Well he is quite condescending
If you wan to Pit Der Trihs, open your own thread! 
Israel claims “Hamas’ strategy is simple: Use civilians as human shields. Fire rockets from residential areas. Store weapons in mosques. Hide in hospitals”. This would be reprehensible of Hamas if true, but is it true? I don’t know. But even if that charge is untrue, it does seem very clear that the tactics of anti-U.S. and anti-Israel terrorists make it very hard to fight them without “collateral damage.” I’m very glad that I’m not faced with the moral dilemmas that U.S. and Israeli leaders must face.
If a Doper claims that U.S. goes too far in defending itself from evil groups like al-Qaeda, I could respect the opinion while still doubting the Doper’s judgment. But that’s not what Condescending Robot does. Obsessing on one issue is bad enough, but he doesn’t even want to talk about that issue – he just prattles that everyone who voted for this evil bloodthirsty Kenyan is hypnotized into thinking he’s the “Emperor Jesus.” :smack: Nevermind that the other serious candidates for President would likely have followed similar policies.
My friendly advice to Mr. Condescending: You’ve made your point. Try to use less childish logic in future.
I’d managed to ignore Mr. Condescending until yesterday. In the other thread I mentioned that Obama had opposed the Iraq War but forgot to dot an “i” or cross a “t” – Mr. Condescending then needed to call me “idiotic” and worse. I clicked Find Posts and soon learned … why I’d been ignoring Mr. Condescending. 
To my mind, the fact that he wasn’t a Senator yet underlines the courage of his position. The safer option would have been to express some reservations but support the President like all good Americans etc. etc.
I haven’t the slightest doubt that Obama was running for President since he was 15. He put his ambitions at risk to do the right thing.
Let’s all sit at the grown-up table where people believe that all problems in the world will be solved by the “good guys” in the US military bombing the “bad guys” who live in other countries. Is it your version of nuanced maturity or a fucking GI Joe movie? Who can tell.
Barack Obama is not your friend. Barack Obama is not coming over to your house to watch Modern Family. Barack Obama is not a teen idol waiting to blow you a kiss from the stage. Barack Obama is the head of a military-industrial complex who orders the bombing of ambulances, weddings, and funerals. Get your head out of the goddamn clouds.
When people make posts like this, it makes me all the more convinced that Obama fanboys just have a huge psychological complex where their guy is so dreamy that they cannot stay moored in reality. That is what is meant when people accuse you of believing Obama is a religious figure.
You live in the US. You have a lot of freedoms that many people don’t have. You have a roof over your head, a full stomach and security. Quit your bellyaching.
I think you’re just one of those people who likes to complain about everything. You must be a riot at parties.
You may now go back to watching your daily dose of Alex Jones.
Even if the accusations against Obama are true, wouldn’t they be true of any modern president?
I don’t think my concern for the Pakistanis that are being murdered in my name is a trivial one, nor is your argument against caring about anything particularly convincing.
I have no truck with that anti-Semitic piece of shit lunatic, but it is amusing how the Obama fellators have to constantly assert that anyone who reports well-known, maintream-media-reported facts about where our bombs land in Pakistan and Afghanistan is a nutjob conspiracy theorist. Again, your assertion that Obama is unassailably perfect and that even discussing the possibility of his moral failures is a sign of psychosis only makes you look more like worshippers.
He is the only one who is the President now, and the only one who people that like to think of themselves as intelligent liberals give unquestioned adulation to. I could rail against George Bush or Bill Clinton if you want me to, but it seems kind of pointless in the year 2012.
Please don’t. No one wants to hear your complaining.
Not true as many liberals can tell you, and even I pointed out how he should get cracking on getting out of Afghanistan and disregard what the military is recommending we should continue to do there.
Well, no doubt some Americans will give the president, whoever it is at any given moment, unquestioned adulation, but that doesn’t strike me as particularly common here, let alone a fraction as common as your repeated accusations suggest, i.e. seemingly everyone who disagrees with you.
Well, simply recognizing reality doesn’t have to involve railing.
Unless you’re in the railroad business, where I assume railing is a daily duty.
I don’t know anyone who worships Obama. I know people who hold him in fairly high regards, but no one who doesn’t disagree with him on one point or another. He has a fellator, perhaps, but I would be willing to bet he married her. A sensible procedure.
But what the heck, lets elect CondeBot President, because of his awesome plan to get our troops out of the shitswamp of Afghanistan with a minimum of casualties. Which we have yet to hear, but I have every confidence is awesome.
But let me pose a dilemma: suppose that, in your best judgement, it is impossible to withdraw our troops safely without some “covering fire”. And that this “covering fire”, by the very nature of our ghastly predicament…entails the risk, even the certainty, of civilian casualties. Assuming, as always, our best intentions to avoid such as much as possible.
What then, President CondeBot? How many of ours will you sacrifice for how many of theirs? What method of retaliation can you employ that only kills the guilty? Smart shrapnel?
There are no good options, there are terrible options, really bad ones, and then just bad. The President’s job is to choose the bad one, or think of something nobody else thought of.
The Joint Chiefs are waiting, President CondeBot. How are we to proceed?
I mean, do you think the issue is physically covering the literal retreat of soldiers? I can’t tell what the fuck you’re talking about but given that you people seem to think that Obama was crusading against the Iraq war as a Senator, any reports of intentional targeting of civilians are conspiracy theories, and only Ayn Rand-worshipping Republicans believe that Obama is capable of violating human rights, I would not put any fundamental misunderstanding past you.
Whatever the answer is, I could easily argue that we could have withdrawn, safely, much faster than Obama proposes. We could have skipped the whole surge thing altogether and have had all our guys out now (4 years after Obama was elected). We did it in Iraq in a much shorter time period.
As for our condescending friend, you are simply making a fool of yourself. No one worships Obama here. Most of us are against at least some of his policies. I, for one, wish we had gotten out of Afghanistan a long time ago, and I do not support the drone attacks into Pakistan.
People are criticizing you not so much for what you are saying, but how you are saying. You are a raving lunatic. You make Der Trihs look like the soul of thoughtful discussion. No one wishes to engage with a shrill demagogue like you.
This isn’t dodgeball, nor bullfighting, you don’t get points for artful evasions.
Why are you so hung up on the safety of the actual, physical retreat of soldiers (something which Obama has already pledged will happen by 2014, for what it’s worth)? Are you under the impression this has fuck-all to do with anything?
There, there, Condescending Robot, we already know that the human trait known as humor can be impossible to understand by your kind. 
It’s not that. It’s just that if Obama (and Bush before him) were intentionally targeting civilians, why would they do that? What’s the angle? This isn’t WWII. We’re not carpet bombing cities.