Obama, no change in strategy

[jazyd]

Obama said today at his news conference there will be no change in his strategy to fight Isis because it's working. No reason to not allow refugees in from Syria. Was very defensive to reporters on what he is doing

I think he is still on wacky weed

[suncat05]

He might be the President of the United States of America, but there is zero doubt in my mind that he hates America & Americans, and that in reality he & everyone in his administration are true enemies of our country.

[Catonahottinroof]

Agaiin, committed to political ideology rather than doing the right thing..

[dan_bgblue]

"It is not just my view but the view of my closest military and civilian advisers that that would be a mistake," Obama said, adding that's "because we would see a repetition of what we've seen before, which is if you do not have local populations that are committed to inclusive governance and who are pushing back against ideological extremes, that they resurface, unless we're prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries."

I do think this is a very valid point.

[suncat05]

Arm the Kurds, train them up, give them logistical and air support, and they can defeat ISIS. Zero doubt in my mind about that. And somewhere along the way some of the Christians in the middle east will join the fight too, and ISIS will be decimated to the point where they will be impotent and irrelevant.
It can be done. The political will and intestinal fortitude to do so must exist and be exercised. But none of that will happen under this current Communist & Muslim sympathizer administration.

[dan_bgblue]

A plethora of opinions on what to do and how to do it (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/opinions/defeating-isis-roundup/index.html)

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/europe/paris-attacks-belgium-molenbeek/index.html

[jazyd]

"It is not just my view but the view of my closest military and civilian advisers that that would be a mistake," Obama said, adding that's "because we would see a repetition of what we've seen before, which is if you do not have local populations that are committed to inclusive governance and who are pushing back against ideological extremes, that they resurface, unless we're prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries."

I do think this is a very valid point.

Dan, I understand, however. If those locals see NO help from the US and with their pitiful weapons, it would suicide for them to even try to fight back. Look how many of their families have been slaughtered, beheaded, rape their women and children. And they knew we were not going to do anything other than an occasional drone strike or a few bombs. They did what they had to do to survive and yes so e of the young boys joined

Had we unleashed what we are capable of, armed the Kurds with that $500,000 million we spent on 50 Syrian rebels I believe things would be different

Nor do I believe Obamas military gave him that advice except for the ones who are yes sir men wanting a promotion or to keep from being demoted and kicked out.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

He might be the President of the United States of America, but there is zero doubt in my mind that he hates America & Americans, and that in reality he & everyone in his administration are true enemies of our country.

This is about as big as in idiotic statement as it can get and insulting too. There is no one that seeks the office of President that doesn't have a deep love of their country and an immense desire to make it a more perfect union. NOBODY. It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum for which you sit. You basically sacrifice the privacy of your and your families life for the rest of your and their lives.

Disagree or dislike all you want, but when anybody makes statements like this, there's just too many words to describe how crazy, or just sad, that is.




Arm the Kurds, train them up, give them logistical and air support, and they can defeat ISIS. Zero doubt in my mind about that. And somewhere along the way some of the Christians in the middle east will join the fight too, and ISIS will be decimated to the point where they will be impotent and irrelevant.
It can be done. The political will and intestinal fortitude to do so must exist and be exercised. But none of that will happen under this current Communist & Muslim sympathizer administration.

ISIS, Al Qaeda, what ever you want to call them, can't be defeated. It's the same as saying that you can defeat crime. There will always be people that will want to kill in the name of religion, or any other reason, that has means to assemble, fund themselves exert influence and recruit that will need to be dealt with, for the rest of humanity.

It's crazy to think that any one country, one president, one policy can eliminate evil. It's all about how you contain evil. Every President will have to deal with it. As long as Democracy thrives, there will be people that want to take it down. There is ZERO doubt in my mind about that.

You don't have the answers, I don't have the answers and many people above our pay grades with actual inside information don't have the answers either. They never will. There will never be consensus, unless we're attacked, which is almost a certainty that will happen again one day.

I hate how divisive this country has become. More people would rather blame those that don't see things their way instead of accepting that the world is a dangerous place with risk of anything happening at a given time and work together to actually solve problems that have solutions, even if they don't work, for which we need to be ready for those outcomes to.

[Doc]

He deeply believes his strategy is working and is willing to accept this type of causality. Such acts are just demonstrations like Ferguson, Baltimore, UMizzou, "occupy wall street" etc. taken to the next level. I have little doubt he sees them as acceptable losses so that the oppressed can express their displeasure. His core beliefs is that violence is an acceptable way to right what you feel is wrong. His circle of friends includes people who have carried out terrorism in this country and he sees that as an acceptable method of change. He has endorsed it in the past and in the present, so why would why he find such act as horrific as most people?

[CitizenBBN]

Dan, nothing wrong with permanent occupation, the trick is who is doing the actual occupying.

The way it has worked best in the past is to set up a local regime that can keep things in check, they become the occupying force and we support them with arms and money.

So in Egypt we need to back the military, who have maintained order there for decades. In Syria we needed to cut a deal with Assad long ago. In Iraq we could have put the Baathists back in charge, just not Saddam.

It's cold blooded, but the truth is that not everyone is ready for the rule of law and individual equality and the democratic systems that come with that belief system. ideally we find regimes that aren't more repressive than is necessary, like in Egypt.

That's been the mistake all along. We're trying to install the rule of law and basic equality at the point of a gun on societies that don't believe in the rule of law or that people are basically equal.

[Catonahottinroof]

I could agree with you to a point Stu, but ISIS isn't just a bunch of individuals in a cave in Pakistan as Al Qaeda was. They control a large portion of land with income from oil fields they control. It's a de facto State. They also can buy, steal and apportion arms where and to whom they choose. To me, you need to stop their funding via oil sales and stop their communication via Internet and they will die as an entity.



ISIS, Al Qaeda, what ever you want to call them, can't be defeated. It's the same as saying that you can defeat crime. There will always be people that will want to kill in the name of religion, or any other reason, that has means to assemble, fund themselves exert influence and recruit that will need to be dealt with, for the rest of humanity.

It's crazy to think that any one country, one president, one policy can eliminate evil. It's all about how you contain evil. Every President will have to deal with it. As long as Democracy thrives, there will be people that want to take it down. There is ZERO doubt in my mind about that.

You don't have the answers, I don't have the answers and many people above our pay grades with actual inside information don't have the answers either. They never will. There will never be consensus, unless we're attacked, which is almost a certainty that will happen again one day.

I hate how divisive this country has become. More people would rather blame those that don't see things their way instead of accepting that the world is a dangerous place with risk of anything happening at a given time and work together to actually solve problems that have solutions, even if they don't work, for which we need to be ready for those outcomes to.

[dan_bgblue]

CBBN, I completely agree with you. The US has done a lot of just that in the past and in some cases it worked fine and in others, well in others the warlord sheep herders reared their ugly heads and we cut bait instead of fixing the problem.

[CitizenBBN]

It has its failures as well as successes, but you're living on borrowed time. The sands shift a lot, but the alternative of hoping these areas suddenly embrace a western ideal that they simply don't accept, is an even worse course of action.

The problem is that most of these leaders become megalomaniacal loonies themselves. If we can keep regimes from becoming like that, like Egypt, then things work pretty well. But Egypt has long been more stable than much of the region.

So when you get a Shah of Iran or a Saddam you have to replace them if at all possible before it blows up. it's a cold, calculated, and honestly very un-American approach, but Real Politik has shown to be the most effective approach overall even with it not being anything how we'd LIKE to behave, b/c the world isn't the way we'd like it to be.

[jazyd]

He might be the President of the United States of America, but there is zero doubt in my mind that he hates America & Americans, and that in reality he & everyone in his administration are true enemies of our country.

You know you are correct but there are those who think you are crazy and they ard the ones who vote for nuts like Obama, believe his sch tick, and will accept what Isis is going to do to us rather than fight back and decimate their asses. Isis loves those people and so does the Obamas of the world

Anyone, president or not, who refuses to acknowledge dead soldiers or call a murdering Muslim a terrorist does not love this country. Who packs his clothes for a Vegas trip while our consulate is burned and 4 of our men are murdered and Obama never so es to the situation room or confers eith his SEC of defense does not love this country

[kingcat]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34836030

This is the type of ongoing operation that goes unnoticed here. It's
much easier to declare we dropped m-80's on a Tonka truck factory. and continue to bash our country.
Sorry, it doesn't make for good ole' War TV

[kingcat]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34836030

This is the type of ongoing operation that goes unnoticed here. It's
much easier to declare we dropped m-80's on a Tonka truck factory. and continue to bash our country.
Sorry, it doesn't make for good ole' War TV

[suncat05]

The first rule of U.S. military doctrine is to destroy enemy communications, supply & logistics, equipment & materials, and their personnel.
We are not doing this in a precise, well thought out, and evenly calculated manner. And what we are doing isn't getting the job done.

[suncat05]

Stu, we are just going to have to agree that we disagree on this.
I know what I see when I see it. And this president's actions speak volumes of his disdain and disrespect towards America & Americans. And you can say I'm wrong until hell freezes over, but again, I know what I see when I see it.

Maybe someday you will see it. I just hope that by then it is not too late.

[Doc]

ISIS, Al Qaeda, what ever you want to call them, can't be defeated. It's the same as saying that you can defeat crime. There will always be people that will want to kill in the name of religion, or any other reason, that has means to assemble, fund themselves exert influence and recruit that will need to be dealt with, for the rest of humanity.

It's crazy to think that any one country, one president, one policy can eliminate evil. It's all about how you contain evil. Every President will have to deal with it. As long as Democracy thrives, there will be people that want to take it down. There is ZERO doubt in my mind about that.

You don't have the answers, I don't have the answers and many people above our pay grades with actual inside information don't have the answers either. They never will. There will never be consensus, unless we're attacked, which is almost a certainty that will happen again one day.

I hate how divisive this country has become. More people would rather blame those that don't see things their way instead of accepting that the world is a dangerous place with risk of anything happening at a given time and work together to actually solve problems that have solutions, even if they don't work, for which we need to be ready for those outcomes to.

I agree with this. There will always be a threat and always be evil that wants to destroy this country. Part of keeping us safe means acknowledging and recognizing who they are and defining them. Unfortunately I don't believe we have a President and advisers who are willing or able to do that. However for me, I can live with that. He (and she-as in Hilary) doesn't want to recognize that its radical Muslims that want to destroy us, fine. They can't say those words, so be it. However they do need to realize the threat is real, that it actually exists and why it exist. Its not because of some stupid video, or a handful of people, or because of some other fabricated crap. These murdering SOB's are also a very real threat, a bigger threat than CO2 emission or some other half baked eco bullcrap. As for hating how divided the country is, I agree. But what I hate is that all the blame for that goes to the GOP, the party of NO. Seems that unless you agree and do whatever King Obama wants then you are divisive and an obstructionist. He has made it clear from day one that he isn't the president of the people, he is the president of the democratic party and that the republicans need to shut up and do what he wants. So put part of the blame where it belongs, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I don't believe he hates America. I just believe he doesn't see America as I do. His idea of what it is and what it should be are totally different than mine. He believes that America should be a nanny state where if you can't make it then the government makes your decisions and takes care of you. I believe that it should be a place where you make your own choices and decisions that determine the outcome, and live with that outcome. You have the ability succeed or the ability to fail, and you live with the consequences of those decisions and choices.

[jazyd]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34836030

This is the type of ongoing operation that goes unnoticed here. It's
much easier to declare we dropped m-80's on a Tonka truck factory. and continue to bash our country.
Sorry, it doesn't make for good ole' War TV

Did you catch where the writer said 'so called' Isis State.

[jazyd]

I agree with this. There will always be a threat and always be evil that wants to destroy this country. Part of keeping us safe means acknowledging and recognizing who they are and defining them. Unfortunately I don't believe we have a President and advisers who are willing or able to do that. However for me, I can live with that. He (and she-as in Hilary) doesn't want to recognize that its radical Muslims that want to destroy us, fine. They can't say those words, so be it. However they do need to realize the threat is real, that it actually exists and why it exist. Its not because of some stupid video, or a handful of people, or because of some other fabricated crap. These murdering SOB's are also a very real threat, a bigger threat than CO2 emission or some other half baked eco bullcrap. As for hating how divided the country is, I agree. But what I hate is that all the blame for that goes to the GOP, the party of NO. Seems that unless you agree and do whatever King Obama wants then you are divisive and an obstructionist. He has made it clear from day one that he isn't the president of the people, he is the president of the democratic party and that the republicans need to shut up and do what he wants. So put part of the blame where it belongs, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I don't believe he hates America. I just believe he doesn't see America as I do. His idea of what it is and what it should be are totally different than mine. He believes that America should be a nanny state where if you can't make it then the government makes your decisions and takes care of you. I believe that it should be a place where you make your own choices and decisions that determine the outcome, and live with that outcome. You have the ability succeed or the ability to fail, and you live with the consequences of those decisions and choices.

doc, I agree with most everything you say. Totally defeat evil, no can't be done but I bet we can just about totally destroy this current group with saturation bombing, arming the Kurds with everything they want and need and putting in special ops on the ground. And then any time in the future any of these rats show up to start a new group, eliminate them also. Wherever they are, Iraq, Syria, North Africa, I dont' care, just bomb the heck out of them and make them wish they never had lived.

And yes you are correct on the way the republicans are treated, usually what comes out of Hillary or Obama's mouth about this is a lie. Such as not wanting syrian refugees because of their religion which is what Hillary said today, not true, it is because a certain % are isis terrorists that have been planted and will infiltrate this country with the intention of killing citizens and bringing more into the fold. And of course there are those that can't think on their own and will buy it hook line and sinker.

Now why is Obama not doing more, why did he release the sanctions against Iran that is allowing them to put their hands on what $1.5 billiion in assets, build a nuke, and have more money to sponsor more terrorists? Is he in bed with Iran, being influenced by Iran? Why hasn't he taken out Assad? Why hasn't he given the Kurds more in weapons and money to let them do the fighting? Why didn't he give the earlier rebels in Syria help? Why did we spend $500 million to 'teach' 50 rebels we have no idea if they are still alive? $10 million to train each one? The Kurds would have loved $10 million let alone $500 million.

They can't vet those Syrian 'refugees' and Obama knows it and wants them anyone. FIne, put them on the White House lawn with he and whats her name. They can eat Kobe beef from Japan together, big cookout, eat her organic veggies, boogie together.

With our firepower in the air there is no reason we cannot eliminate 99% of them. You put the pressure on them like we did Khadify in Libya and they become much different when the leaders think they are going to die and not some peon who buys into the crap they are taught.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I agree with this. There will always be a threat and always be evil that wants to destroy this country. Part of keeping us safe means acknowledging and recognizing who they are and defining them. Unfortunately I don't believe we have a President and advisers who are willing or able to do that. However for me, I can live with that. He (and she-as in Hilary) doesn't want to recognize that its radical Muslims that want to destroy us, fine. They can't say those words, so be it. However they do need to realize the threat is real, that it actually exists and why it exist. Its not because of some stupid video, or a handful of people, or because of some other fabricated crap. These murdering SOB's are also a very real threat, a bigger threat than CO2 emission or some other half baked eco bullcrap. As for hating how divided the country is, I agree. But what I hate is that all the blame for that goes to the GOP, the party of NO. Seems that unless you agree and do whatever King Obama wants then you are divisive and an obstructionist. He has made it clear from day one that he isn't the president of the people, he is the president of the democratic party and that the republicans need to shut up and do what he wants. So put part of the blame where it belongs, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I don't believe he hates America. I just believe he doesn't see America as I do. His idea of what it is and what it should be are totally different than mine. He believes that America should be a nanny state where if you can't make it then the government makes your decisions and takes care of you. I believe that it should be a place where you make your own choices and decisions that determine the outcome, and live with that outcome. You have the ability succeed or the ability to fail, and you live with the consequences of those decisions and choices.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why people get up in arms about why Democrats won't say Radical Islam. Why does it matter? We're talking about savages that recruit and kill based on cartoons of Allah, among other things. There's nothing wrong with parsing words, but there's also nothing wrong with using the term radical Islam. It's really a useless talking point that just adds to divisiveness. One thing that I always say, though, should we also use the term radical Christianity when we're referring to people that kill in the name of Christianity? How would that fly?

A lot of what you're saying about Obama was the same thing with Bush. It's just so much of how we are divided as a country. All the blame doesn't go to the GOP. Do you watch FoxNews? It's just a parade of blame Obama and Democrats. One thing that I'll say about Obama, something like 90% of Republicans don't like him(might be a little high), but the left doesn't like him either. I have a lot of friends that are very liberal and I have trouble finding anyone that approves much of what he's done. I'm a centrist, but left of center(although many of beliefs have no left/right alignment) and I think he's had a good Presidency, not great, but good. I'll add to, that it's very rare that when someone is elected to the Presidency, that the majority leader of the other party vows that week to obstruct and make him a one term President, like McConnell did.

Of course Obama doesn't see America like you do, and that's OK. It's two completely different lenses. I don't see America like he does, like you do, only as I do. Just because people don't see America the same way, doesn't mean we can't work together to solve problems. Perceptions also aren't realities, but a lot of people allow their perceptions to isolate them from reality and that really helps with the divisiveness. It's not an epidemic of one party.

Your last statement, I agree with, but with this topic, I feel like that's what's going on here.

Differences is what makes our country great, but we've moved way beyond that. Now, it's just vitriolic all around, and I fear that we're going to destroy ourselves before the enemies do.

[Doc]

For the life of me, I can't figure out why people get up in arms about why Democrats won't say Radical Islam. Why does it matter? We're talking about savages that recruit and kill based on cartoons of Allah, among other things. There's nothing wrong with parsing words, but there's also nothing wrong with using the term radical Islam. It's really a useless talking point that just adds to divisiveness. One thing that I always say, though, should we also use the term radical Christianity when we're referring to people that kill in the name of Christianity? How would that fly?

I have no problem calling people like Fred Phelps a "radical Christian", because that is exactly what he is. It flys perfectly with me. Why wouldn't it fly? David Karesh, another religious nutjob. That's exactly what I'd call him. Killed people in the name of his religion. I'd call him a radical too. Adolph Hitler, another religiously corrupt radical murderer. None of those were difficult for me to say, not hard at all because I believe each and every word of it. And when the leaders of religion declare "death to America" you can damn well know I would identify that religion as an enemy of mine.

A lot of what you're saying about Obama was the same thing with Bush. It's just so much of how we are divided as a country. All the blame doesn't go to the GOP. Do you watch FoxNews? It's just a parade of blame Obama and Democrats. One thing that I'll say about Obama, something like 90% of Republicans don't like him(might be a little high), but the left doesn't like him either. I have a lot of friends that are very liberal and I have trouble finding anyone that approves much of what he's done. I'm a centrist, but left of center(although many of beliefs have no left/right alignment) and I think he's had a good Presidency, not great, but good. I'll add to, that it's very rare that when someone is elected to the Presidency, that the majority leader of the other party vows that week to obstruct and make him a one term President, like McConnell did.

Bush isn't president. Obama is. I wasn't a Bush fan but at least he didn't reach into my pocket and take what I earned and give it to somebody else. I never heard Bush tell democrats to shut up and do what he wanted, to effectively rubber stamp whatever he wanted simply because he was the President and that their input was not wanted.

Of course Obama doesn't see America like you do, and that's OK. It's two completely different lenses. I don't see America like he does, like you do, only as I do. Just because people don't see America the same way, doesn't mean we can't work together to solve problems. Perceptions also aren't realities, but a lot of people allow their perceptions to isolate them from reality and that really helps with the divisiveness. It's not an epidemic of one party.

I have no problem with people seeing America different. That's whats great about America. Unfortunately one is FORCING his view on others. When the process of change is bypassed through executive orders and back room deals like Obamacare was done, then its not "working together to solve problems". He never had a goal to work together. Its always been his way and his way only. If you didn't want it his way, you were wrong.

Take Obama statements today. "GOP are afraid of 3 year old orphans (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/barack-obama-refugees-216007)". What a total dick thing to say. Yeah, the GOP is afraid a toddler is going to come in with a ###### Uzi and shoot up a school. That's what OUR President says! He isn't OUR President because if he was OUR President he would actually give a **** about the concerns of everybody in this nation and be concerned about the people coming into this country from a nation that is full of terrorist and murders, occupied by a group that has pledge to kill the "evil satan", where these refugees are not properly vetted per HIS OWN director of the FBI. Instead he elects to MOCK those who show concern..... #### him and the horse he rode in on, which was likely John Kerry because he certainly has the face of one!

Your last statement, I agree with, but with this topic, I feel like that's what's going on here.

Differences is what makes our country great, but we've moved way beyond that. Now, it's just vitriolic all around, and I fear that we're going to destroy ourselves before the enemies do.

I typically show great respect for the office of the President. Its an incredibly difficult and important job. It has unique stresses and responsibilities. Yet when one actively spends 8 years insulting and belittling roughly 50% of the nation, I have a very hard time maintaining that level of respect. I will always respect the office. As for the man, I might like him as a person but as for doing his job, I despise him because he has done everything in his power to divide this country on every level possible.

[suncat05]

Doc, as usual, right on point with laser-like accuracy. Well stated!

[CitizenBBN]

Of course Obama doesn't see America like you do, and that's OK.

He doesn't see it like I do, but in fact it's not OK.

Why not? B/c America is unique in that it wasn't founded by simply being a single ethnicity or region that eventually formed a government, it was founded to pursue a specific set of ideological goals. Specifically it was founded to pursue individual liberty, the "great experiment" of a nation founded in the principles of Rousseau and Locke and Smith with a mission to insure the Rights of Man through pursuit of life, liberty and happiness (property).

obama believes in social justice, and social justice is antithetical to the principles of individual liberty. It is the opposite of individual liberty, based in the principle that we need to intervene in the property and liberty of others to insure an equality of outcome versus an equality of opportunity. The two cannot co-exist.

And it's fine he believes in that personally. What is not fine is that he wants to establish that in America and supplant the "great experiment" with yet another socialist pseudo-utopia. He wants to put social justice outcomes ahead of individual liberty in the priority list, and that's unacceptable.

If I didn't believe in the goals for which this nation was founded, I'd move. He doesn't believe in them, fine, but go establish your anti-liberty world in some place that wants it and doesn't exist for the sake if individual liberty. There are lots more of those than there are of nations like America, go mess them up.

As president he's sworn to uphold the constitution, which is the paper embodiment of the principles of the Rights of Man, but he doesn't in his heart believe in those rights, or at least not in them being nearly as important as everyone having more equal material wealth. That's not OK, b/c this nation is about opportunity, not outcome.

I know that he's not alone here either, but that doesn't help me sleep any better.

That doesn't make him a "traitor" or something, but I don't have to accept that an ideology completely at odds with the founding principles of our nation is "OK" or something we should see as somehow acceptable or competing with one of individual liberty. We're the nation of individual liberty, anyone who doesn't like it is free to take advantage of our complete lack of restriction on leaving.

[kingcat]

Under the previous administration we were attacked on our own soil to as great an extent as our great history has never witnessed.

Then it proceeded to dissolve the freedoms on which this country stood and laid waste the trust of the American people by the most blatant use of disinformation and deceit this country has ever known. They catered to the military industrial complex by lying, manipulating, and bankrupting our nation in pursuit of the perfect enemy. one which cannot be defeated or confined or defined by any geographical region. An attempt to maintain justification for any aggression that suited the right wing agenda of a new world order.,

They wire tapped the American people and lied strait faced when questioned about it in the name of "Homeland Security. They sanctioned and promoted assassination and torture,as well as hired civilian black ops criminal organizations to do their dirty work. The list goes on and on.

Yet, this administration is the anti American one. If that weren't so sickening it would make for some great comedy imho.

I think the world of you folks, and as there is little room for dissent on your forum, I'll believe you are just blinded to the truth of the matter.

I disagree with much in any administration, but the previous one nearly destroyed us for their own gain. In that one there WERE traitors that remain powerful behind the scenes today. And the greatest propaganda machine in history which guided the thinking their constituency remains today, along with it's counterparts which provide fuel to the same extreme.

The goal of dividing this nation and using hate to further hidden agendas has worked like a charm. To a tipping point where sane individuals can blame our own country for things like the attacks on Paris.

What really is sad is that it is not what is feared or what is honestly believed..sadly, it is what is subconsciously desired and hoped for. Hopefully it does not become a death wish for our country and our way of life. I think it too late to turn back now however.

For all of us we must be careful what we wish for. The backlash will be even more extreme each time there is a political change. One can sense the war drums in the background and they are beating indiscriminately and blind to any collateral damage or probable escalation. And the loss of freedom is going to be a perpetual casualty of "war"

"A house divided cannot stand" So much for our future huh?..

And it is not black or white, Muslim or Christian, rich or poor..it is simply Republican and Democrat. That division is irreparable.

[Doc]

Under the previous administration we were attacked on our own soil to as great an extent as our great history has never witnessed.

Then it proceeded to dissolve the freedoms on which this country stood and laid waste the trust of the American people by the most blatant use of disinformation and deceit this country has ever known. They catered to the military industrial complex by lying, manipulating, and bankrupting our nation in pursuit of the perfect enemy. one which cannot be defeated or confined or defined by any geographical region. An attempt to maintain justification for any aggression that suited the right wing agenda of a new world order.,

They wire tapped the American people and lied strait faced when questioned about it in the name of "Homeland Security. They sanctioned and promoted assassination and torture,as well as hired civilian black ops criminal organizations to do their dirty work. The list goes on and on.

Yet, this administration is the anti American one. If that weren't so sickening it would make for some great comedy imho.

I think the world of you folks, and as there is little room for dissent on your forum, I'll believe you are just blinded to the truth of the matter.

I disagree with much in any administration, but the previous one nearly destroyed us for their own gain. In that one there WERE traitors that remain powerful behind the scenes today. And the greatest propaganda machine in history which guided the thinking their constituency remains today, along with it's counterparts which provide fuel to the same extreme.

The goal of dividing this nation and using hate to further hidden agendas has worked like a charm. To a tipping point where sane individuals can blame our own country for things like the attacks on Paris.

What really is sad is that it is not what is feared or what is honestly believed..sadly, it is what is subconsciously desired and hoped for. Hopefully it does not become a death wish for our country and our way of life. I think it too late to turn back now however.

For all of us we must be careful what we wish for. The backlash will be even more extreme each time there is a political change. One can sense the war drums in the background and they are beating indiscriminately and blind to any collateral damage or probable escalation. And the loss of freedom is going to be a perpetual casualty of "war"

"A house divided cannot stand" So much for our future huh?..

And it is not black or white, Muslim or Christian, rich or poor..it is simply Republican and Democrat. That division is irreparable.


Bush isn't the President. While a good argument, its an old one. In fact its 7 years old now. And many republicans disagreed with much of what Bush did. Many democrats supported what he did. Still, in the Obama administration, the democrats have used their influence, lying and manipulating ways to line their pockets. They have hired their friends and cronies too. No, that type of behavior isn't beneath them. However, unlike under the GOP, they also use government agencies like the IRS to squelch the opposition. You would have to go back to Nixon to find such behavior (of course we know what happened to Tricky Dick for that). Or feed us a line of garbage about how a on line video sparked an attack on an embassy (but "Bush Lied/People Died"..... Under Obama it "WHAT DOES IT MATTER NOW?"). Or they violate federal laws and destroy e-mails, or at the very least utilize unauthorized/nonsecure method to pass them (I am very familiar with this since my wife work for the feds). Do I need to continue on? I haven't even mentioned how many laws are selectively enforce concerning immigration, or how laws are created without congressional discussion or votes, or how votes for laws are bartered (aka bought) for because that is the only method Obamacare could have passed-something that is bound to bankrupt of this nation to a much greater extent than anything GWB ever did. See its great fun, and great deflection to Blame Bush and say he did this when in fact Obama is no better. There is no change. So don't fool yourself into believing there was, is or will be.

But if we want to play the honesty game we can. There was a President before Bush that looked the American people in the eye and lied to their face. So before we get sanctimonious about "Bush lied", lets examine the history of Presidential whoppers. There are quite a few "stains" that we could bring up. And deceit, well I guess it matter what the definition of deceit is? Any trust in the office of the president was being eroded long before Bush took office. That happen when Bill sat in front of America, lied his ass off and was caught red handed doing it. So attack Bush for lying all you want. Just don't do it with a straight face.

https://christopherfountain.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/monica-lewinsky-and-cigar-smoking-gallery.jpg

[CitizenBBN]

Where did I defend the homeland security act?

You ridicule the political divide yet use it just as both parties do, to deflect criticism to the other party.

Bush and the post 9/11 response on both sides had lots of problems, but Bush fundamental ideology is still mostly consistent w individual liberty. The stress of conflict is in the freedom versus security trade-off, and I agree was wrong on that area more than once, but that trade-off has always been with us.

Social justice dismisses the whole idea of a trade-off with liberty and puts it second across the board. Both are dangerous concepts but social justice has proven to be far mote insidious bc if you accept the premise you've already lost. One does have to accept some curtailing of absolute liberty to have some security, you can have that debate without dismissing the importance of liberty.

Rep king a high ranking democrat, is the most pro security official in dc. He scares me like heck. I disagree w how far he would go, but the debate still includes liberty. Debate someone on social justice and they dismiss the whole concept. "You didn't build that" is the secret to why. You aren't fully responsible for your property so you don't really have full claim to it.

That attacks liberty at it's base, where security only pushes against it. Neither is good, one is far worse.

[kingcat]

First off, I'm responding to the general consensus on this political forum, and don't want anyone to think I'm attacking any individual's opinion. The one sided'ness of the situation here forces that. I appreciate all opinions even when I disagree strongly with them. But the fear remains that some here will consider me anti American if I disagree. That is a problem for all of us.



Are you spying on the citizens of the United States versus Did you have sex in the White House is apples and oranges to me. Most of the the American people knew the difference too. One was a witch hunt of historical proportions, the other a near act of treason.

I'm obviously in a huge minority here and like many others won't defend my opinions to such one sided scrutiny. There are two political philosophies at work and neither are perfect. Yet only one is represented on this forum daily.

People seem to ignore that fact and assume they are correct in every circumstance without dissent.

I( cannot recall in the thousands of discussions here one ounce of credit afforded this president. Not one.
Nor is there any respect for the office itself or benefit of doubt given. As if we know every detail oif every situation at the highest level of government...and because we are convinced our media favorites are the only truth. This is a nation of propaganda and that feeds these discussions. The only way to join the discussion here is to spread the left version of the same and put the other side into a defensive position. I refuse.

[Doc]

First off, I'm responding to the general consensus on this political forum, and don't want anyone to think I'm attacking any individual's opinion. The one sided'ness of the situation here forces that. I appreciate all opinions even when I disagree strongly with them. But the fear remains that some here will consider me anti American if I disagree. That is a problem for all of us.



Are you spying on the citizens of the United States versus Did you have sex in the White House is apples and oranges to me. Most of the the American people knew the difference too. One was a witch hunt of historical proportions, the other a near act of treason.

I'm obviously in a huge minority here and like many others won't defend my opinions to such one sided scrutiny. There are two political philosophies at work and neither are perfect. Yet only one is represented on this forum daily.

People seem to ignore that fact and assume they are correct in every circumstance without dissent.

I( cannot recall in the thousands of discussions here one ounce of credit afforded this president. Not one.
Nor is there any respect for the office itself or benefit of doubt given. As if we know every detail oif every situation at the highest level of government...and because we are convinced our media favorites are the only truth. This is a nation of propaganda and that feeds these discussions. The only way to join the discussion here is to spread the left version of the same and put the other side into a defensive position. I refuse.


I don't consider you anti-American nor do I consider Obama as one.

My example was more about the erosion of trust between the leader of the nation and the people of the nation. Bush wasn't the first to lie to America. Not even close.

So as for the Apples and Oranges, fair enough. Lets make it apples to apples......

The left loves to scream about Bush sending Colin Powel to lie before the UN about WMD's in Iraq. Me personally, I believe Sadaam had them, but thats a moot point. Some, apparently yourself included, don't. For me though its an irrelevant point. IMO, when Bush 1 agreed to end the first Iraqi war, the one Sadaam started when he invaded Kuwait, the terms of that were that he allow inspections. Sadaam did not honor that and in doing so opened himself and his country up to the second Iraqi conflict. There was no need to Bush 2 to even invoke any WMD into the argument to justify action. But lets forget all that as I digress. So Bush 2 sent Powel in front of the UN in Feb of 2003 and lied. Oh the horror of it all. That makes Bush the devils spawn, Lucifer reincarnated, etc...... how dare he lie to the people! However, seriously, we as a nation deserve better-I mean that

Fast forward 9 years. A consulate gets attacked on the anniversary of the largest terrorist event on US soil. In a 100% political move the Obama administration fabricates a story for political reasons to make their policies appear to be working and minimize the ineptness of our state departments failure to protect our foreign diplomats. To further this half baked story they trounce out Susan Rice in front of American and the UN and have her lie repeatedly, saying that an attack on the Libyan Consulate that resulted in the killing of a US ambassador was the result of a video. Ah, is that OK? Did you get pissed about that? Or is it just when the GOP lies that you get fired up? Or is it that you believe Susan Rice's/Hillary Clinton's/Barrach Obama's story? All I really want is your anger at George Bush for sending Colin Powell to lie to be the same as it is for Barrach Obama's to send Susan Rice to lie. When you do that, then you can in good conscience tell me what I'm seeing is one sided.

[kingcat]

President Bush personally misled the American people and, i believe, lied outright in stating he had not authorized any illegal collecting of information on our citizens. Luckily some in his administration could not live with the actions at the time and fought back against a regime out of control at that point in time.

The President's Surveillance Program was found to be cloning all U.S. communications in clear violation of the constitution of the United States. President Obama has not done enough either to move away from such infringement on American citizens rights, but does operate under the 2008 FISA amendments which relaxed laws against such info collections.

It all sucks imho,. but the Bush administration gamed the system to threaten and silence their critics imho.. The wmd thing was bad and alienated a fine American from the party General Powell believed strongly in. That lie was a much lesser one in the grand scheme of things.

I guess my point would be that, during the Bush years, there was no criticism anywhere close to what this President has endured, despite what imo was a direct assault on this country from that administration and a disregard for the constitution of the united states. And there existed a general defense of nearly all of George Bush and his staff's actions.

The critique some former supporters offered came after he had left office, and the truth became obvious. Many here still support those, now proven, failed and borderline treacherous policies

This President has not come close to damaging our nation to the extent the previous did. I certainly don't agree with all his policies, but I have no doubt he believes they are best for the American people, and that he is a patriotic American at heart.

And you know what? I believe President Bush thought he was doing right by the American people too.

I'm not sure how many here believe President Obama is even American. That is sad.

[Doc]

First off, I'm responding to the general consensus on this political forum, and don't want anyone to think I'm attacking any individual's opinion. The one sided'ness of the situation here forces that. I appreciate all opinions even when I disagree strongly with them. But the fear remains that some here will consider me anti American if I disagree. That is a problem for all of us.



Are you spying on the citizens of the United States versus Did you have sex in the White House is apples and oranges to me. Most of the the American people knew the difference too. One was a witch hunt of historical proportions, the other a near act of treason.

I'm obviously in a huge minority here and like many others won't defend my opinions to such one sided scrutiny. There are two political philosophies at work and neither are perfect. Yet only one is represented on this forum daily.

People seem to ignore that fact and assume they are correct in every circumstance without dissent.

I( cannot recall in the thousands of discussions here one ounce of credit afforded this president. Not one.
Nor is there any respect for the office itself or benefit of doubt given. As if we know every detail oif every situation at the highest level of government...and because we are convinced our media favorites are the only truth. This is a nation of propaganda and that feeds these discussions. The only way to join the discussion here is to spread the left version of the same and put the other side into a defensive position. I refuse.

I wanted to add that I know you are in the minority. You stated "There are two political philosophies at work and neither are perfect. Yet only one is represented on this forum daily." Sort of made me chuckle. Don't let that discourage you. I run into this with EVERY gun discussion. Never stops me from stating my opinion. I know it won't be taken well nor will I change anybody's opinion but sometimes you just can't convince somebody of something that to you is just plain common sense.

[Doc]

President Bush personally misled the American people and, i believe, lied outright in stating he had not authorized any illegal collecting of information on our citizens. Luckily some in his administration could not live with the actions at the time and fought back against a regime out of control at that point in time.

The President's Surveillance Program was found to be cloning all U.S. communications in clear violation of the constitution of the United States. president Obama has not done enough either to move away from such infringement on American citizens but does operate under the 2008 FISA amendments which relaxed laws against such collections.

Well that program was passed through congress after discussion and had support by BOTH parties. At least there were some democrats that approved of it. (link to the vote (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml)). So while you are blaming Bush, you should also blame all the democrats, all 48 senators and 145 representatives, who voted FOR IT in 2001 and the 33/66 who again voted for it in 2006. See that's one difference. Under Bush, you can blame BOTH parties because both had input. Bush didn't tell the left to to shut up, that he was going to do what we want regardless of what their constituents wanted and that THEIR OPINION DIDN'T MATTER

It all sucks imho,. but the Bush administration gamed the system to threaten and silence their critics imho.. The wmd thing was bad and alienated a fine American from the party General Powell believed strongly in.

I guess my point would be that, during the Bush years, there was no criticism anywhere close to what this President has endured, despite what imo was a direct assault on this country from that administration and a disregard for the constitution of the united states. And there existed a general defense of nearly all of George Bush and his staff's actions.

You're kidding, right? When was the last time Obama was hung in effigy? Oh, we can't do that to Obama, only Bush.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PVyDmTkfk6s/S0Hc27J7rkI/AAAAAAAAC14/ssXEnmijxuY/s400/SFcommierally.JPG
Here (http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/05/01/a-short-history-of-liberals-using-the-nazi-card/) is some refreshing for you. And here (http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/05/09/the-wrongful-condemnation-of-an-american-patriot-debunking-liberal-myths-of-george-w-bush/). And of course when Obama is threatened its news but when Bush was its ignored (here (http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621)).
How about a picture tour of the Bush rhetoric?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qGIX2mNcNGQ/TxHhIntXzII/AAAAAAAAANo/zLFuDSqnLNk/s1600/monkey+bush+3.jpghttp://kukis.org/blog/conservativereview161/kill_president_bush.jpghttp://www.ringospictures.com/photos/20090816/17.jpg
And lets not even mention the "Truthers" who believe GWB orchestrated 9/11 himself. Bottom line is the perception is that Obama is more attacked but the truth is something different. Reason is because the left cries about it louder.

The critique some former supporters offered came after he had left office, and the truth became obvious. Many here still support those, now proven, failed policies

Based on some of the books written by ex-cabinet members, I'd not go there if I were an Obama supporter. I've yet to see a flattering portrayal of the current commander in chief.

This President has not come close to damaging our nation to the extent the previous did. I certainly don't agree with all his policies, but I have no doubt he believes they are best for the American people, and that he is a patriotic American at heart.

I beg to differ. The policies Obama has put in place do much longer term damage. When you put in entitlements and give aways, they last forever. They are recurring costs. Nobody takes them away. A one time expenditure of a billion dollars is irresponsible but one that repeats year after year is unforgivable.

Few here believe he even American. That is sad.

You mentioned above that Bush's actions violated the Constitution and that seemed to bother you. It would bother me as well. Personally I believe that document should ALWAYS be followed. Hence if there is a concern about his place of birth, why should some not be concerned? Or is it only democrats that feel following the Constitution is important when its an issue they feel is important? Its their right to be concerned, is it not? However at this point, it too is moot. For me, the way I look at it what is worse, somebody who believes Obama was born in Kenya or that GWB conceived and executed a plan to hijack 3 jumbo jet airplanes and crash them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon killing over 3,000 American Citizens? Yep, there are nutjobs and they live in BOTH parties..

[Darrell KSR]

I wanted to add that I know you are in the minority. You stated "There are two political philosophies at work and neither are perfect. Yet only one is represented on this forum daily." Sort of made me chuckle. Don't let that discourage you. I run into this with EVERY gun discussion. Never stops me from stating my opinion. I know it won't be taken well nor will I change anybody's opinion but sometimes you just can't convince somebody of something that to you is just plain common sense.

Agree with Doc. Appreciate you adding the opinions and your thoughts, too. It can be lonely and frustrating, but it's still appreciated, even by those who have divergent thoughts.

I greatly appreciate Doc's gun posts, too.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[jazyd]

President Bush personally misled the American people and, i believe, lied outright in stating he had not authorized any illegal collecting of information on our citizens. Luckily some in his administration could not live with the actions at the time and fought back against a regime out of control at that point in time.

The President's Surveillance Program was found to be cloning all U.S. communications in clear violation of the constitution of the United States. President Obama has not done enough either to move away from such infringement on American citizens rights, but does operate under the 2008 FISA amendments which relaxed laws against such info collections.

It all sucks imho,. but the Bush administration gamed the system to threaten and silence their critics imho.. The wmd thing was bad and alienated a fine American from the party General Powell believed strongly in. That lie was a much lesser one in the grand scheme of things.

I guess my point would be that, during the Bush years, there was no criticism anywhere close to what this President has endured, despite what imo was a direct assault on this country from that administration and a disregard for the constitution of the united states. And there existed a general defense of nearly all of George Bush and his staff's actions.

The critique some former supporters offered came after he had left office, and the truth became obvious. Many here still support those, now proven, failed and borderline treacherous policies

This President has not come close to damaging our nation to the extent the previous did. I certainly don't agree with all his policies, but I have no doubt he believes they are best for the American people, and that he is a patriotic American at heart.

And you know what? I believe President Bush thought he was doing right by the American people too.

I'm not sure how many here believe President Obama is even American. That is sad.

You do realize every major country said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. You do realize a convoy of covered trucks left Iraq right before the bombing started and went into Syria who now has used weapons of mass destruction on their own people, wonder where they got them hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Also, in Libya, a local admitted to reporters that Khadafi had him and many others hide chemical weapons, so small he hid them under his rose bushes and showed where he hid them. Do you also realize Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds and killed thousands of them and mass graves have been found. That is called weapons of mass destruction

And Obama has done more damage to this country than Bush could have even thought of doing while in a drunken stupor in his younger age. Want to count
..his AG and along with OBama refused to obey the constitution by upholding the law in many cases. Let start with his first election where the New Black Panthers intimidated white voters in Philly into not voting, it is on record and recorded by phone and yet this administration and your boy Obama refused to prosecute.
...running guns into Mexico, thousands of them, to gangs, used to murder hundreds of people including one of our border guards. Again no action by Obama to prosecute the AG or anyone nor would he turn over records.
...used the IRS to initimidate and audit tea party groups and those on the right, shredded evidence. and oh yes it went right into his office, no doubt, that lady isnt' that smart. no prosecution
....Benghazi...while our consulate was being attacked and destroyed and 4 of our m en were murdered, where was your boy, upstairs packing for his Vegas trip, went up at 5PM and never asked what was going on with his SOD, who testified before congress he didn't talk to Obama after he went upstairs.
....has divided this country on race lines every since he got in office, all this mess right now is his doing.
....our soldiers in Ft Hood are murdered by a muslim terrorist, Obama refuses to call him that and when he is there for the funeral refuses to salute the coffins or hold his hand over his heart while the military are in salute.
....pissed on Israel
...Iran deal giving htem a nuke and $1.5 BILLION in assets that will be used to kill Americans
Shall I go on
Obama is the worst president in the history of this country

So to blame Bush and saying he lied, you need to look at all facts and not just your opionion or what you read from the left.

[kingcat]

The cloning of all communications was a covert act by the Bush administration and not voted upon. You can't vote for a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States.

[Catonahottinroof]

The Patriot Act was most certainly voted upon. You're trying to institute revisionist history...


The cloning of all communications was a covert act by the Bush administration and not voted upon. You can't vote for a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States.

[kingcat]

The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy ("warrantless wiretapping") concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of allegedly foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the touted war on terror.

Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the terrorist surveillance program,[1] part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. However, it has been discovered that all U.S. communications have been digitally cloned by government agencies, in apparent violation of unreasonable search and seizure. The excuse given to avoid litigation[citation needed] was that no data hoarded would be reviewed until searching it would be legal. But no excuse has been offered the initial seizure of the data which is also illegal,[citation needed] according to the U.S. Constitution.[citation needed]

Critics, however, claimed that the program was in an effort to attempt to silence critics of the Bush Administration and its handling of several controversial issues during its tenure. Under public pressure, the Bush administration allegedly ceased the warrantless wiretapping program in January 2007 and returned review of surveillance to the FISA court.[2] Subsequently, in 2008 Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements.

During the Obama Administration, the NSA has allegedly continued operating under the new FISA guidelines despite campaign promises to end warrantless wiretapping.[3] However, in April 2009 officials at the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in "overcollection" of domestic communications in excess of the FISA court's authority, but claimed that the acts were unintentional and had since been rectified.[

Every phone call, e-mail, or forum post you made during those years belongs to the United States govt. And it was obtained illegally by executive order and then denied. Now common knowledge

[kingcat]

Doc.

If you look closely you'll see i was not talking in general, but on this forum with relation to it's treatment of Presidents Bush and Obama. This forum is strictly controlled by the conservative and far right viewpoint.

Nothing wrong with that,and it is not intentional, but Democrats, liberal thoughts, and to some extent non far right opinions (despite rhetoric to the contrary) are roasted here by the regulars..

Kudos on your stance that goes against the grain. I am farther to the right than you I imagine when it comes to gun laws. :)

[Doc]

Doc.

If you look closely you'll see i was not talking in general, but on this forum with relation to it's treatment of Presidents Bush and Obama. This forum is strictly controlled by the conservative and far right viewpoint.

Nothing wrong with that,and it is not intentional, but Democrats, liberal thoughts, and to some extent non far right opinions (despite rhetoric to the contrary) are roasted here by the regulars..

Kudos on your stance that goes against the grain. I am farther to the right than you I imagine when it comes to gun laws. :)

And I'm more left on social issues. Example-I don't believe every person should be walking around with a six shooter on his hip, nor do I believe there is any circumstance where a 10 year old should be allowed to use a weapon. I also believe in a woman's choice to carry or not carry a baby to term (assuming she pays for the termination of the pregnancy). I find it hypocritical to preach about the teaching of the bible then get a divorce. I also don't care who anybody marries, whether they both have "innies", "outies" or one of each! I don't want anybody telling me to pray or not pay in school (you pray at home or in church). On all those issues, I probably disagree with most on this board. I'll argue till I'm blue in the face over it. Sometimes I'll even argue until I'm pissed because of their stupidity. Then I'll cool off and "get over it".

As for the treatment of the President, I don't disagree with you. ON THIS BOARD, Obama isn't treated well. However in general, he has been treated far better than Bush was. There is a "hands off" policy when it comes to BHO in this country. What was done to GWB could never be done to the current President. Stick an Obama head on a monkey and see what happens. Put a Hitler mustache on Obama and see what happens. Paint a target on Obama's forehead and see the reaction you get. Hang Obama in effigy and see how that is received. All those were done to Bush by liberals and not a second thought was given to it. Zero. Yet you do that to Obama and you have violated taboo. You have breached the protected one. You have stepped out of bounds of "free speech" and entered "hate speech", terrorist threats and are subject to prosecution. And that doesn't even take into account the shenanigans where if as a conservative, you found your legally tax exemptions blocked by the IRS. Yet the gov't has done nothing about it after 2 years? And its Obama that being treated unfair? Please! If he didn't want to be treated unfairly he should have stayed a community organizer.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I typically show great respect for the office of the President. Its an incredibly difficult and important job. It has unique stresses and responsibilities. Yet when one actively spends 8 years insulting and belittling roughly 50% of the nation, I have a very hard time maintaining that level of respect. I will always respect the office. As for the man, I might like him as a person but as for doing his job, I despise him because he has done everything in his power to divide this country on every level possible.

You're just validating my point.

It's exactly what Bush did, and it's extremely fair and relevant to talk about Bush because Obama didn't create divisiveness. Do you really think that when Bush left office there was unity in this nation?

It's exactly what happened with Clinton too, and why so many despise and are fearful of a Hillary presidency. This country is very divided, although I think it's divided more than two ways now. I think both parties have split themselves, which maybe could be a good thing.

I hate to say it, but I think there's only a few options for this country to become united again, and that's by a tragic loss of lives, a civil war or the best option, a complete dismantling of the 2-party system, but once Citizens United passed, that's almost an impossible outcome.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

And I'm more left on social issues. Example-I don't believe every person should be walking around with a six shooter on his hip, nor do I believe there is any circumstance where a 10 year old should be allowed to use a weapon. I also believe in a woman's choice to carry or not carry a baby to term (assuming she pays for the termination of the pregnancy). I find it hypocritical to preach about the teaching of the bible then get a divorce. I also don't care who anybody marries, whether they both have "innies", "outies" or one of each! I don't want anybody telling me to pray or not pay in school (you pray at home or in church). On all those issues, I probably disagree with most on this board. I'll argue till I'm blue in the face over it. Sometimes I'll even argue until I'm pissed because of their stupidity. Then I'll cool off and "get over it".

As for the treatment of the President, I don't disagree with you. ON THIS BOARD, Obama isn't treated well. However in general, he has been treated far better than Bush was. There is a "hands off" policy when it comes to BHO in this country. What was done to GWB could never be done to the current President. Stick an Obama head on a monkey and see what happens. Put a Hitler mustache on Obama and see what happens. Paint a target on Obama's forehead and see the reaction you get. Hang Obama in effigy and see how that is received. All those were done to Bush by liberals and not a second thought was given to it. Zero. Yet you do that to Obama and you have violated taboo. You have breached the protected one. You have stepped out of bounds of "free speech" and entered "hate speech", terrorist threats and are subject to prosecution. And that doesn't even take into account the shenanigans where if as a conservative, you found your legally tax exemptions blocked by the IRS. Yet the gov't has done nothing about it after 2 years? And its Obama that being treated unfair? Please! If he didn't want to be treated unfairly he should have stayed a community organizer.

Doc, I love debating with you in any conversation, but I'm going to have to call BS on this. For each of these examples you listed, just google those and Obama. Better yet, add Kentucky on those and see what you get. Obama gets it just like Bush. One difference that I can say though is that there is no talking head that is the voice of a movement with disparaging remarks on the Democrat side that is leading the party race currently like Trump and the 'Birther' movement. None of those things that you mentioned(which are tactics on both sides) resonate with a Democrat front runner.

It's like listening to Ben Carson whine about how no Democrats have never faced the vetting that he's been getting. I say to him, Are you kidding me? Hillary, Obama and Kerry have all faced much worse than he ever did. Democratic front runners have groups that name themselves to vet, "Birthers", "Swift Boaters" etc. Fiorina, the same thing as Carson. Republicans have gotten it just as bad with Bush and Palin, so I'm not saying it's fair one way or the other. It's just part of the game. The more relevant you are, the deeper the criticism. Carson and Fiorina should beg for the vetting and the scrutiny. So far, the only one that's doing it to them is Trump.

This country is so vitriolic, but it's both ways. You know what, though, it's always been, but it seems like we're on an uptrend, historically speaking, that only gets solved in a few different manners that none are pretty.

I have to ask, though, if you're left on social issues, then what is it that Obama has done that has you so upset?

[Doc]

You're just validating my point.

It's exactly what Bush did, and it's extremely fair and relevant to talk about Bush because Obama didn't create divisiveness. Do you really think that when Bush left office there was unity in this nation?

It's exactly what happened with Clinton too, and why so many despise and are fearful of a Hillary presidency. This country is very divided, although I think it's divided more than two ways now. I think both parties have split themselves, which maybe could be a good thing.

I hate to say it, but I think there's only a few options for this country to become united again, and that's by a tragic loss of lives, a civil war or the best option, a complete dismantling of the 2-party system, but once Citizens United passed, that's almost an impossible outcome.

You may not agree with what Bush did but he work with the democrats. His agenda had actual bipartisan support. One opposition party vote does not mean bipartisan either. Look at the vote for the Patriot Act or the vote to go back into Iraq. He had some democratic support. His approach wasn't "I don't care what the other side thinks". That's Obama's stance. Do it my way by hook or by crook. I'll executive order it or I'll buy your vote. There are Bush policies didn't like but they were brought in correctly.

As for divisiveness, you need to look farther back than Bush. I could claim it started when Clinton lied to America just as easily

[Doc]

Doc, I love debating with you in any conversation, but I'm going to have to call BS on this. For each of these examples you listed, just google those and Obama. Better yet, add Kentucky on those and see what you get. Obama gets it just like Bush. One difference that I can say though is that there is no talking head that is the voice of a movement with disparaging remarks on the Democrat side that is leading the party race currently like Trump and the 'Birther' movement. None of those things that you mentioned(which are tactics on both sides) resonate with a Democrat front runner.

It's like listening to Ben Carson whine about how no Democrats have never faced the vetting that he's been getting. I say to him, Are you kidding me? Hillary, Obama and Kerry have all faced much worse than he ever did. Democratic front runners have groups that name themselves to vet, "Birthers", "Swift Boaters" etc. Fiorina, the same thing as Carson. Republicans have gotten it just as bad with Bush and Palin, so I'm not saying it's fair one way or the other. It's just part of the game. The more relevant you are, the deeper the criticism. Carson and Fiorina should beg for the vetting and the scrutiny. So far, the only one that's doing it to them is Trump.

This country is so vitriolic, but it's both ways. You know what, though, it's always been, but it seems like we're on an uptrend, historically speaking, that only gets solved in a few different manners that none are pretty.

I have to ask, though, if you're left on social issues, then what is it that Obama has done that has you so upset?
When those things are done to Obama there is a huge cry of outrage. That didn't happen with Bush. Under Bush it always OK to hang him in effigy. Do it to OBama and your racist and subject to hate speech. Stick a Bush head on a chimp and it's funny. Do it to OBama and your a racist subect to hate speech. Do people to it? Sure but to nowhere near the same degree and the level of acceptance isn't the same because the left has successfully made it unacceptable for THEIR president.

As for a voice, we will disagree here too. Let me introduce you to the likes of Al Sharpton. I know, if I were a democrat I would ignore him too

Carson and others are referring to the media. There is no doubt the media does not delve into the left like the do the right. Personally I'm sick of them whining about it. But I'm more sick of the federal govt which should not be bias allowing thing like the IRS scandal and the state e mail scandal to go on. These are both serious violations of the law and the government has stonewalled

[CitizenBBN]

The cloning of all communications was a covert act by the Bush administration and not voted upon. You can't vote for a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States.

A policy Obama gleefully continued until Snowden exposed it.

The difference being that Bush never promised to do otherwise. He was on the side of increased security and not privacy. Obama OTOH ran on and preaches a pretty liberal view of privacy, which makes him a hypocrite that Bush wasn't.

That's not to make him worse, but things like the Patriot Act probably isn't the best way to distinguish Bush and Obama b/c both have been more than willing to let the NSA push the bounds.

I see tons of disrespect of both. Bush was accused by the left of conducting an entire war just to generate more contracts for Halliburton. Hows that for insulting, that he'd send troops to their deaths for a military contract? Likewise Obama has been accused of being a sympathizer with our enemies.

Now for a tour down history lane. FDR was similarly accused at times, and as for vitriol between parties and how we are as some crisis, we're not.

In the election of 1824 the supporters of Andrew Jackson showed up at the polls with hickory sticks and threatened to beat the crap out of anyone voting for another candidate. We need to find ways to have less hatred, but the truth is that the inherent differences between the two sides are in many ways fundamentally irreconcilable.

How are we supposed to work together when at a fundamental level we have two different directions? It's easy to say we should row together but we're targeting two very different beaches. In fact that's been true a long time now, at least since the turn of the last century.

The trick is to find ways to row together when we can. There are some things we can agree on, and when we do it's about not letting all the disagreements keeping us from working together on the common ground.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/23/emails-show-dod-analysts-told-to-cut-it-out-on-isis-warnings-ig-probe-expands.html?intcmp=hpbt1

[StuBleedsBlue2]

You may not agree with what Bush did but he work with the democrats. His agenda had actual bipartisan support. One opposition party vote does not mean bipartisan either. Look at the vote for the Patriot Act or the vote to go back into Iraq. He had some democratic support. His approach wasn't "I don't care what the other side thinks". That's Obama's stance. Do it my way by hook or by crook. I'll executive order it or I'll buy your vote. There are Bush policies didn't like but they were brought in correctly.

As for divisiveness, you need to look farther back than Bush. I could claim it started when Clinton lied to America just as easily

We're going to have to agree to disagree on these. There was some bipartisanship, such as No Child Left Behind, which was actually a Kennedy idea repackaged by Bush(for which a majority of Dems actually said was flawed, but it was important to pass a flawed piece of legislation that intends to be better, but that's where the bipartisanship ended on that matter) and certainly Democrats stood with Bush post-911, but every poor decision he made after ended that harmony. It can only be considered short-lived, at best.

It was Bush that stated in 2004, "I have earned political capital and I intend to use it", do you not remember that? How more than "I don't care what the other side thinks" can you get from a statement like that. He certainly used it and it failed, which is why Obama is in office today and Trump is your party front-runner.

It seems to me that you completely ignore some facts(maybe conveniently too). When Obama was senator, he had a relatively effective working relationship across the aisle, most notably with Tom Coburn. When he was elected, he made many attempts to work with Senate and House leadership, especially when it came to Healthcare forums, debt-ceiling discussions and many other topics. Nothing came from them. We can debate the fault there, but a real reason why those on the far left disapprove with Obama is from the fact that even knowing that a party-line vote would occur for all his key pieces to his agenda, he still capitulated on key points of his proposals in an effort to compromise. What are you supposed to do when you were elected based on your ideas and early on, the Senate leadership vows to make you a one term President and obstruct everything for which you were elected, and the party actually follows through with it? The big difference between Bush and Obama is spending political capital. Bush did it without reservation, and Obama is reluctant to. While Obama's outreach to the other side isn't at a Clinton level, it's significantly better than Bush's attempts. At least Obama considered and actually appointed Republicans to the cabinet. I think this is a very fair assessment (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/522/bring-democrats-and-republicans-together-pass-agen/) to Obama working across the aisle.

Finally, I didn't say or attempt to imply that the visceral partisanship started with Bush, and if I did it imply that, I want to set the record straight. I have my own theories about how/when it started, but that's a whole other discussion. It shouldn't matter how it started anymore, but how are we going to fix it? I can tell you one way it won't get fixed, obstructionism. Is there a candidate in the election today that actually has an idea how to unite? I don't think so. We're just going to head down the same road, no matter who gets elected.

[KeithKSR]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on these. There was some bipartisanship, such as No Child Left Behind, which was actually a Kennedy idea repackaged by Bush(for which a majority of Dems actually said was flawed, but it was important to pass a flawed piece of legislation that intends to be better, but that's where the bipartisanship ended on that matter) and certainly Democrats stood with Bush post-911, but every poor decision he made after ended that harmony. It can only be considered short-lived, at best.

Post 9-11 harmony ended in large part because the Dems thought they had no chance to win the White House in 2004 by being in harmony with the Bush Administration.