Obama, no change in strategy

[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). 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.

Here is some refreshing for you. And here. And of course when Obama is threatened its news but when Bush was its ignored (here).
How about a picture tour of the Bush rhetoric?

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...l?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 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.