I bet Republicans really miss President Obama now!

[reconmark]

Not at all.

And this is the first time anyone has called Obama no drama Obama.

Is this from the same vein of people claiming Obama had no scandals?

Ummm, no, it's from people who watched Obama come into the role of the President and make nice with governments Bush alienated, & without a game plan immediately cobbled a way to alleviate the panic and slowly rebuild confidence in our economy.

A good man able to take the high road, even when fools and idiots and liars attacked him and his family. You know the kind, you see one in the mirror.

I agree it takes a good man to take the high road.

It's a shame Obama never tried to take it

Actually it's a shame that you are too ignorant to have recognized the caliber of President you had...don't worry, trump's got your back...lol.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not missing him at all. As a matter of fact I'm looking forward to not hearing his name again..

That's odd...I'm seeing more RWrs referring to President Obama and H. Clinton than any LWr is.

I'm seeing far more people claiming they didn't vote for hillary than admit to voting for her, in fact to this point, I have been like pulling the proverbial teeth trying to get left wingers to admit they voted for...this election may really need to be investigated

I voted for HRC, and if she had won the EC vote, we would not be faced with wondering if the POTUS is sane.

Some of us have stopped wondering! The more he tweets, the less grounded in reality he appears.

Debatable. Kaine has said some questionable stuff. So who knows if he would be sane

 

[blackhawk]

View attachment 113384

.
So you are a Democrat who would favor Donald Trump over GW Bush?

Nope.

If you are not a Democrat, why reply to the bet?

The OP title is I bet Republicans really miss President Obama now. I don't why you brought George W Bush up only you know.

.
Heh ... what a weasel. You claim I lost the bet, and now you are pretending there never was a bet. Loser...chuckle

First I never directed my original response to any specific poster so your idea is idiotic second at best my original response was to the OP which was not you now sober up and get back on your meds moron.

 

[Avatar4321]

Politics is a dirty game. It's full of people who engage in a whole host of reprehensible behavior that would make most people cringe if they got to see it up close and personal every single day. They include, but certainly are not limited to, the following:

Backstabbing, posturing, engaging in feigned outrage, taking credit for things you had nothing to do with, denying responsibility for things you were involved with, misrepresenting the facts, blatant hypocrisy, outright lying, professing beliefs you don't really hold in order to ingratiate yourself with the electorate, pandering to those same people, and rarely voting your conscience because voting the way you're told to vote by the leadership is the only certain way to assure your future in a party system where seniority reigns supreme.

Yup, it's pretty darn unsavory, alright. And naturally, the party system is one of the reasons it's this way. Think of it like team sports. For example, all things being equal, what's the greatest single determining factor which influences whether or not a spectator believes that a pass was a completion which was run into the end zone for a touchdown, or it was a trapped (and therefore an incomplete) pass, or that the runner stepped out of bounds 30 yards away from the goal line? It's probably determined by which team the spectator is a fan. So too with politics.

For example, at one time or another, everybody probably has noticed that when a president of one party proposes X, in short order there is a rising chorus of voices in opposition. And almost always, it comes from members of the other party. Meanwhile, the members of the president's party either offer praise, or they at least withhold any kind of real criticism. However, the reality of what elected representatives may actually feel in their heart of hearts may be completely different. There may be quite a few members of the opposition party who think X is a great idea and would enthusiastically support it if and when it was proposed by a president of their own party. Likewise, members of the president's party may not really like the idea (X) but instead decide not to criticize it in order to promote party unity and/or to hopefully further their own political careers.

It's with this understanding that I cam't help but marvel at how frequently Republican Party elected representatives have come out in firm opposition to statements that Trump has made both as a candidate prior to the election and as president since taking office. Contrast that with Republicans responses to Obama over an 8 year period. Oh sure, there were several times when Republicans opposed Obama and did so quite vocally. But at least a part of those responses in either degree, or frequency, or both, can be attributed to the previously mentioned 'feigned outrage' which some Republicans offered up in order to curry favor with their increasingly angry GOP base.

However, on balance, very few people could honestly dispute the fact that President Obama had truly earned the moniker of "'no-drama' Obama." No, Obama rarely ever said or did anything that could be considered outrageous except by the most partisan observer. I dare say that even the more strident Republicans never had any concerns about President Obama's mental stability. Today, however, whether they're willing to say so on the record or not, many Republican elected officials cannot say the same about President Trump.

That's why I think Republicans really miss President Obama. Think of it this way. If America ever had/has a president who was arguably mentally/psychologically/emotionally unstable what politician could possibly want that president to be a member of his or her political party?

No they really won't miss him until they start giving their kids drinking water polluted with coal run-off and their black lung "welfare" checks stop coming...

So you think we will be upset with the same level of runoff as the entire Obama administration? The beautiful of not believing lies it you wont be disappointed by them.

Oh and we don't collect welfare

As usual...nothing to support your bullshit...tell you what welfare recipient, you go ahead and post a link showing that trump's allowing coal discharge to be dumped in our waterways does not increase the level of coal run-off as when Obama refused to allow it to take place...
No wonder you people don't like science...

I was unaware that I'd have to provide you with a link showing keeping the levels the were back in December when Obama created the regulation. It seems self evident that a regulation Obama made walking out the door that hasn't even had time to effect the industry wont negatively impact anything when it's repealed.

Perhaps its the lack of critical thinking that keeps you on welfare.

 

[GHook93]

Lol not a chance!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[percysunshine]

.
So you are a Democrat who would favor Donald Trump over GW Bush?

Nope.

If you are not a Democrat, why reply to the bet?

The OP title is I bet Republicans really miss President Obama now. I don't why you brought George W Bush up only you know.

.
Heh ... what a weasel. You claim I lost the bet, and now you are pretending there never was a bet. Loser...chuckle

First I never directed my original response to any specific poster so your idea is idiotic second at best my original response was to the OP which was not you now sober up and get back on your meds moron.

It imediately followed my bet challenge. My appologies if you were not replying to me.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Not a fucking chance I miss that race baiting pos

 

[Claudette]

Politics is a dirty game. It's full of people who engage in a whole host of reprehensible behavior that would make most people cringe if they got to see it up close and personal every single day. They include, but certainly are not limited to, the following:

Backstabbing, posturing, engaging in feigned outrage, taking credit for things you had nothing to do with, denying responsibility for things you were involved with, misrepresenting the facts, blatant hypocrisy, outright lying, professing beliefs you don't really hold in order to ingratiate yourself with the electorate, pandering to those same people, and rarely voting your conscience because voting the way you're told to vote by the leadership is the only certain way to assure your future in a party system where seniority reigns supreme.

Yup, it's pretty darn unsavory, alright. And naturally, the party system is one of the reasons it's this way. Think of it like team sports. For example, all things being equal, what's the greatest single determining factor which influences whether or not a spectator believes that a pass was a completion which was run into the end zone for a touchdown, or it was a trapped (and therefore an incomplete) pass, or that the runner stepped out of bounds 30 yards away from the goal line? It's probably determined by which team the spectator is a fan. So too with politics.

For example, at one time or another, everybody probably has noticed that when a president of one party proposes X, in short order there is a rising chorus of voices in opposition. And almost always, it comes from members of the other party. Meanwhile, the members of the president's party either offer praise, or they at least withhold any kind of real criticism. However, the reality of what elected representatives may actually feel in their heart of hearts may be completely different. There may be quite a few members of the opposition party who think X is a great idea and would enthusiastically support it if and when it was proposed by a president of their own party. Likewise, members of the president's party may not really like the idea (X) but instead decide not to criticize it in order to promote party unity and/or to hopefully further their own political careers.

It's with this understanding that I cam't help but marvel at how frequently Republican Party elected representatives have come out in firm opposition to statements that Trump has made both as a candidate prior to the election and as president since taking office. Contrast that with Republicans responses to Obama over an 8 year period. Oh sure, there were several times when Republicans opposed Obama and did so quite vocally. But at least a part of those responses in either degree, or frequency, or both, can be attributed to the previously mentioned 'feigned outrage' which some Republicans offered up in order to curry favor with their increasingly angry GOP base.

However, on balance, very few people could honestly dispute the fact that President Obama had truly earned the moniker of "'no-drama' Obama." No, Obama rarely ever said or did anything that could be considered outrageous except by the most partisan observer. I dare say that even the more strident Republicans never had any concerns about President Obama's mental stability. Today, however, whether they're willing to say so on the record or not, many Republican elected officials cannot say the same about President Trump.

That's why I think Republicans really miss President Obama. Think of it this way. If America ever had/has a president who was arguably mentally/psychologically/emotionally unstable, what politician could possibly want that president to be a member of his or her political party?

Not hardly bucko.

 

[reconmark]

Politics is a dirty game. It's full of people who engage in a whole host of reprehensible behavior that would make most people cringe if they got to see it up close and personal every single day. They include, but certainly are not limited to, the following:

Backstabbing, posturing, engaging in feigned outrage, taking credit for things you had nothing to do with, denying responsibility for things you were involved with, misrepresenting the facts, blatant hypocrisy, outright lying, professing beliefs you don't really hold in order to ingratiate yourself with the electorate, pandering to those same people, and rarely voting your conscience because voting the way you're told to vote by the leadership is the only certain way to assure your future in a party system where seniority reigns supreme.

Yup, it's pretty darn unsavory, alright. And naturally, the party system is one of the reasons it's this way. Think of it like team sports. For example, all things being equal, what's the greatest single determining factor which influences whether or not a spectator believes that a pass was a completion which was run into the end zone for a touchdown, or it was a trapped (and therefore an incomplete) pass, or that the runner stepped out of bounds 30 yards away from the goal line? It's probably determined by which team the spectator is a fan. So too with politics.

For example, at one time or another, everybody probably has noticed that when a president of one party proposes X, in short order there is a rising chorus of voices in opposition. And almost always, it comes from members of the other party. Meanwhile, the members of the president's party either offer praise, or they at least withhold any kind of real criticism. However, the reality of what elected representatives may actually feel in their heart of hearts may be completely different. There may be quite a few members of the opposition party who think X is a great idea and would enthusiastically support it if and when it was proposed by a president of their own party. Likewise, members of the president's party may not really like the idea (X) but instead decide not to criticize it in order to promote party unity and/or to hopefully further their own political careers.

It's with this understanding that I cam't help but marvel at how frequently Republican Party elected representatives have come out in firm opposition to statements that Trump has made both as a candidate prior to the election and as president since taking office. Contrast that with Republicans responses to Obama over an 8 year period. Oh sure, there were several times when Republicans opposed Obama and did so quite vocally. But at least a part of those responses in either degree, or frequency, or both, can be attributed to the previously mentioned 'feigned outrage' which some Republicans offered up in order to curry favor with their increasingly angry GOP base.

However, on balance, very few people could honestly dispute the fact that President Obama had truly earned the moniker of "'no-drama' Obama." No, Obama rarely ever said or did anything that could be considered outrageous except by the most partisan observer. I dare say that even the more strident Republicans never had any concerns about President Obama's mental stability. Today, however, whether they're willing to say so on the record or not, many Republican elected officials cannot say the same about President Trump.

That's why I think Republicans really miss President Obama. Think of it this way. If America ever had/has a president who was arguably mentally/psychologically/emotionally unstable what politician could possibly want that president to be a member of his or her political party?

No they really won't miss him until they start giving their kids drinking water polluted with coal run-off and their black lung "welfare" checks stop coming...

So you think we will be upset with the same level of runoff as the entire Obama administration? The beautiful of not believing lies it you wont be disappointed by them.

Oh and we don't collect welfare

As usual...nothing to support your bullshit...tell you what welfare recipient, you go ahead and post a link showing that trump's allowing coal discharge to be dumped in our waterways does not increase the level of coal run-off as when Obama refused to allow it to take place...
No wonder you people don't like science...

I was unaware that I'd have to provide you with a link showing keeping the levels the were back in December when Obama created the regulation. It seems self evident that a regulation Obama made walking out the door that hasn't even had time to effect the industry wont negatively impact anything when it's repealed.

Perhaps its the lack of critical thinking that keeps you on welfare.

Don't allow me to make you look stupid a full time job...part time is enough.

Appalachian Voices, an environmental group, estimates that coal companies have buried over 2,000 miles of streams in the region through mountaintop removal mining since the 1990s. And there’s growing evidence that when mining debris and waste gets into water supplies, the toxic metals can have dire health impacts for the people and mostly rural communities living nearby
What Obama’s “stream protection rule” actually does
Coal mining is a messy business. In parts of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia, mining companies often get at underground coal seams by blowing up the tops of mountains — a process known as mountaintop removal mining. Once that’s done, they’ll dump the debris into the valleys below, which can contaminate streams and waterways with toxic heavy metals.

So again poor trash welfare recipient...where's your link showing that trumps allowing coal waste to be discharged into our waterways isn't going to increase as to when Obama refused to allow it to happen???

 

[Meathead]

Rings a bell. Coloured fella, wasn't he?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I miss Obama as much as I enjoy Donald John Trump as President and if you must know what that mean, well it is like a bad case of herpes you never get rid of and hurt so much that you never forget but are happy when the flare-up goes away...

 

[Hossfly]

Politics is a dirty game. It's full of people who engage in a whole host of reprehensible behavior that would make most people cringe if they got to see it up close and personal every single day. They include, but certainly are not limited to, the following:

Backstabbing, posturing, engaging in feigned outrage, taking credit for things you had nothing to do with, denying responsibility for things you were involved with, misrepresenting the facts, blatant hypocrisy, outright lying, professing beliefs you don't really hold in order to ingratiate yourself with the electorate, pandering to those same people, and rarely voting your conscience because voting the way you're told to vote by the leadership is the only certain way to assure your future in a party system where seniority reigns supreme.

Yup, it's pretty darn unsavory, alright. And naturally, the party system is one of the reasons it's this way. Think of it like team sports. For example, all things being equal, what's the greatest single determining factor which influences whether or not a spectator believes that a pass was a completion which was run into the end zone for a touchdown, or it was a trapped (and therefore an incomplete) pass, or that the runner stepped out of bounds 30 yards away from the goal line? It's probably determined by which team the spectator is a fan. So too with politics.

For example, at one time or another, everybody probably has noticed that when a president of one party proposes X, in short order there is a rising chorus of voices in opposition. And almost always, it comes from members of the other party. Meanwhile, the members of the president's party either offer praise, or they at least withhold any kind of real criticism. However, the reality of what elected representatives may actually feel in their heart of hearts may be completely different. There may be quite a few members of the opposition party who think X is a great idea and would enthusiastically support it if and when it was proposed by a president of their own party. Likewise, members of the president's party may not really like the idea (X) but instead decide not to criticize it in order to promote party unity and/or to hopefully further their own political careers.

It's with this understanding that I cam't help but marvel at how frequently Republican Party elected representatives have come out in firm opposition to statements that Trump has made both as a candidate prior to the election and as president since taking office. Contrast that with Republicans responses to Obama over an 8 year period. Oh sure, there were several times when Republicans opposed Obama and did so quite vocally. But at least a part of those responses in either degree, or frequency, or both, can be attributed to the previously mentioned 'feigned outrage' which some Republicans offered up in order to curry favor with their increasingly angry GOP base.

However, on balance, very few people could honestly dispute the fact that President Obama had truly earned the moniker of "'no-drama' Obama." No, Obama rarely ever said or did anything that could be considered outrageous except by the most partisan observer. I dare say that even the more strident Republicans never had any concerns about President Obama's mental stability. Today, however, whether they're willing to say so on the record or not, many Republican elected officials cannot say the same about President Trump.

That's why I think Republicans really miss President Obama. Think of it this way. If America ever had/has a president who was arguably mentally/psychologically/emotionally unstable what politician could possibly want that president to be a member of his or her political party?

No they really won't miss him until they start giving their kids drinking water polluted with coal run-off and their black lung "welfare" checks stop coming...

I was born and raised in coal country and no one drinks from streams or rivers and black lung claims are handled by the Dept. Of Labor.

Sorry that facts give you an ass rash...
Coal Miners Stand to Lose Black Lung Coverage if ACA Is Repealed

If President-elect Donald Trump fulfills his promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, coal miners may lose disability benefits related to black lung.

The ACA included a provision meant to reverse the difficulty coal miners experienced when applying for compensation for black lung disease. Before 2009, “miners had to prove not only that they were disabled because of breathing problems, and that they had coal workers’ black lung, but that their disability was caused by their years in the mine,” writes a journalist at the online publication Stat.


Debbie Wills coordinates the black lung program for Valley Health primary care system. She says that prior to the ACA, it was almost impossible to qualify for the compensation benefits. Coal companies pay the benefits, and also pay into a federal trust fund that pays when coal companies can't. Wills says the process of getting benefits was arduous for miners.
The Affordable Care Act includes something called the Byrd Amendments. One shifts the burden of proof — instead of miners having to prove that mining caused their black lung, the coal companies have to prove that mining didn't.

"Coal company lawyers would doctor shop around the country and find two, three, four, five, seven doctors to say, 'Yes this miner is disabled, but it's not because of black lung,'"
Obamacare Repeal Threatens A Health Benefit Popular In Coal Country

[/QUOTE]
Wait until Trump's medical change takes effect. People I know with black lung aren't worried.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not at all.

And this is the first time anyone has called Obama no drama Obama.

Is this from the same vein of people claiming Obama had no scandals?

Ummm, no, it's from people who watched Obama come into the role of the President and make nice with governments Bush alienated, & without a game plan immediately cobbled a way to alleviate the panic and slowly rebuild confidence in our economy.

A good man able to take the high road, even when fools and idiots and liars attacked him and his family. You know the kind, you see one in the mirror.

I agree it takes a good man to take the high road.

It's a shame Obama never tried to take it

Actually it's a shame that you are too ignorant to have recognized the caliber of President you had...don't worry, trump's got your back...lol.

Yes. Of course. Every one who doesn't worship Obama is ignorant of how great he truly was. Probably because he was too busy screwing us over.

Obama could have been a magnificent president. He could have healed us. United us. Instead he grabbed power for himself. Instead he spied on the press. He destabilized the entire world. Turned nasa into a Muslim outreach program instead of a space exploration program. Used the irs to shut down political enemies. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

No I'm very much aware of the caliber of man hr was. And its far below what he could have been.

And I'm also aware of the caliber of man trump is. And he is already exceeding expectations. Which I admit is easy to do when you expect him to be just as bad as the others

 

[Hossfly]

Contaminants from coal ash disposal sites threaten drinking water for Charlotte, researchers found

Politics is a dirty game. It's full of people who engage in a whole host of reprehensible behavior that would make most people cringe if they got to see it up close and personal every single day. They include, but certainly are not limited to, the following:

Backstabbing, posturing, engaging in feigned outrage, taking credit for things you had nothing to do with, denying responsibility for things you were involved with, misrepresenting the facts, blatant hypocrisy, outright lying, professing beliefs you don't really hold in order to ingratiate yourself with the electorate, pandering to those same people, and rarely voting your conscience because voting the way you're told to vote by the leadership is the only certain way to assure your future in a party system where seniority reigns supreme.

Yup, it's pretty darn unsavory, alright. And naturally, the party system is one of the reasons it's this way. Think of it like team sports. For example, all things being equal, what's the greatest single determining factor which influences whether or not a spectator believes that a pass was a completion which was run into the end zone for a touchdown, or it was a trapped (and therefore an incomplete) pass, or that the runner stepped out of bounds 30 yards away from the goal line? It's probably determined by which team the spectator is a fan. So too with politics.

For example, at one time or another, everybody probably has noticed that when a president of one party proposes X, in short order there is a rising chorus of voices in opposition. And almost always, it comes from members of the other party. Meanwhile, the members of the president's party either offer praise, or they at least withhold any kind of real criticism. However, the reality of what elected representatives may actually feel in their heart of hearts may be completely different. There may be quite a few members of the opposition party who think X is a great idea and would enthusiastically support it if and when it was proposed by a president of their own party. Likewise, members of the president's party may not really like the idea (X) but instead decide not to criticize it in order to promote party unity and/or to hopefully further their own political careers.

It's with this understanding that I cam't help but marvel at how frequently Republican Party elected representatives have come out in firm opposition to statements that Trump has made both as a candidate prior to the election and as president since taking office. Contrast that with Republicans responses to Obama over an 8 year period. Oh sure, there were several times when Republicans opposed Obama and did so quite vocally. But at least a part of those responses in either degree, or frequency, or both, can be attributed to the previously mentioned 'feigned outrage' which some Republicans offered up in order to curry favor with their increasingly angry GOP base.

However, on balance, very few people could honestly dispute the fact that President Obama had truly earned the moniker of "'no-drama' Obama." No, Obama rarely ever said or did anything that could be considered outrageous except by the most partisan observer. I dare say that even the more strident Republicans never had any concerns about President Obama's mental stability. Today, however, whether they're willing to say so on the record or not, many Republican elected officials cannot say the same about President Trump.

That's why I think Republicans really miss President Obama. Think of it this way. If America ever had/has a president who was arguably mentally/psychologically/emotionally unstable what politician could possibly want that president to be a member of his or her political party?

No they really won't miss him until they start giving their kids drinking water polluted with coal run-off and their black lung "welfare" checks stop coming...

I was born and raised in coal country and no one drinks from streams or rivers and black lung claims are handled by the Dept. Of Labor.

WASHINGTON — The chemical spill that contaminated water for hundreds of thousands in West Virginia was only the latest and most high-profile case of coal sullying the nation's waters.

For decades, chemicals and waste from the coal industry have tainted hundreds of waterways and groundwater supplies, spoiling private wells, shutting down fishing and rendering streams virtually lifeless

“I've made a career of body counts of dead fish and wildlife made that way from coal,” said Dennis Lemly, a U.S. Forest Service research biologist who has spent decades chronicling the deformities that pollution from coal mining has caused in fish.

“How many years and how many cases does it take before somebody will step up to the plate and say, ‘Wait a minute, we need to change this’?”

The spill of a coal-cleaning chemical into a river in Charleston, W.Va., left 300,000 people without water. It exposed a potentially new and under-regulated risk to water from the coal industry when the federal government is still trying to close regulatory gaps that have contributed to coal's legacy of water pollution.

Contaminants from coal ash disposal sites threaten drinking water for Charlotte, researchers found

Accidental chemical spills are going to happen. The WV chemical spill was cleaned up. And the water in Charlotte from those spills never reached the water treatment plant. I live in Charlotte and we never had a problem.

 

[reconmark]

Politics is a dirty game. It's full of people who engage in a whole host of reprehensible behavior that would make most people cringe if they got to see it up close and personal every single day. They include, but certainly are not limited to, the following:

Backstabbing, posturing, engaging in feigned outrage, taking credit for things you had nothing to do with, denying responsibility for things you were involved with, misrepresenting the facts, blatant hypocrisy, outright lying, professing beliefs you don't really hold in order to ingratiate yourself with the electorate, pandering to those same people, and rarely voting your conscience because voting the way you're told to vote by the leadership is the only certain way to assure your future in a party system where seniority reigns supreme.

Yup, it's pretty darn unsavory, alright. And naturally, the party system is one of the reasons it's this way. Think of it like team sports. For example, all things being equal, what's the greatest single determining factor which influences whether or not a spectator believes that a pass was a completion which was run into the end zone for a touchdown, or it was a trapped (and therefore an incomplete) pass, or that the runner stepped out of bounds 30 yards away from the goal line? It's probably determined by which team the spectator is a fan. So too with politics.

For example, at one time or another, everybody probably has noticed that when a president of one party proposes X, in short order there is a rising chorus of voices in opposition. And almost always, it comes from members of the other party. Meanwhile, the members of the president's party either offer praise, or they at least withhold any kind of real criticism. However, the reality of what elected representatives may actually feel in their heart of hearts may be completely different. There may be quite a few members of the opposition party who think X is a great idea and would enthusiastically support it if and when it was proposed by a president of their own party. Likewise, members of the president's party may not really like the idea (X) but instead decide not to criticize it in order to promote party unity and/or to hopefully further their own political careers.

It's with this understanding that I cam't help but marvel at how frequently Republican Party elected representatives have come out in firm opposition to statements that Trump has made both as a candidate prior to the election and as president since taking office. Contrast that with Republicans responses to Obama over an 8 year period. Oh sure, there were several times when Republicans opposed Obama and did so quite vocally. But at least a part of those responses in either degree, or frequency, or both, can be attributed to the previously mentioned 'feigned outrage' which some Republicans offered up in order to curry favor with their increasingly angry GOP base.

However, on balance, very few people could honestly dispute the fact that President Obama had truly earned the moniker of "'no-drama' Obama." No, Obama rarely ever said or did anything that could be considered outrageous except by the most partisan observer. I dare say that even the more strident Republicans never had any concerns about President Obama's mental stability. Today, however, whether they're willing to say so on the record or not, many Republican elected officials cannot say the same about President Trump.

That's why I think Republicans really miss President Obama. Think of it this way. If America ever had/has a president who was arguably mentally/psychologically/emotionally unstable what politician could possibly want that president to be a member of his or her political party?

No they really won't miss him until they start giving their kids drinking water polluted with coal run-off and their black lung "welfare" checks stop coming...

I was born and raised in coal country and no one drinks from streams or rivers and black lung claims are handled by the Dept. Of Labor.

Sorry that facts give you an ass rash...
Coal Miners Stand to Lose Black Lung Coverage if ACA Is Repealed

If President-elect Donald Trump fulfills his promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, coal miners may lose disability benefits related to black lung.

The ACA included a provision meant to reverse the difficulty coal miners experienced when applying for compensation for black lung disease. Before 2009, “miners had to prove not only that they were disabled because of breathing problems, and that they had coal workers’ black lung, but that their disability was caused by their years in the mine,” writes a journalist at the online publication Stat.


Debbie Wills coordinates the black lung program for Valley Health primary care system. She says that prior to the ACA, it was almost impossible to qualify for the compensation benefits. Coal companies pay the benefits, and also pay into a federal trust fund that pays when coal companies can't. Wills says the process of getting benefits was arduous for miners.
The Affordable Care Act includes something called the Byrd Amendments. One shifts the burden of proof — instead of miners having to prove that mining caused their black lung, the coal companies have to prove that mining didn't.

"Coal company lawyers would doctor shop around the country and find two, three, four, five, seven doctors to say, 'Yes this miner is disabled, but it's not because of black lung,'"
Obamacare Repeal Threatens A Health Benefit Popular In Coal Country

Wait until Trump's medical change takes effect. People I know with black lung aren't worried.[/QUOTE]
So stupid people aren't worried...lol.
That doesn't change or refute the facts I posted....

 

[reconmark]

Not at all.

And this is the first time anyone has called Obama no drama Obama.

Is this from the same vein of people claiming Obama had no scandals?

Ummm, no, it's from people who watched Obama come into the role of the President and make nice with governments Bush alienated, & without a game plan immediately cobbled a way to alleviate the panic and slowly rebuild confidence in our economy.

A good man able to take the high road, even when fools and idiots and liars attacked him and his family. You know the kind, you see one in the mirror.

I agree it takes a good man to take the high road.

It's a shame Obama never tried to take it

Actually it's a shame that you are too ignorant to have recognized the caliber of President you had...don't worry, trump's got your back...lol.

Yes. Of course. Every one who doesn't worship Obama is ignorant of how great he truly was. Probably because he was too busy screwing us over.

Obama could have been a magnificent president. He could have healed us. United us. Instead he grabbed power for himself. Instead he spied on the press. He destabilized the entire world. Turned nasa into a Muslim outreach program instead of a space exploration program. Used the irs to shut down political enemies. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

No I'm very much aware of the caliber of man hr was. And its far below what he could have been.

And I'm also aware of the caliber of man trump is. And he is already exceeding expectations. Which I admit is easy to do when you expect him to be just as bad as the others

I have a low tolerance of people that post while doing meth...please stop...
Just try to post a link???...oh yeah, no one else on the entire internet is quite this stupid...

 

[reconmark]

Contaminants from coal ash disposal sites threaten drinking water for Charlotte, researchers found

Politics is a dirty game. It's full of people who engage in a whole host of reprehensible behavior that would make most people cringe if they got to see it up close and personal every single day. They include, but certainly are not limited to, the following:

Backstabbing, posturing, engaging in feigned outrage, taking credit for things you had nothing to do with, denying responsibility for things you were involved with, misrepresenting the facts, blatant hypocrisy, outright lying, professing beliefs you don't really hold in order to ingratiate yourself with the electorate, pandering to those same people, and rarely voting your conscience because voting the way you're told to vote by the leadership is the only certain way to assure your future in a party system where seniority reigns supreme.

Yup, it's pretty darn unsavory, alright. And naturally, the party system is one of the reasons it's this way. Think of it like team sports. For example, all things being equal, what's the greatest single determining factor which influences whether or not a spectator believes that a pass was a completion which was run into the end zone for a touchdown, or it was a trapped (and therefore an incomplete) pass, or that the runner stepped out of bounds 30 yards away from the goal line? It's probably determined by which team the spectator is a fan. So too with politics.

For example, at one time or another, everybody probably has noticed that when a president of one party proposes X, in short order there is a rising chorus of voices in opposition. And almost always, it comes from members of the other party. Meanwhile, the members of the president's party either offer praise, or they at least withhold any kind of real criticism. However, the reality of what elected representatives may actually feel in their heart of hearts may be completely different. There may be quite a few members of the opposition party who think X is a great idea and would enthusiastically support it if and when it was proposed by a president of their own party. Likewise, members of the president's party may not really like the idea (X) but instead decide not to criticize it in order to promote party unity and/or to hopefully further their own political careers.

It's with this understanding that I cam't help but marvel at how frequently Republican Party elected representatives have come out in firm opposition to statements that Trump has made both as a candidate prior to the election and as president since taking office. Contrast that with Republicans responses to Obama over an 8 year period. Oh sure, there were several times when Republicans opposed Obama and did so quite vocally. But at least a part of those responses in either degree, or frequency, or both, can be attributed to the previously mentioned 'feigned outrage' which some Republicans offered up in order to curry favor with their increasingly angry GOP base.

However, on balance, very few people could honestly dispute the fact that President Obama had truly earned the moniker of "'no-drama' Obama." No, Obama rarely ever said or did anything that could be considered outrageous except by the most partisan observer. I dare say that even the more strident Republicans never had any concerns about President Obama's mental stability. Today, however, whether they're willing to say so on the record or not, many Republican elected officials cannot say the same about President Trump.

That's why I think Republicans really miss President Obama. Think of it this way. If America ever had/has a president who was arguably mentally/psychologically/emotionally unstable what politician could possibly want that president to be a member of his or her political party?

No they really won't miss him until they start giving their kids drinking water polluted with coal run-off and their black lung "welfare" checks stop coming...

I was born and raised in coal country and no one drinks from streams or rivers and black lung claims are handled by the Dept. Of Labor.

WASHINGTON — The chemical spill that contaminated water for hundreds of thousands in West Virginia was only the latest and most high-profile case of coal sullying the nation's waters.

For decades, chemicals and waste from the coal industry have tainted hundreds of waterways and groundwater supplies, spoiling private wells, shutting down fishing and rendering streams virtually lifeless

“I've made a career of body counts of dead fish and wildlife made that way from coal,” said Dennis Lemly, a U.S. Forest Service research biologist who has spent decades chronicling the deformities that pollution from coal mining has caused in fish.

“How many years and how many cases does it take before somebody will step up to the plate and say, ‘Wait a minute, we need to change this’?”

The spill of a coal-cleaning chemical into a river in Charleston, W.Va., left 300,000 people without water. It exposed a potentially new and under-regulated risk to water from the coal industry when the federal government is still trying to close regulatory gaps that have contributed to coal's legacy of water pollution.

Contaminants from coal ash disposal sites threaten drinking water for Charlotte, researchers found

Accidental chemical spills are going to happen. The WV chemical spill was cleaned up. And the water in Charlotte from those spills never reached the water treatment plant. I live in Charlotte and we never had a problem.

Not even a competent dodge...

 

[Avatar4321]

Politics is a dirty game. It's full of people who engage in a whole host of reprehensible behavior that would make most people cringe if they got to see it up close and personal every single day. They include, but certainly are not limited to, the following:

Backstabbing, posturing, engaging in feigned outrage, taking credit for things you had nothing to do with, denying responsibility for things you were involved with, misrepresenting the facts, blatant hypocrisy, outright lying, professing beliefs you don't really hold in order to ingratiate yourself with the electorate, pandering to those same people, and rarely voting your conscience because voting the way you're told to vote by the leadership is the only certain way to assure your future in a party system where seniority reigns supreme.

Yup, it's pretty darn unsavory, alright. And naturally, the party system is one of the reasons it's this way. Think of it like team sports. For example, all things being equal, what's the greatest single determining factor which influences whether or not a spectator believes that a pass was a completion which was run into the end zone for a touchdown, or it was a trapped (and therefore an incomplete) pass, or that the runner stepped out of bounds 30 yards away from the goal line? It's probably determined by which team the spectator is a fan. So too with politics.

For example, at one time or another, everybody probably has noticed that when a president of one party proposes X, in short order there is a rising chorus of voices in opposition. And almost always, it comes from members of the other party. Meanwhile, the members of the president's party either offer praise, or they at least withhold any kind of real criticism. However, the reality of what elected representatives may actually feel in their heart of hearts may be completely different. There may be quite a few members of the opposition party who think X is a great idea and would enthusiastically support it if and when it was proposed by a president of their own party. Likewise, members of the president's party may not really like the idea (X) but instead decide not to criticize it in order to promote party unity and/or to hopefully further their own political careers.

It's with this understanding that I cam't help but marvel at how frequently Republican Party elected representatives have come out in firm opposition to statements that Trump has made both as a candidate prior to the election and as president since taking office. Contrast that with Republicans responses to Obama over an 8 year period. Oh sure, there were several times when Republicans opposed Obama and did so quite vocally. But at least a part of those responses in either degree, or frequency, or both, can be attributed to the previously mentioned 'feigned outrage' which some Republicans offered up in order to curry favor with their increasingly angry GOP base.

However, on balance, very few people could honestly dispute the fact that President Obama had truly earned the moniker of "'no-drama' Obama." No, Obama rarely ever said or did anything that could be considered outrageous except by the most partisan observer. I dare say that even the more strident Republicans never had any concerns about President Obama's mental stability. Today, however, whether they're willing to say so on the record or not, many Republican elected officials cannot say the same about President Trump.

That's why I think Republicans really miss President Obama. Think of it this way. If America ever had/has a president who was arguably mentally/psychologically/emotionally unstable what politician could possibly want that president to be a member of his or her political party?

No they really won't miss him until they start giving their kids drinking water polluted with coal run-off and their black lung "welfare" checks stop coming...

I was born and raised in coal country and no one drinks from streams or rivers and black lung claims are handled by the Dept. Of Labor.

Sorry that facts give you an ass rash...
Coal Miners Stand to Lose Black Lung Coverage if ACA Is Repealed

If President-elect Donald Trump fulfills his promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, coal miners may lose disability benefits related to black lung.

The ACA included a provision meant to reverse the difficulty coal miners experienced when applying for compensation for black lung disease. Before 2009, “miners had to prove not only that they were disabled because of breathing problems, and that they had coal workers’ black lung, but that their disability was caused by their years in the mine,” writes a journalist at the online publication Stat.


Debbie Wills coordinates the black lung program for Valley Health primary care system. She says that prior to the ACA, it was almost impossible to qualify for the compensation benefits. Coal companies pay the benefits, and also pay into a federal trust fund that pays when coal companies can't. Wills says the process of getting benefits was arduous for miners.
The Affordable Care Act includes something called the Byrd Amendments. One shifts the burden of proof — instead of miners having to prove that mining caused their black lung, the coal companies have to prove that mining didn't.

"Coal company lawyers would doctor shop around the country and find two, three, four, five, seven doctors to say, 'Yes this miner is disabled, but it's not because of black lung,'"
Obamacare Repeal Threatens A Health Benefit Popular In Coal Country

Wait until Trump's medical change takes effect. People I know with black lung aren't worried.

So stupid people aren't worried...lol.
That doesn't change or refute the facts I posted....[/QUOTE]

Glad to hear you aren't worried

 

[Avatar4321]

Contaminants from coal ash disposal sites threaten drinking water for Charlotte, researchers found

Politics is a dirty game. It's full of people who engage in a whole host of reprehensible behavior that would make most people cringe if they got to see it up close and personal every single day. They include, but certainly are not limited to, the following:

Backstabbing, posturing, engaging in feigned outrage, taking credit for things you had nothing to do with, denying responsibility for things you were involved with, misrepresenting the facts, blatant hypocrisy, outright lying, professing beliefs you don't really hold in order to ingratiate yourself with the electorate, pandering to those same people, and rarely voting your conscience because voting the way you're told to vote by the leadership is the only certain way to assure your future in a party system where seniority reigns supreme.

Yup, it's pretty darn unsavory, alright. And naturally, the party system is one of the reasons it's this way. Think of it like team sports. For example, all things being equal, what's the greatest single determining factor which influences whether or not a spectator believes that a pass was a completion which was run into the end zone for a touchdown, or it was a trapped (and therefore an incomplete) pass, or that the runner stepped out of bounds 30 yards away from the goal line? It's probably determined by which team the spectator is a fan. So too with politics.

For example, at one time or another, everybody probably has noticed that when a president of one party proposes X, in short order there is a rising chorus of voices in opposition. And almost always, it comes from members of the other party. Meanwhile, the members of the president's party either offer praise, or they at least withhold any kind of real criticism. However, the reality of what elected representatives may actually feel in their heart of hearts may be completely different. There may be quite a few members of the opposition party who think X is a great idea and would enthusiastically support it if and when it was proposed by a president of their own party. Likewise, members of the president's party may not really like the idea (X) but instead decide not to criticize it in order to promote party unity and/or to hopefully further their own political careers.

It's with this understanding that I cam't help but marvel at how frequently Republican Party elected representatives have come out in firm opposition to statements that Trump has made both as a candidate prior to the election and as president since taking office. Contrast that with Republicans responses to Obama over an 8 year period. Oh sure, there were several times when Republicans opposed Obama and did so quite vocally. But at least a part of those responses in either degree, or frequency, or both, can be attributed to the previously mentioned 'feigned outrage' which some Republicans offered up in order to curry favor with their increasingly angry GOP base.

However, on balance, very few people could honestly dispute the fact that President Obama had truly earned the moniker of "'no-drama' Obama." No, Obama rarely ever said or did anything that could be considered outrageous except by the most partisan observer. I dare say that even the more strident Republicans never had any concerns about President Obama's mental stability. Today, however, whether they're willing to say so on the record or not, many Republican elected officials cannot say the same about President Trump.

That's why I think Republicans really miss President Obama. Think of it this way. If America ever had/has a president who was arguably mentally/psychologically/emotionally unstable what politician could possibly want that president to be a member of his or her political party?

No they really won't miss him until they start giving their kids drinking water polluted with coal run-off and their black lung "welfare" checks stop coming...

I was born and raised in coal country and no one drinks from streams or rivers and black lung claims are handled by the Dept. Of Labor.

WASHINGTON — The chemical spill that contaminated water for hundreds of thousands in West Virginia was only the latest and most high-profile case of coal sullying the nation's waters.

For decades, chemicals and waste from the coal industry have tainted hundreds of waterways and groundwater supplies, spoiling private wells, shutting down fishing and rendering streams virtually lifeless

“I've made a career of body counts of dead fish and wildlife made that way from coal,” said Dennis Lemly, a U.S. Forest Service research biologist who has spent decades chronicling the deformities that pollution from coal mining has caused in fish.

“How many years and how many cases does it take before somebody will step up to the plate and say, ‘Wait a minute, we need to change this’?”

The spill of a coal-cleaning chemical into a river in Charleston, W.Va., left 300,000 people without water. It exposed a potentially new and under-regulated risk to water from the coal industry when the federal government is still trying to close regulatory gaps that have contributed to coal's legacy of water pollution.

Contaminants from coal ash disposal sites threaten drinking water for Charlotte, researchers found

Accidental chemical spills are going to happen. The WV chemical spill was cleaned up. And the water in Charlotte from those spills never reached the water treatment plant. I live in Charlotte and we never had a problem.

Not even a competent dodge...

In other words, you don't know how to respond intelligently

 

[Hossfly]

Contaminants from coal ash disposal sites threaten drinking water for Charlotte, researchers found

Politics is a dirty game. It's full of people who engage in a whole host of reprehensible behavior that would make most people cringe if they got to see it up close and personal every single day. They include, but certainly are not limited to, the following:

Backstabbing, posturing, engaging in feigned outrage, taking credit for things you had nothing to do with, denying responsibility for things you were involved with, misrepresenting the facts, blatant hypocrisy, outright lying, professing beliefs you don't really hold in order to ingratiate yourself with the electorate, pandering to those same people, and rarely voting your conscience because voting the way you're told to vote by the leadership is the only certain way to assure your future in a party system where seniority reigns supreme.

Yup, it's pretty darn unsavory, alright. And naturally, the party system is one of the reasons it's this way. Think of it like team sports. For example, all things being equal, what's the greatest single determining factor which influences whether or not a spectator believes that a pass was a completion which was run into the end zone for a touchdown, or it was a trapped (and therefore an incomplete) pass, or that the runner stepped out of bounds 30 yards away from the goal line? It's probably determined by which team the spectator is a fan. So too with politics.

For example, at one time or another, everybody probably has noticed that when a president of one party proposes X, in short order there is a rising chorus of voices in opposition. And almost always, it comes from members of the other party. Meanwhile, the members of the president's party either offer praise, or they at least withhold any kind of real criticism. However, the reality of what elected representatives may actually feel in their heart of hearts may be completely different. There may be quite a few members of the opposition party who think X is a great idea and would enthusiastically support it if and when it was proposed by a president of their own party. Likewise, members of the president's party may not really like the idea (X) but instead decide not to criticize it in order to promote party unity and/or to hopefully further their own political careers.

It's with this understanding that I cam't help but marvel at how frequently Republican Party elected representatives have come out in firm opposition to statements that Trump has made both as a candidate prior to the election and as president since taking office. Contrast that with Republicans responses to Obama over an 8 year period. Oh sure, there were several times when Republicans opposed Obama and did so quite vocally. But at least a part of those responses in either degree, or frequency, or both, can be attributed to the previously mentioned 'feigned outrage' which some Republicans offered up in order to curry favor with their increasingly angry GOP base.

However, on balance, very few people could honestly dispute the fact that President Obama had truly earned the moniker of "'no-drama' Obama." No, Obama rarely ever said or did anything that could be considered outrageous except by the most partisan observer. I dare say that even the more strident Republicans never had any concerns about President Obama's mental stability. Today, however, whether they're willing to say so on the record or not, many Republican elected officials cannot say the same about President Trump.

That's why I think Republicans really miss President Obama. Think of it this way. If America ever had/has a president who was arguably mentally/psychologically/emotionally unstable what politician could possibly want that president to be a member of his or her political party?

No they really won't miss him until they start giving their kids drinking water polluted with coal run-off and their black lung "welfare" checks stop coming...

I was born and raised in coal country and no one drinks from streams or rivers and black lung claims are handled by the Dept. Of Labor.

WASHINGTON — The chemical spill that contaminated water for hundreds of thousands in West Virginia was only the latest and most high-profile case of coal sullying the nation's waters.

For decades, chemicals and waste from the coal industry have tainted hundreds of waterways and groundwater supplies, spoiling private wells, shutting down fishing and rendering streams virtually lifeless

“I've made a career of body counts of dead fish and wildlife made that way from coal,” said Dennis Lemly, a U.S. Forest Service research biologist who has spent decades chronicling the deformities that pollution from coal mining has caused in fish.

“How many years and how many cases does it take before somebody will step up to the plate and say, ‘Wait a minute, we need to change this’?”

The spill of a coal-cleaning chemical into a river in Charleston, W.Va., left 300,000 people without water. It exposed a potentially new and under-regulated risk to water from the coal industry when the federal government is still trying to close regulatory gaps that have contributed to coal's legacy of water pollution.

Contaminants from coal ash disposal sites threaten drinking water for Charlotte, researchers found

Accidental chemical spills are going to happen. The WV chemical spill was cleaned up. And the water in Charlotte from those spills never reached the water treatment plant. I live in Charlotte and we never had a problem.

Not even a competent dodge...

Dodge hell. Those spills happened a few years ago and things were corrected and companies payed fines. Get with the program.