|
Goudin
Aug 27, 2013 15:55:51 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 27, 2013 15:55:51 GMT -5
Rog -- I would rank Jason's career ahead of Jonathan's. He's had far more longevity. Here's something that might shock you a bit though. At the end of May, 2011, Jonathan's career ERA was four-tenths of a run lower than Jason's
Allen- Not only more longevity, but if he can recover from an injury, still a viable ML pitcher, Jonathan is done. Better record, better ERA, far less talent.
Allen -- I guess I'm not "shrewd" enough to see 8-12, 4.24 as good.
Rog -- It WASN'T good, Allen; as I have long said, it was average. It's just that it wasn't POOR, as you said it was. Why do you continue to misrepresent my opinions here?
Allen- Average for Jonathan. And you have said good and average, almost alternatively. When I pointed out that he was damn poor through July, you got mad at me for chopping the season up, insisiting we look at it as a whole.
Allen -- In 11 of his starts, he gave up four earned runs or more, in 13 starts he went five innings or less.
Rog -- Yet you were apparently impressed with Barry Zito's 2012 season, since he went 15-8! Yet Barry also gave up four or more earned runs, and in 10 starts he went five innings or less.
Allen- I was impressed that Barry gave up three runs or less in seven of his last eight. He had a great April. Gave up three or less in 21 starts. When Barry is bad though, he's awful.
Allen -- Norris? Three good outings, three bad ones.
Rog -- In 17 of Jonathan's 32 outings in 2009, he yielded two or fewer earned runs.
Allen -- He took the loss when he came in to pitch in the 14th inning in AZ. He could easily be 3-0 for the O's. Actually Baltimore is 5-0 in games he has started.
Rog -- Believe me. Overall, Jonathan pitched better in 2009 than Bud has as an Oriole, although take away Bud's last outing, and he's been the better pitcher.
Allen- So he's had one bad outing. Can you say small sample size?
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 28, 2013 13:07:40 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 28, 2013 13:07:40 GMT -5
Allen -- I guess I'm not "shrewd" enough to see 8-12, 4.24 as good. Rog -- It WASN'T good, Allen; as I have long said, it was average. It's just that it wasn't POOR, as you said it was. Why do you continue to misrepresent my opinions here? Allen- Average for Jonathan. And you have said good and average, almost alternatively. Rog -- Wake up, Allen! Right after I ask you why you continually misrepresent my opinions, you do so again. We're talking here about Jonathan's 2009 season, which I have consistently said was average. I have said that Jonathan was good from his no-hitter through the end of May, 2011. If you can't accurately remember what I've said, how can we have a meaningful conversation? Allen -- When I pointed out that he was damn poor through July, you got mad at me for chopping the season up, insisiting we look at it as a whole. Rog -- I'll look at it any way you want. I agree that Jonathan was poor through July of that season. His ERA was 4.81. Perhap you might want to look at August and September, during which his ERA was 3.44. Overall in 2009, his ERA was 4.24, which was actually slightly better than average for a starting pitcher. In 2009, Jonathan had an average season. It is your analysis that is poor. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1973&page=3#ixzz2dHunliFl
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 28, 2013 13:16:14 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 28, 2013 13:16:14 GMT -5
Rog -- Believe me. Overall, Jonathan pitched better in 2009 than Bud has as an Oriole, although take away Bud's last outing, and he's been the better pitcher. Allen- So he's had one bad outing. Can you say small sample size? Rog -- Get with it, Allen. I said that Jonathan was a better pitcher in 2009 than Bud has been so far with the Orioles. I'm not saying Bud won't be better by the end of the season. In fact, I said that if we take out Bud's most recent outing, he HAS been better than Jonathan in 2009. In this context, sample size means very little. If Bud's ERA were 3.00 in his six performances with the Orioles, and I said he had been a better pitcher for Baltimore than Jonathan was in 2009, would sample size matter with regard to whether the statement was accurate or not? I didn't say Jonathan was a better pitcher than Bud over their respective careers. He wasn't. What I said was that Jonathan in 2009 was better than Bud has been as an Oriole overall. That statement is true. Jonathan wins the ERA battle 4.24 to 5.53, and he had a 1.365 WHIP compared to Bud's 1.735. In fact, pretty much all the statements I have made here are true. You seem to feel the need to alter them in order to make it seem that they AREN'T true. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=3#ixzz2dHwvTjM1
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 28, 2013 13:20:52 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 28, 2013 13:20:52 GMT -5
Rog -- Get with it, Allen. I said that Jonathan was a better pitcher in 2009 than Bud has been so far with the Orioles. I'm not saying Bud won't be better by the end of the season. In fact, I said that if we take out Bud's most recent outing, he HAS been better than Jonathan in 2009.
In this context, sample size means very little.
Allen- Translation: It means very little because it goes against your argument. How does sample size mean very little when your basing your entire argument on one outing?
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 28, 2013 13:44:46 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 28, 2013 13:44:46 GMT -5
Rog -- Yet you were apparently impressed with Barry Zito's 2012 season, since he went 15-8! Yet Barry also gave up four or more earned runs, and in 10 starts he went five innings or less. Allen- I was impressed that Barry gave up three runs or less in seven of his last eight. Rog -- Of course. Me too. I remember listening on the way home from Squaw Valley to his August 29th start. He gave up only three runs -- but in just 2.1 innings. He was awful in that start. But over his last eight starts, he was good. In fact, his 3.33 ERA in those final 8 games of 2012 was nearly as good as Jonathan Sanchez's 3.23 ERA from his no-hitter in 2009 through the end of May, 2011. Now do you see why I said Jonathan was good over that timeframe, as compared to his being average over the 2009 season? Allen -- He had a great April. Rog -- Absolutely. Allen -- Gave up three or less in 21 starts. Rog -- Yes, he did. Just as Jonathan Sanchez gave up three earned runs or fewer in 21 starts in Jonathan's "poor" 2009 season. Allen -- When Barry is bad though, he's awful. Rog -- In fact, that might be the primary reason Barry's career ERA as a Giant is 4.62 compared to Jonathan's 4.26. Despite his awful struggles of late, Barry hasn't been HORRIBLE as a Giant. He was actually decent in 2007, 2009, 2010 and last season. Including a tough start to 2009 and his own atrocious struggles after May of 2011, Jonathan's Giants ERA from 2009 through 2011 was 3.75. He was poor in 2009 up until his no-hitter, very good from the no-hitter through the end of May, 2011 -- and HORRIBLE the rest of his Giants career. On balance, he was an above-average pitcher from 2009 through 2011 -- and CLEARLY above average compared to his fellow starters during that time. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=3#ixzz2dHzI2Vhy
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 28, 2013 13:50:08 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 28, 2013 13:50:08 GMT -5
Rog -- Get with it, Allen. I said that Jonathan was a better pitcher in 2009 than Bud has been so far with the Orioles. I'm not saying Bud won't be better by the end of the season. In fact, I said that if we take out Bud's most recent outing, he HAS been better than Jonathan in 2009. In this context, sample size means very little. Allen- Translation: It means very little because it goes against your argument. Rog -- Please allow me to translate. In the context of whether Jonathan was a better pitcher in 2009 than Bud has been this season, a six-game sample would have very little meaning. In the context of whether than Jonathan pitched better in 2009 than Bud has pitched WITH THE ORIOLES, Bud's six-game sample with the Orioles means everything. If you want to compare Jonathan's 2009 season to Bud's 2013 season with the Astros, I'll take Bud. If you want to compare Jonathan's 2009 season with Bud's 2013 season with the Orioles, I'll take Jonathan. And if you want to compare their seasons as a whole, I'd say it's darn close. In fact -- get this -- Jonathan's 4.24 ERA in 2009 is almost identical to Bud's 4.22 this year. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=3#ixzz2dI6Ik5kp
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 28, 2013 13:57:50 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 28, 2013 13:57:50 GMT -5
Apparently Bud Norris had experienced a "poor" season this year, just as Jonathan Sanchez did in 2009.
In fact, Jonathan's 1.365 WHIP clearly trumps Bud's 1.471. Jonathan's 9.5 K/9 eat up Bud's 6.9, and his 7.4 hits easily outshine Bud's 9.9. Bud wins the walk battle easily, 3.3 to 4.8. Bud's 0.9 HR/9 outpaces Jonathan's 1.0. And of course, Bud 9-10 won loss record trumps Jonathan's 8-12 -- although that seems mostly due to Bud's run support being half a run higher than Jonathan's.
The more we talk, Allen, the less your opinions seem to fit together.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 28, 2013 17:20:49 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 28, 2013 17:20:49 GMT -5
Bud Norris goes for his tenth win tonight, a feat Sanchez achieved just once in his career. What's Jonathan Sanchez going for tonight? The mail? Beer? I certainly wouldn't say Norris has had a big year this year. He spent a good part of it pitching for what is probably the worst team in baseball, and all of it pitching in extremely hitter friendly parks. Sanchez on the other hand spent alot of his time pitching for a good club in a very spacious park.Jonathan did strike out alot of hitters, and didn't give up many hits, yet still managed to lose a large percentage of the time.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 28, 2013 18:11:21 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 28, 2013 18:11:21 GMT -5
Allen -- Bud Norris goes for his tenth win tonight, a feat Sanchez achieved just once in his career. What's Jonathan Sanchez going for tonight? The mail? Beer? Rog -- None of which helps us in comparing Jonathan's 2009 season with Bud's 2013 year. Allen -- I certainly wouldn't say Norris has had a big year this year. He spent a good part of it pitching for what is probably the worst team in baseball, and all of it pitching in extremely hitter friendly parks. Sanchez on the other hand spent alot of his time pitching for a good club in a very spacious park. Rog -- On a park-adjusted basis compared to league average ERA, Jonathan had an ERA+ of 100 (smack dab on average), while Bud's is 97, or just below average. Allen -- Jonathan did strike out alot of hitters, and didn't give up many hits, yet still managed to lose a large percentage of the time. Rog -- Having half an additional run of support will do that. Jonathan's run support was 0.86 runs below league average, while Bud's has been 0.07 runs above. If anything, it is Bud's record we would expect to be perhaps 10-9 instead of 9-10, although that's not really enough of a variance to worry about. The biggest advantage Bud this season has over Jonathan in 2009 is that he has averaged over half an inning more than Jonathan per outing. Let's just say that when all the figures are put together, they're pretty close. Certainly not disparate enough for Jonathan to be ranked "poor" (which he wasn't) and Bud average (which he has been). Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=3#14433#ixzz2dJ8RpQ5x
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 29, 2013 0:34:15 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 29, 2013 0:34:15 GMT -5
Allen -- Jonathan did strike out alot of hitters, and didn't give up many hits, yet still managed to lose a large percentage of the time.
Rog -- Having half an additional run of support will do that.
Allen- Will do what? Cause him to lose large percentage of the time? How many games did Sanchez lose by half a run?
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 29, 2013 9:17:40 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 29, 2013 9:17:40 GMT -5
Allen -- Jonathan did strike out alot of hitters, and didn't give up many hits, yet still managed to lose a large percentage of the time. Rog -- Having half an additional run of support will do that. Allen- Will do what? Cause him to lose large percentage of the time? Rog -- Perhaps you might have copied the entire paragraph, which said "Having half an additional run of support will do that. Jonathan's run support was 0.86 runs below league average, while Bud's has been 0.07 runs above. If anything, it is Bud's record we would expect to be perhaps 10-9 instead of 9-10, although that's not really enough of a variance to worry about. I could have worded this more clearly, but if you had been following the thread very closely, you would know that Bud's run support has been 4.12, while Jonathan's was 3.63 in 2009. So, yes, half a run DOES make a significant difference in won-loss record. Allen -- How many games did Sanchez lose by half a run? Rog -- I hope you were joking, since that would be one of the more foolish questions ever asked here. An extra half run per nine innings would have meant 10 extra runs for Jonathan on the season. In 5 of his 12 losses, he left trailing by only one run. Had he received those extra runs two at a time in each of those 5 games, he could have wound up with a 13-7 record instead of 8-12. Often the margin between winning and losing is slim. That's why run support makes such a difference. I said I would drop this topic, so I'd better do so. Let me just summarize by saying that on this topic -- and I'm referring to this topic only -- you appear to have dropped 40 IQ points. Your point of view is embarassing. It is perhaps the worst since you said that a game between two rivals didn't mean a two-game swing between the two teams, but rather only one. I believe you to be an intelligent man, Allen, but sometimes you say the DUMBEST things. By the way -- and this is indeed my final word on the subject (I hope !) -- you never did explain how run differential so clearly correlated with the won-loss records of Jonathan and the four closest ERA pitchers around him. Nor did you ever explain how pitchers' won-loss records correlate so closely with the formula for determining won-loss records. In other words, you keep arguing a point of view without addressing two of the major arguments against it. I am shocked that a man of your intelligence would continue to do so. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=3#14440#ixzz2dMls8tN7
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 29, 2013 12:45:42 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 29, 2013 12:45:42 GMT -5
Rog, trying to make your point by making denegrating statements about the person you're arguing with only points to the weakness of your argument. It's a standard liberal trick, often used here by Don. It's weak. If Sanchez's problem was run support, he'd probably still be pitching. Teams are dying for left handers with a pulse. Sanchez's problem was simply that he was a lousy pitcher (at least by ML standards). All the would'ves and could'ves and other apologist crap isn't going to change that. About the other thing. You win, the team ahead of you loses, you pick up one game. Simple math.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Aug 29, 2013 14:40:26 GMT -5
"Standard liberal trick!" LOL. Considering the "respect" you have for liberals, isn't this worse name calling than Rog is doing?
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 29, 2013 14:55:24 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 29, 2013 14:55:24 GMT -5
It's just a fact, Mark. It's what they do. If they can't argue the issue, they simply denegrate the person they're arguing with. Like Obama calling Republicans "flat earthers". Maher and his name calling of Palin. It's also a popular tactic with grade-schoolers.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 29, 2013 16:06:47 GMT -5
Post by dk on Aug 29, 2013 16:06:47 GMT -5
It's just a fact, Mark. It's what they do. If they can't argue the issue, they simply denegrate the person they're arguing with. Like Obama calling Republicans "flat earthers". Maher and his name calling of Palin. It's also a popular tactic with grade-schoolers dk the only time the name calling comes out is when people refuse to drop the tea party lie of the week even though they are shown the truth...let's hear some more about cap and trade..the Export Import Bank costing American jobs,etc., etc....
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Aug 29, 2013 16:26:50 GMT -5
That's pretty sad for us liberals, Allen, because conservatives certainly don't name call!
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 29, 2013 19:50:19 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 29, 2013 19:50:19 GMT -5
All true, Don. Almost every decision Obama has made goes against the interest of working Americans. Obamacare is more of the same. Businesses won't hire, hours will be cut. Then we can talk about his hopeless bungling of the situation in Syria. The man has no idea what he's doing, especially concerning foreign policy. I wouldn't call myself conservative or liberal, but I watch alot of Fox, (and the other networks too) and you just don't get the juvenile crap you get from people like Maher, Letterman, Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, and the like.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 30, 2013 0:26:54 GMT -5
Post by dk on Aug 30, 2013 0:26:54 GMT -5
All true, Don. Almost every decision Obama has made goes against the interest of working Americans. Obamacare is more of the same. Businesses won't hire, hours will be cut. Then we can talk about his hopeless bungling of the situation in Syria. The man has no idea what he's doing, especially concerning foreign policy. I wouldn't call myself conservative or liberal, but I watch alot of Fox, (and the other networks too) and you just don't get the juvenile crap you get from people like Maher, Letterman, Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, and the like dk...Allen, you have to be dimwitted or a liar if you don't know that the biggest reason we have any problem with jobs, etc. is because the Right is so full of greed they say no to anything Obama proposes...the worse spending problem the country has is medical cost...everyone admits and thinks something has to be done, but the Right don't want to get Obama any credit...for gosh sakes, man, Obama care is a Republican idea..the jobs bill was stopped in congress and roads and bridges are rotting away in most of the country...come down to Southern CCl and you see money at work replacing bridges and widening freeways......and what would y ou do in Syria...I hope they stay out. but if they go in with troops, declare war, put the country on WWII footing..draft, ration fuel, and tax increases for mall....
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Aug 30, 2013 9:52:51 GMT -5
The only political comment I'll make here is that I think it's hilarious that the Republicans, who have always been the hawkish party, will now be the party that opposes war because Obama wants to intervene in Syria. I can just see Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney holding hands with Yoko Ono and singing "All we are saying, is give peace of chance!" The same party that invaded Iraq because of imagined weapons of mass destruction will now oppose intervention in a country that clearly not only has them, but uses them! Hypocrites! My own opinion is that we should stay out of this civil war. This country can no longer afford to be the world's policemen and it shouldn't intervene in a Civil War no matter how reprehensible the tyrant is if he's not a direct threat to us. We need to take care of all the problems we have here.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 30, 2013 11:39:09 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 30, 2013 11:39:09 GMT -5
dk...Allen, you have to be dimwitted or a liar if you don't know that the biggest reason we have any problem with jobs, etc. is because the Right is so full of greed they say no to anything Obama proposes.
Allen- Representatives, be they Dems or Republicans, are elected to represent their constituency. If the President proposes something that will adversely affect said constituency, it's their job to defeat it if they can. Obama's vision is not good for America. We've seen that in the five or so years of his Presidency. He's toxic.
..the worse spending problem the country has is medical cost...everyone admits and thinks something has to be done, but the Right don't want to get Obama any credit.
Allen- Actually the worse spending problems we face our entitlements and govt. waste, both of which have exploded under Obama. Healthcare does need reform, but Obamacare ain't it. Even the Dems are running from it now, the unions don't want it, the people who voted for it sure don't want it for their healthcare. Obama himself has realized that it's garbage and is trying to delay it until after the midterm elections. Heck, i believe even Dem sycophant Harry Reid called it a trainwreck. Give Obama credit for what, exactly? That he used unethical means to get a bill passed that's unworkable, prohibitively expensive, and which almost nobody wants? A bill that's so full of hidden taxes (21 of them) and lies (you can keep your own healthcare if you want to... yeah, sure) that you know no one, Obama included, took the time to read it?
..for gosh sakes, man, Obama care is a Republican idea..the jobs bill was stopped in congress and roads and bridges are rotting away in most of the country...come down to Southern CCl and you see money at work replacing bridges and widening freeways. Allen- What's CCl?
.....and what would y ou do in Syria...I hope they stay out. but if they go in with troops, declare war, put the country on WWII footing..draft, ration fuel, and tax increases for mall
Allen- I didn't run for President. But they say don't pull a gun if you're not prepared to use it. Obama should have kept his mouth shut about "red lines" if he had no intention of enforcing them. Now he shot his mouth off (no pun intended) and he finds himself in an untenable position, one he has no freakin' idea how to deal with. He seems to be contemplating firing off a few missles in Syria's direction so he can save face, and check the box that he did something. He has no real plan, no endgame in mind, no allies at his side, and no idea of how what he wants to do will serve American interests. He's long ago lost all credibility when it comes to foreign policy, and the US is seen as a paper tiger with a feckless buffoon at the helm.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 30, 2013 11:50:41 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 30, 2013 11:50:41 GMT -5
The only political comment I'll make here is that I think it's hilarious that the Republicans, who have always been the hawkish party, will now be the party that opposes war because Obama wants to intervene in Syria. I can just see Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney holding hands with Yoko Ono and singing "All we are saying, is give peace of chance!" The same party that invaded Iraq because of imagined weapons of mass destruction will now oppose intervention in a country that clearly not only has them, but uses them! Hypocrites! My own opinion is that we should stay out of this civil war. This country can no longer afford to be the world's policemen and it shouldn't intervene in a Civil War no matter how reprehensible the tyrant is if he's not a direct threat to us. We need to take care of all the problems we have here
Allen- I'm not sure that's exactly what's happening Mark, though I have no idea about what Rush or Cheney have said about it. What I'm hearing people on the right saying (and many on the left too, for that matter) is that if we're going to go in, have a freakin' plan, some idea about what you're going to do, what you're hoping to accomplish, how you're going to accomplish it, and what you expect to happen after you accomplish it. What Obama is contemplating (from what I've heard) is firing a few warning shots in the air so he can say he did something. It won't accomplish anything, other than waste money, piss everyone off, and show that the US is basically a paper tiger. I agree with you about the "world's policeman" thing. This administration has put us in such a financial hole that we can no longer afford to do that. But we've set ourselves up as that, and it's kind of hard to turn back on it now.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 30, 2013 11:58:23 GMT -5
Post by dk on Aug 30, 2013 11:58:23 GMT -5
the first statement loses you all creditability. This is a Republic, we elect our leaders to vote what they think is best for the Country...if their constituency doesn't like it, they vote him/her out of office....you are so wrong on the rest of your comments that it is a waste of time to discuss it...
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 31, 2013 10:43:35 GMT -5
Post by rxmeister on Aug 31, 2013 10:43:35 GMT -5
Syria has killed innocents with their chemical weapons, and now we're going to drop bombs on them and....kill innocents. The whole thing just makes no sense.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 31, 2013 11:05:53 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 31, 2013 11:05:53 GMT -5
Not an easy problem. Certainly no easy solutions. President Dithers probably should have acted long before this, instead of giving us the "red line" BS.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 31, 2013 11:52:25 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 31, 2013 11:52:25 GMT -5
They knew Syria had the chemical weapons because they were told by numerous sources that they were taken out of Iraq during the invasion. I think its quite clear why the Democrats didn't want to follow up on that.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 31, 2013 13:08:37 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 31, 2013 13:08:37 GMT -5
Now Obama wants to run it by Congress. Evidently someone showed him the Constitution, or showed him his speech when he was running in 2008. Problem is, Congress won't be back until Sept. 9th. They can't be called back early? What if Asaad releases another chemical strike or two in the meantime? And what's with coming out and telling the enemy exactly what they're going to do? These people want to use the DOJ to go after leakers, they should start with themselves. Syria will simply move stuff around and avoid where we're going to strike.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 31, 2013 14:43:18 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 31, 2013 14:43:18 GMT -5
I'm not sure whats more of a contradiction, the President's speech in the rose garden, or your last post. How can you keep it a secret AND run it by congress?
I'm shocked after Kerry's speech yesterday that Obama would back off so abruptly. He doesn't have to run this by congress. 1400 innocent people died due to a WMD, the president doesn't need approval to send a quick and affective strike to military targets. Furthermore the idiot Republicans like Mich McConnell act like this is a victory. How is America becoming weak in the middle east a victory? We got members of congress and our President using the death of 1400 people to play political games. Ronald Regan is rolling in his grave, and I just became an independent.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 31, 2013 17:24:15 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 31, 2013 17:24:15 GMT -5
Depend on Congress to keep the secret If they leak it, prosecute the leaker.
The more you think about it, the more you wonder just what Obama's trying to accomplish. It's almost as if he thinks if he can stall this until Sept. 9th, it will all just go away. Maybe he thinks the liberal media will throw some other kind of distraction out there to get attention away from Syria. It seems more like that he just doesn't have any idea what to do, so for as long as possible, he'll do nothing. America being weak in the Middle East? That ship sailed long ago. The leaders in the Middle East saw through Obama long ago. They know Obama has no idea what he's doing and is surrounded by people who are nearly as incompetent as he is. Samantha Power? Susan Rice? Hillary Clinton? Please! Again Obama always has his finger in the air, trying to figure which way the political wind is blowing. He doesn't have the spine to stand up and do the right thing, without worrying about the polls or public opinion. Maybe he just doesn't know what the right thing is. One thing he is sure of, it's always a good time for golf. He headed for the links after his Rose Garden speech.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Aug 31, 2013 19:45:46 GMT -5
What's the right thing to do, Allen? Your position is quite clear. Anything Obama does or doesn't do is wrong. If he acted quickly you would have said you wanted him to wait and make an informed decision. Exactly what is wrong with "seeing which way the political wind is blowing?" I vote for people to represent me. If the people that elected him don't want war, and Congress doesn't want war, and our allies don't want war, shouldn't that influence his opinion? Sounds like you want another cowboy in the White House who defies the world and stupidly charges into the wrong situation at the wrong time.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 1, 2013 10:12:26 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 1, 2013 10:12:26 GMT -5
Almost anything he does will be wrong. It's that kind of situation. The right thing to do morally is to take Asaad out, just as Bush did with Saddam. The guy's an evil dictator who's gassing his own people. However, what happens then? Do the rebels, who are peppered with Al Qaeda, take over. Does it lead to a protracted war, which we don't want and can ill afford? Do we even have the military means and intelligence savvy to get to Asaad? Thing is, Obama should never have made that statement about a "red line" if he had no intention of backing it up. It made him look like an ineffective, dithering fool, shredded what little credibility he had left, and made the country look bad as well. Then he should have seen this coming, (or at least the possibility of it) and started coalition building in advance, like about a year ago. Perhaps if Asaad knew that there would be several countries on his a** if he tried this rather than just a feckless America, he might have been deterred. Cutting the size of our military probably wasn't the best idea either. There's a war coming in this region, and there's no avoiding it. I think any fool can see that. With Iran developing nukes, the problems in Syria, Al Qaeda (who Obama thinks is on the ropes) building up in Iraq, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere, war is coming. It's a bad situation, but Obama's foreign policy of benign neglect isn't the way to deal with it. His idea seems to be to kick the can down the road and hope the problem can be postponed until he's out of office, or at least until he can get his puppet media to distract the masses with some insignificant issue like voter ID laws, Trayvon Martin or such. I guess your last sentence refers to Bush and Iraq. How exactly did he "defy the world" we had like 50 allies in our quest. There's never a good time to go to war, but sometimes it has to be done. And we deposed a dictator who, like Asaad, was gassing, killing, and torturing thousands upon thousands of people. Were we supposed to just stand by and let that happen, as we are doing now?
|
|