Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Well, clear up what you accept you're wrong about, not what you're actually wrong about
As well as being a smart ass answer, I think there's also something of a point there. You have concluded that the parts of Trump's policy you didn't mind, like working with Russia in fighting ISIS, were ultimately mistaken because Trump isn't able to execute the strategies because he's a big dunderhead.
However, I'd say that such strategies aren't just not going to happen, but were always bad ideas (for instance, in Syria Russia has propped up a despotic regime, and worked with that regime in committing atrocities just to keep it in power, it would be a terrible mistake to ally with that regime).
But on the other stuff, recognising how Trump has antagonised long term strategic partners like Germany and the UK for no reason but his own personal ignorance, we agree entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It's also interesting how much you 'champion' Iran and seemingly is unaware that Iran (and other muslim majority nations) bans Jews.
Sigh, no. Iran doesn't ban Jews. Iran does have a ban on Israeli Jews, but there is also a ban in Israel on anyone travelling to Iran.
But more to the point - holy fething gak you're arguing that Iran does something so it's okay for the US to do the same. Please fething think about the argument you're making there. Iran is a religious theocracy, you don't want to emulate it. How is that not absolutely clear to every decent person?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/20 16:13:57
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
You know Frazzled for a guy who goes off on crazy 'joke' tangents about killing people because they like cats or whatever to annoy you, like being from another state. You sure as gak can't take one. That glass house of yours is probably pretty close to falling in with all the rocks you huck.
Ouze wrote: I mean, I guess if I was on Team Red I'd be pretty embarrassed as well, so I might pull at any string that might offer even temporary reprieve from an honest accounting of how things lay, but insulting the honesty of the people you're trying to get relief from seems like a reach.
Yeah, when people can't defend against the accusations, they look to deflect by complaining about tone. It's one of the oldest tricks.
The good news is that it normally only comes out near the end.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
In Not_Like_That's defense, Obama was a weak foreign policy president and hoping for a positive change in that from Trump had some rationality to it. Going on the assumption that his campaign trail behavior would not continue (as much) into the presidency then his foreign policy could have seemed desirable in some ways. Not_Like_That us admitting he was wrong about that critical assumption.
I don't really think Obama was a weak foreign policy president. More of a case of most of his attention (rightfully) was devoted domestically. I can't recall any crisis's that went horribly sideways under his watch. There were small scale things that went sideways, but that's true under any president.
whembly wrote: All I've said, is that the US is legally able to restrict immigration based on just about any criteria. You can make the case that it's morally wrong... but you also must acknowledge countries can & should have a 'say' as to who's allowed access.
Yeah, every country has controls on who enters the country. And some countries have controls on whole groups of people.
One interesting thing about your country, though, and it's one thing you should be very proud of, is that you cannot place a ban on any group of immigrants purely for religious purposes, it violates the Establishment Clause. It is one of those great pieces of principal that US did long before most other countries, something that many other countries still haven't caught up in.
Right now there happens to be some donkey-caves in the Whitehouse trying to ignore that particularly wonderful bit of US law, but so far it's been okay, they've been checked by the courts.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Comey now confirming FBI investigation into Russia contacts by Trump admin and are not able to substantiate any of Trump's claims on Obama wiretapping before congress, and advising on the record that Russia, even if not directly involved, would love to see more "Brexit" type events for their own ends.
Not the most auspicious beginning to a presidency, and doesnt appear that this era in general will appear to be remembered as halcyon days by the future.
Also it looks like Gorusch is having his hearing.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
d-usa wrote: Well, it would have to be up to the GOP to impeach Trump.
I don't think that the Dems are going to take over the House in 2018, the Senate maybe, but not the House. If they do take over the House it would be because Trump just managed to be the biggest train wreck in the history of the US, and if they take over the Senate they would win a majority, but there is no way that they would win the 67 seats needed for a partisan vote to convict Trump after the House impeaches.
If Trump stinks so bad that Democrats recapture the house and senate in 2018, then the last thing they'd want is to force Trump out of office. He'd be the biggest driver of Democratic turnout since the last Republican president.
We might still see an impeachment motion, because Democrats would be looking to force Republicans to deny it and attach themselves to a stinking presidential carcass.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: All I've said, is that the US is legally able to restrict immigration based on just about any criteria. You can make the case that it's morally wrong... but you also must acknowledge countries can & should have a 'say' as to who's allowed access.
Yeah, every country has controls on who enters the country. And some countries have controls on whole groups of people.
One interesting thing about your country, though, and it's one thing you should be very proud of, is that you cannot place a ban on any group of immigrants purely for religious purposes, it violates the Establishment Clause. It is one of those great pieces of principal that US did long before most other countries, something that many other countries still haven't caught up in.
Right now there happens to be some donkey-caves in the Whitehouse trying to ignore that particularly wonderful bit of US law, but so far it's been okay, they've been checked by the courts.
The Establishment Clause has NOT been applied. If it did, it would render a feth ton of existing immigration laws illegal. Once this hits the SCoTUS, expect the majority opinion writer to bitch slap the lower courts on this.
Furthermore, the current federal judge who placed a hold on the new EO even stated that the order is LEGAL. But, he's placing it on hold BECAUSE of what Trump said during the campaign.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/20 16:41:33
lonestarr777 wrote: You know Frazzled for a guy who goes off on crazy 'joke' tangents about killing people because they like cats or whatever to annoy you, like being from another state. You sure as gak can't take one. That glass house of yours is probably pretty close to falling in with all the rocks you huck.
Not relevant. Unless you're a radioactive mutie from New Mexico of course. ANd I never said Cat Lovers should be killed, just that they have no souls because they are hollow inside. I am not reporting the thread, I am noting how it is violating, and advise conservatives to stay off of it to avoid being gang tackled.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
NinthMusketeer wrote: In Not_Like_That's defense, Obama was a weak foreign policy president and hoping for a positive change in that from Trump had some rationality to it. Going on the assumption that his campaign trail behavior would not continue (as much) into the presidency then his foreign policy could have seemed desirable in some ways. Not_Like_That us admitting he was wrong about that critical assumption.
Do_I_Not_Like_That and I go way back on this issue. For a long time he's thought Clinton's more aggressive policy towards Russia was a mistake, and he favoured Trump's more conciliatory position. He's now recognising that his position was a mistake because Trump as shown he's incapable of any kind of coherent foreign policy. I'm giving him credit for volunteering his mistake, but saying our major point of difference is still there. Whether it was by Trump or anyone else, normalising relations with Russia would mean pretending they aren't complicit in atrocities in Syria, pretending they didn't occupy the Crimea or put troops in to Eastern Ukraine to destabilise the region.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: for instance, in Syria Russia has propped up a despotic regime, and worked with that regime in committing atrocities just to keep it in power, it would be a terrible mistake to ally with that regime
Oh, that's the kind of thing the US would never do! As shown by their historical record .
Wait is it against Rule #1 to rub in the fact that the US have historically been supporting quite a lot of terrible dictatorships? I should respect the feelings of US dakka members, and not call out the CIA on being a murderous organization that worked really hard against democracy outside of the US.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
whembly wrote: The Establishment Clause has NOT been applied. If it did, it would render a feth ton of existing immigration laws illegal. Once this hits the SCoTUS, expect the majority opinion writer to bitch slap the lower courts on this.
Oh come on. You linked to the verdict yourself, and yet somehow you have no idea that the Establishment Clause was the central reason for the ruling. I mean it's right there, bolded and undelined, the very first entry in discussing the likelihoo of the plaintiff succeeding in the case.
“The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). To determine whether the Executive Order runs afoul of that command, the Court is guided by the three-part test for Establishment Clause claims set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971). According to Lemon, government action (1) must have a primary secular purpose, (2) may not have the principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3) may not foster excessive entanglement with religion. Id. “Failure to satisfy any one of the three prongs of the Lemon test is sufficient to invalidate the challenged law or practice.” Newdow v. Rio Linda Union Sch. Dist., 597 F.3d 1007, 1076–77 (9th Cir. 2010). Because the Executive Order at issue here cannot survive the secular purpose prong, the Court does not reach the balance of the criteria.
Furthermore, the current federal judge who placed a hold on the new EO even stated that the order is LEGAL. But, he's placing it on hold BECAUSE of what Trump said during the campaign.
No, he didn't. He said "It is undisputed that the Executive Order does not facially discriminate for or against any particular religion", but then went on to clearly state that “It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.”
Now, as with all these threads I'm not going to state where the law must fall or where it must not. I am not a constitutional lawyer, and on top of that I've seen to many SC decisions fall along partisan lines to believe actual legal debate decides the most contentious issues. But I know enough to know that your description of the case was utterly wrong, and hopelessly partisan. And to learn that all I had to do was read the link you provided, and see how your claims had nothing to do with what was actually stated in the verdict.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
lonestarr777 wrote: You know Frazzled for a guy who goes off on crazy 'joke' tangents about killing people because they like cats or whatever to annoy you, like being from another state. You sure as gak can't take one. That glass house of yours is probably pretty close to falling in with all the rocks you huck.
Not relevant. Unless you're a radioactive mutie from New Mexico of course. ANd I never said Cat Lovers should be killed, just that they have no souls because they are hollow inside. I am not reporting the thread, I am noting how it is violating, and advise conservatives to stay off of it to avoid being gang tackled.
How does one get "gang tackled" on a forum? This is a place of bits and bytes. There's no corporeal bodies that can subjugate others by weight and numbers.
Are you saying people should avoid participating in a discussion thread if they happen to be in the minority? That kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: In Not_Like_That's defense, Obama was a weak foreign policy president and hoping for a positive change in that from Trump had some rationality to it. Going on the assumption that his campaign trail behavior would not continue (as much) into the presidency then his foreign policy could have seemed desirable in some ways. Not_Like_That us admitting he was wrong about that critical assumption.
Do_I_Not_Like_That and I go way back on this issue. For a long time he's thought Clinton's more aggressive policy towards Russia was a mistake, and he favoured Trump's more conciliatory position. He's now recognising that his position was a mistake because Trump as shown he's incapable of any kind of coherent foreign policy. I'm giving him credit for volunteering his mistake, but saying our major point of difference is still there. Whether it was by Trump or anyone else, normalising relations with Russia would mean pretending they aren't complicit in atrocities in Syria, pretending they didn't occupy the Crimea or put troops in to Eastern Ukraine to destabilise the region.
Ah, I misinterpreted. Thanks for the clarification.
d-usa wrote: Well, it would have to be up to the GOP to impeach Trump.
I don't think that the Dems are going to take over the House in 2018, the Senate maybe, but not the House. If they do take over the House it would be because Trump just managed to be the biggest train wreck in the history of the US, and if they take over the Senate they would win a majority, but there is no way that they would win the 67 seats needed for a partisan vote to convict Trump after the House impeaches.
If Trump stinks so bad that Democrats recapture the house and senate in 2018, then the last thing they'd want is to force Trump out of office. He'd be the biggest driver of Democratic turnout since the last Republican president.
We might still see an impeachment motion, because Democrats would be looking to force Republicans to deny it and attach themselves to a stinking presidential carcass.
I just had the mental image of Mitch Mcconnel floating in the ocean tied to Trump's bloated orange corpse as a float while the sharks of public opinion circle beneath him. It's a rather amusing image so thank you for that as well
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: [Oh, that's the kind of thing the US would never do! As shown by their historical record .
And this is the left's own version of whataboutism.
While the US has done its own share of fethed up stuff, that is a really, really gak reason to just start ignoring Russia's crimes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I just had the mental image of Mitch Mcconnel floating in the ocean tied to Trump's bloated orange corpse as a float while the sharks of public opinion circle beneath him. It's a rather amusing image so thank you for that as well
And now you've given me the image of Trump as that door from Titanic, with Ryan and McConnell trying to both balance on it and tipping off. I guess it's Ryan who ends up staying in the water, so that McConnell might live?
Anyhow, that image is my new favourite thing so I thank you greatly in return.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/20 17:13:45
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Now if Trump does somehow get impeached, Pence wouldn't be able to appoint any SCOTUS Justices, since voters get to have an input and nobody voted for Pence as POTUS.
Could we get a mod ruling on all these alleged violations of Rule #1? Without it, Frazzled will continue to use it as a way of derailing the thread and baiting people in to actually breaking the rule.
lonestarr777 wrote: You know Frazzled for a guy who goes off on crazy 'joke' tangents about killing people because they like cats or whatever to annoy you, like being from another state. You sure as gak can't take one. That glass house of yours is probably pretty close to falling in with all the rocks you huck.
Not relevant. Unless you're a radioactive mutie from New Mexico of course. ANd I never said Cat Lovers should be killed, just that they have no souls because they are hollow inside. I am not reporting the thread, I am noting how it is violating, and advise conservatives to stay off of it to avoid being gang tackled.
How does one get "gang tackled" on a forum? This is a place of bits and bytes. There's no corporeal bodies that can subjugate others by weight and numbers.
Are you saying people should avoid participating in a discussion thread if they happen to be in the minority? That kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it.
Yes I am saying that, unless one likes abuse. Thats why there aren't Democrats posting on Townhall or rightwingers on Slate/Salon.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Dreadwinter wrote: Could we get a mod ruling on all these alleged violations of Rule #1? Without it, Frazzled will continue to use it as a way of derailing the thread and baiting people in to actually breaking the rule.
I've just been reporting them for trolling as that is all they are.
sebster wrote: And this is the left's own version of whataboutism.
I'm not saying we should ally with Russia. It's just some things that are worth repeating quite a bit because some people tend to forget about them .
Beside wouldn't advocating alliance with Russia be more of a thing for the right rather than of the left atm?
But yeah, we definitely shouldn't ignore Russia's crime.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Did you just equate Dakka with Townhall and Slate?
Typical dog person equivocation.
Hey, you leave canines out of this.
Canines are tolerant of all, barring those in their yard without permission.
Personally, I've been exceedingly amused by the people in my life who are following this hearing with bated breath. They didn't have time for Clinton's testimony on Benghazi because "we already know what she'll lie about" or other nonsensical excuses, but suddenly they're all tuned in to C-Span watching intently.
whembly wrote: The Establishment Clause has NOT been applied. If it did, it would render a feth ton of existing immigration laws illegal. Once this hits the SCoTUS, expect the majority opinion writer to bitch slap the lower courts on this.
Oh come on. You linked to the verdict yourself, and yet somehow you have no idea that the Establishment Clause was the central reason for the ruling. I mean it's right there, bolded and undelined, the very first entry in discussing the likelihoo of the plaintiff succeeding in the case.
“The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). To determine whether the Executive Order runs afoul of that command, the Court is guided by the three-part test for Establishment Clause claims set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971). According to Lemon, government action (1) must have a primary secular purpose, (2) may not have the principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3) may not foster excessive entanglement with religion. Id. “Failure to satisfy any one of the three prongs of the Lemon test is sufficient to invalidate the challenged law or practice.” Newdow v. Rio Linda Union Sch. Dist., 597 F.3d 1007, 1076–77 (9th Cir. 2010). Because the Executive Order at issue here cannot survive the secular purpose prong, the Court does not reach the balance of the criteria.
That was the argument against the first EO where it issued priority to Christians from those areas.
The application to the Establishment Clause has generally been avoid at the SCoTUS level, as it's understood that Congress (and by delegation to Executive, the Potus) has the power to determine what/how immigration is conducted.
Furthermore, the current federal judge who placed a hold on the new EO even stated that the order is LEGAL. But, he's placing it on hold BECAUSE of what Trump said during the campaign.
No, he didn't. He said "It is undisputed that the Executive Order does not facially discriminate for or against any particular religion", but then went on to clearly state that “It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.”
That's where the argument will land in SCoTUS. On the one hand, the EO is legal based on existings laws that empowers the Potus and on the other, this judge ruling for an injunction by applying the Establishment doctrine.
Now, as with all these threads I'm not going to state where the law must fall or where it must not. I am not a constitutional lawyer, and on top of that I've seen to many SC decisions fall along partisan lines to believe actual legal debate decides the most contentious issues. But I know enough to know that your description of the case was utterly wrong, and hopelessly partisan. And to learn that all I had to do was read the link you provided, and see how your claims had nothing to do with what was actually stated in the verdict.
Just ask yourself this...
If the states can claim damages in this regard... why is it that states in New Mexico, Arizona and Texas get bitch slapped when they tried to sue the Feds over immigrations.
This is the conundrum... the various entities that favors immigrations are trying to have it both ways.
skyth wrote: I don't really think Obama was a weak foreign policy president. More of a case of most of his attention (rightfully) was devoted domestically. I can't recall any crisis's that went horribly sideways under his watch. There were small scale things that went sideways, but that's true under any president.
Libya certainly comes to mind as a foreign policy failure under Obama.
Did you just equate Dakka with Townhall and Slate?
Typical dog person equivocation.
Hey, you leave canines out of this.
Canines are tolerant of all, barring those in their yard without permission.
Personally, I've been exceedingly amused by the people in my life who are following this hearing with bated breath. They didn't have time for Clinton's testimony on Benghazi because "we already know what she'll lie about" or other nonsensical excuses, but suddenly they're all tuned in to C-Span watching intently.
Hey now, I love dogs! I'm just saying exclusively dog people are most likely soulless empty husks programmed solely for delivery of belly-rubs and bacon treats.
At least those of us with cats have the toxoplasma gondii to fill up all those empty spaces!
On topic, I like the string of rage-Trump-tweets this morning. Seriously. He's going to break his phone.
skyth wrote: I don't really think Obama was a weak foreign policy president. More of a case of most of his attention (rightfully) was devoted domestically. I can't recall any crisis's that went horribly sideways under his watch. There were small scale things that went sideways, but that's true under any president.
Libya certainly comes to mind as a foreign policy failure under Obama.
I'm not sure I would classify it that way. Had a more neutral outcome. They didn't like us before...they don't like us after. Status quo. And Libya is a very minor player on the international scene.
I'm sure we've been over how Libya was a French venture, followed by David Cameron, who the promised a quick and easy campaign or somesuch if the US would help.
Then what with us all being military friends you did.
Then it was Obama's fault.
Thanks Sarcozy
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/20 17:36:56
skyth wrote: I don't really think Obama was a weak foreign policy president. More of a case of most of his attention (rightfully) was devoted domestically. I can't recall any crisis's that went horribly sideways under his watch. There were small scale things that went sideways, but that's true under any president.
Libya certainly comes to mind as a foreign policy failure under Obama.
I'm not sure I would classify it that way. Had a more neutral outcome. They didn't like us before...they don't like us after. Status quo. And Libya is a very minor player on the international scene.
We bombed a sovereign nation, disposed their government and let them in shambles for spurious reasoning and no practical benefit to the US and it was all done by executive fiat without the consent of Congress.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I'm sure we've been over how Libya was a French venture, followed by David Cameron, who the promised a quick and easy campaign or somesuch if the US would help.
Then what with us all being military friends you did.
Then it was Obama's fault.
Thanks Sarcozy
It's not all Obama's fault, it's just his fault for letting himself and the US get suckered into doing the dirty work for the EU. It certainly hasn't netted any positive benefits for the US.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/20 17:39:44
.
