Congratulations! In addition to the strawman, we now have an ad hominem argument. You have nothing of value to add to the discussion, so in order to derail it you attack the person who asked the question. Lack of intellectual curiosity indeed. Dude.
What was the debate supposed to be here?
I believe Jimmy was asserting that Barack Hussein Obama is the AntiChrist.
Whether a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia is a good thing, a rejection of the failed policies of the previous administration, or BOTH.
January 20, 2009, at one minute past noon.
When somebody says “What, of significance, did he accomplish? Anything?”, the phrasing strongly implies the subtext “I totally don’t think he accomplished anything.” If you were merely curious as to the events and agenda of his trip, you sure found a poor phrasing with with to state the question.
:rolleyes: No, no, he’s Hitler! Jeez!
Hitler is the pupal stage of the Anti-Christ. Eventually with the coming of spring, the Hitler will cocoon it self and then a beautiful Anti-Christ will emerge.
I *wasn’t *“curious as to the events and agenda of his trip”. I was curious if he actually accomplished anything, and if so what? It is a perfectly valid question.
If you think “questioning Obama” = “attacking Obama”, well… that speaks volumes to *your *mindset, not mine.
I considered the possiblity that you were actually asking that question, but then you posted:
Again, the phrasing here does not imply a great deal of satisfaction with the answer so far.
“Any ideas what the theme should be for the company picnic?”
“How about ‘naked women’!”
“OK… so far we have ‘naked women’. Are there any other ideas?”
Look, I suppose there’s a possibility that you’re just genuinely curious about the accomplishments of his trip - despite seeming uninterested in the given answers. If so, though, you seriously suck with regards to choice of words.
My foreigner’s take: he did what heads of state do. The Queen glad-hands it around the world, bringing smiles and giftoids, and doing some touchy-feely trade stuff, purely as a diplomatic gesture.
The fact that your founding fathers chose to make your head of state a powerful political, rather than token ceremonial, figure is your constitutional issue, but I’d say in this trip, even if Obama got no concessions from anyone, he still did (part of) his job. As did Bush, Clinton, et al. By expecting him to go in with political guns blazing, you’re raising the bar too high on this sort of thing. It’s just diplomacy.
I ask again. What did you actually want to debate?
Your OP, as well as your other posts in this thread, does not read like innocent requests for information (nor would it be the correct forum if that was your intent), but as passive-aggressive, insincere, provocative, snarky, partisan and smug.
Do you strongly object to those things?
Hard to believe, isn’t it? 
This is the liberal SOP. Blame the Conservatives by spinning your own failure into a GOP grand conspriacy.
Typical conservative attacking their foes by projecting their own weaknesses on them.
I, for one, can keep this up all day.
No. I just recognize that the question wasn’t a question.
So can I. So, let’s stop here and call it a draw. 
Can’t get anything by you…
I’m Patrick fucking Roy. Do you have any kind of a point? Do you even disagree with me about anything?