometimes, we have no choice but to watch tragedy unfold, because anything we do will create an even bigger tragedy.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/dont_arm_syrias_rebels/singleton/

[yawnmaster]

4. I don't care. I don't think one should be controlled by some group's odd sense of humor. eom

[frylock]

5. are you losing sleep over it?

[Autumn]

7. Fuck the thugs, like their opinion means jack shit.

you might want to think about that.

[City Lights]

9. I don't give a shit what the 'thugs think. nt

[NCTraveler]

10. I am not as easily influenced by their opinions. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

12. Our goal should be good governance and broader suport of human rights...

and a broadening of human rights. A country where more Americans can enjoy equal opportunity and, dare I say it, we get equal opportunity for all.

If Obama doesn't live up to expectations he should expect criticism.

I support policies not the person.

[spanone]

13. i have turds more intelligent than them folks

[LondonReign2]

14. Are they laughing their asses off because

we voted for a Democratic President that agrees with them as often as he agrees with Democrats?

[Dash87]

15. Don't care. I'll criticize Obama if he does something wrong. So should you.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

17. I don't give a flying-you-know-what about what 'thugs are doing...

with regard to DU.

I'll tell you what I do care about: The real-life NC GOP destruction of North Carolina.

[Spirochete]

18. And we care about this

why?

Don't give a shit what they "think".

[AtomicKitten]

19. Whoa.

[cthulu2016]

20. I am laughing my ass off at people who think in such terms

Who fucking cares what the "''thugs" are laughing at?

Your concern is, indeed, noted.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

21. Ironic that you end with "think".

when you're asking people to do just the opposite and base their thoughts and opinions on right wing internet chatter.

[Zoeisright]

24. Yep.

But unfortunately, there are stupid people in every party.

[davidn3600]

27. They are laughing at us because we voted in a D that acts more like an R

[bowens43]

28. so to prevent 'thugs' from laughing their asses off we should kiss Obama's ass?

I'm sorry but I had high hopes for this guy and I admit I hold him to higher standards then I do any republican, but face it, this guy has given us one disappoint after another. Sure there were a couple of minor wins but over all he's a failure. And now he is about to get us involved in yet another useless, unnecessary war.

If you think we should give him a pass because 'thugs' are hurting your feelings then you are part of the problem

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. well its time then to unite and support military strikers and the surveillance state and chained

CPI and support the nomination of Larry Summers for Chairman of the Fed and to oppose single payer universal healthcare

[ileus]

35. you can't say thugs...

[BootinUp]

37. What you talkin bout?

[Rex]

38. I guess somebody should care what the Repukes think.

Goodluck with that shit.

[fujiyama]

39. Fuck them with rusty pipes

I hope they get tetanus. The republicans' thought process doesn't entire into my value judgments of the President's policies.

Very few of the comments I've seen on this board are personal attacks against the President. Most of us admired him greatly until recently. Some of us worked to get him elected and reelected. Some of us gave our hard earned money. And probably 99% on this board voted for him.

But we've all got our red-line.

[cherokeeprogressive]

40. So, what then? Go Obama? Bomb Syria!

To what fucking end?

Fuck. A. Buncha. THAT.

YOU think.

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. This needs to go back to the top

Congrats there, Rosco.

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. Let's bomb us some Syrians with NO clear evidence of who gassed who, cuz they're laughing at Obama.

Yup.

Good thinkin'.

[markpkessinger]

50. +1000! n/t

[Cha]

43. Sorry, Rosco.. They don't give a

shit. And, the gops can laugh all they want anyway because Pres Obama is popular with those have been with him the whole time.

DU's Ignorant Cheap Pot Shots don't mean shit.

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. So popular with you, you'll back his play even though we don't know who gassed who.

I guess you always loved him anyway.

Wait...

[Democracyinkind]

55. It's like 2003 redux, with (d) and (r) reversed.

Talk about thugs and morons. The lot of them seems to have been just fine with Bush retrospectively.

[blue neen]

47. Well, they might be laughing.

They certainly are spending a lot of money on it.

[AsahinaKimi]

48. For all the thugs who are laughing their asses off...

[Hekate]

51. And the overwhelming response to your OP is "All the Obama hatred, all the vile comments."

It must be because Obama is Teh Evil, which short-circuits ... too much.

[Scootaloo]

53. Good for them, maybe humor will lead to developing humanity.

Meanwhile Obama and his administration need to seriously reconsider the course of their policy with regards to the middle east.

[GeorgeGist]

56. You realize that 'thugs are morans don't you?

[Locrian]

57. same trap Obama falls into - giving a rats ass what they think - n/t