Really, GOP?

[Mr. Shaman]

every 4 years I look and listen for a candidate from any party to be worth my vote , Obama was well worth it , the repigs never seem to get out of white supremacy thing , they think its the boss and employee thing in our lives , not just citizens but class .

but I'm looking forward to 12 , see whats on the ticket .

I know the shit that will be on the race , gun control , the one constant that repigs use , the dems want your guns ,

there be a lot of other crap , but thats their root .

Desperate people do desperate things.​

November 11, 2007​

"Today’s Democrats can’t will the old politics back into dominance. Their challenge is to expand their base or make better use of the one they’ve got. Shadow-boxing an imaginary foe called “McGovernism” is not only futile, but also, Miroff’s book makes clear, a disservice to McGovern. He may not have been perfect, but he was a damn sight better than the other guy."

When Republicans Trashed A War Hero ​

"In September 1944, McGovern joined the 741st Squadron of the 455th Bombardment Group of the Fifteenth Air Force, stationed at San Giovanni Airfield nearby Cerignola in the Apulia region of Italy. There he and his crew found a starving, disease-ridden local population wracked by the ill fortunes of war and far worse off than anything they had seen back home during the Depression. Starting on November 11, 1944, McGovern flew 35 missions over enemy territory from there, the first five as co-pilot for an experienced crew and the rest as pilot for his own plane, known as the Dakota Queen after his wife Eleanor. His targets were in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and northern, German-controlled Italy, and were often either oil refinery complexes or rail marshalling yards, all as part of the U.S. strategic bombing campaign in Europe. The eight- or nine-hour missions were grueling tests of endurance for pilots, and while German fighter aircraft were a diminished threat by then, his missions often faced heavy anti-aircraft artillery fire that filled the sky with flak bursts.

On McGovern's December 15 mission over Linz, his second as pilot, a piece of shrapnel from flak came through the windshield and missed killing him by only a few inches. The following day on a mission to Brüx he nearly collided with another bomber during close-formation flying in complete cloud cover. The day after that he was recommended for a medal after surviving a blown wheel on the always-dangerous B-24 take-off, completing a mission over Germany, and then landing without further damage to the plane. On a December 20 mission against the Škoda Works at Pilsen, McGovern's plane had one engine out and another in flames after being hit by flak. Unable to return to Italy, McGovern was able to land his plane on a British airfield on Vis, a small island off the Yugoslav coast controlled by Josip Broz Tito's Partisans. The short field, normally used by small fighter planes, killed many of the bomber crews who tried to make emergency landings there, but McGovern successfully landed, saving his crew and earning him the Distinguished Flying Cross."

George McGovern​

 

[drsmith1072]

If his party had followed the rules, he wouldn't have been president for 4 minutes, much less years.

We only need one rule....especially after a Bush Presiduncy....

....COMPETENCE!!

COMPETENCE? It doesn't take much of that when you have the plan already processing. Just follow the plans and look presidential, Obamush has been mediocre at best.

Really?? Then I am sure that you can prove that obama was just "following a plan" that was already in place and didn't change a single thing can't you??

I didn't think so. However, thanks for your usual unsubstantiated partisan based spin.

 

[Claudette]

I love the oft-repeated "Bush kept this country safe for 7 years!".

Nevermind that he was president for 8 years, not 7. and that one year cons always leave out? The worst attack on US soil in history.

Fact are facts. He did keep us safe for seven years.

Bush was barely in office when 9-11 occurred so does that mean we should blame Clinton who was in office for 8 years prior to Bush when the op was being planned?? Jesus. He should have known. After all it was on his watch.

Me? I'm gonna blame the dirtbags who killed 3,000 people.

Barely in office?? Ruby ridge happened BEFORE clinton was even elected and yet for years the right blamed him for that. On August 21, 1992 (clinton wasn't even elected yet.)

Janet reno hadn't yet been confirmed when waco started and yet the right attacks both her and clinton over that. The Waco siege began on February 28, 1993 (that is "barely in office")

The first WTC bombing occured a little over a month after clinton tookoffice and there are those in this very thread trying to bring that up and blame clinton. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993 (that is "barely in office")

Bush was in office for almost 8 months and yet you guys are so desperate to defend him you willfully forget your previous standards as you try to claim bush was "barely in office" when you refused to apply that standard to a democrat.

BTW how LONG of a cushion should an incoming president get??

Does that apply to ALL presidents or only rightwingers who you wish to give a pass to??

Furthermore, the planning of 9/11 CONTINUED on W's watch so please don't be so blatantly dishonest and claim that it was planned only on clinton's watch.

OH and the new line where ONLY a republican is concerned is that "I'm gonna blame the dirtbags" and yet we have already seen with recent terrorist attempts and attacks how the right has used them to try to blame obama for failing to keep us safe.
So it's hilarious how you choose to blame the perpetrators when a republican is president and yet you rightwingers jump at the chance to blame the president when he is a democrat.

Sorry to burst your bubble there Doc but I am not a Rep.

Facts are indeed facts. Despite all your bloviating Bush did keep this country safe for 7 years. Fact.

OL'BO has also kept this country safe for his tenure in office. How?? He kept what Bush put in place in place for the most part. Also a fact. He now knows exactly what Bush knew.

I do blame the dirtbags. You. However, can blame anyone you wish.

Have a nice day. LMAO.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If his party had followed the rules, he wouldn't have been president for 4 minutes, much less years.

We only need one rule....especially after a Bush Presiduncy....

....COMPETENCE!!

COMPETENCE? It doesn't take much of that when you have the plan already processing.

Yeah.....those Bushes really know how to leave an economy "processing".

​

 

[SFC Ollie]

Well, there is a first time for everything and based on how you trolled into a conversation without knowing what was being discussed in a lame and desperate attempt to attack me personally in retaliation for my pointing out your hypocrisy I would say that qualifiies you as being a troll.

Furthermore, the fact that you chimed in not knowing what was being discussed shows that you are a complete moron.

Attacking me will not erase your hypocrisy nor does it change the fact that you are a moron.

Thanks for the spin though.

Fact is I knew exactly what was being discussed. You are the person who brought up 2 times that Bush mentioned a recession. If there were more show them. But I can promise you, you won't find one tenth the examples we can find of Obama blaming Bush....

And No that is not a challenge, I am not even going to bother looking because any thinking adult knows I am right.

Yes, moron and I brought up two times bush mentioned when i only needed ONE to prove that windbag was wrong when he claimed

Bush actually understood that, and never tried to blame Clinton for the mistakes that were made under his watch, he just accepted the mess was his problem and dealt with it.

Then you chimed in not knowing what was being discussed and decided to try to claim that bush only mentioned a recession twice during his presidency (even though you have failed to prove that he only mentioned it twice) to try and attack me because I called you out for being a hypocrite earlier in this thread.

It doesn't matter that I only brought up two times that W blamed his predecessor for a recession because I only needed one time to prove windbag WRONG.
If you had known what was being discussed then I wouldn't have had to spell that out for you on more than one occasion.

BTW you have shown that your promises are worthless and you were the one that implied that bush only mentioned recession twice during his presidency so you prove it. After all it is your claim and while you are at it, despite your claim that it is not a challenge, why don't you back up your promise and do an actually head to head comparison.
What are you afraid of??
It's kind of pointless to make a promise that you refuse to follwo through on, don't you think?? However that does show how your promises are worthless.

Any fool knows that making a claim doesn't make it true so why is it that you believe it does??



P.S. I just love the fact that I call ollie out for trolling and for being a hypocrite who attacks others for "painting with a broad brush" even as he does the same and the loser bigreb neg reps me for "disrespecting ollie." LOL

I don't know about his neg, but I tend to neg stupidity more than anything else. You are really close to showing stupidity, but I think it's more of a type of ignorance... Do carry on.

 

[drsmith1072]

Fact are facts. He did keep us safe for seven years.

Bush was barely in office when 9-11 occurred so does that mean we should blame Clinton who was in office for 8 years prior to Bush when the op was being planned?? Jesus. He should have known. After all it was on his watch.

Me? I'm gonna blame the dirtbags who killed 3,000 people.

Barely in office?? Ruby ridge happened BEFORE clinton was even elected and yet for years the right blamed him for that. On August 21, 1992 (clinton wasn't even elected yet.)

Janet reno hadn't yet been confirmed when waco started and yet the right attacks both her and clinton over that. The Waco siege began on February 28, 1993 (that is "barely in office")

The first WTC bombing occured a little over a month after clinton tookoffice and there are those in this very thread trying to bring that up and blame clinton. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993 (that is "barely in office")

Bush was in office for almost 8 months and yet you guys are so desperate to defend him you willfully forget your previous standards as you try to claim bush was "barely in office" when you refused to apply that standard to a democrat.

BTW how LONG of a cushion should an incoming president get??

Does that apply to ALL presidents or only rightwingers who you wish to give a pass to??

Furthermore, the planning of 9/11 CONTINUED on W's watch so please don't be so blatantly dishonest and claim that it was planned only on clinton's watch.

OH and the new line where ONLY a republican is concerned is that "I'm gonna blame the dirtbags" and yet we have already seen with recent terrorist attempts and attacks how the right has used them to try to blame obama for failing to keep us safe.
So it's hilarious how you choose to blame the perpetrators when a republican is president and yet you rightwingers jump at the chance to blame the president when he is a democrat.

Sorry to burst your bubble there Doc but I am not a Rep.

Facts are indeed facts. Despite all your bloviating Bush did keep this country safe for 7 years. Fact.

OL'BO has also kept this country safe for his tenure in office. How?? He kept what Bush put in place in place for the most part. Also a fact. He now knows exactly what Bush knew.

I do blame the dirtbags. You. However, can blame anyone you wish.

Have a nice day. LMAO.

Thanks for the spin and the typical avoidance that was expected.

You presented spin, it was countered and the best you have to offer is to pretend it never happened as you refuse to address the actual content of my post by calling it "bloviating" when it is stating the FACTS that show your partisan spin, as you depserately claim bush was "barely in office", for what it is.

Oh so you aren't a rep but let me guess you are right leaning independent? LOL
It's amazing how many of those began popping up after W became a lame duck and the right lost the election in 08 isn't it??

BTW it's funny how for years W railed against the idea of artificial timelines for withdrawal but then adopted them AFTER obama's campaign suggested bascially what W ended up adopting and yet you rightwingers still try to give W credit even though he is out of office and it's wrong for the left to "look back and hold W accountable for anything.

LOL

 

[Synthaholic]

Really Liberals? Obama is Bush Jr. II. You should hate this guy.

If that's true, why do the wingnuts hate him?

 

[drsmith1072]

Fact is I knew exactly what was being discussed. You are the person who brought up 2 times that Bush mentioned a recession. If there were more show them. But I can promise you, you won't find one tenth the examples we can find of Obama blaming Bush....

And No that is not a challenge, I am not even going to bother looking because any thinking adult knows I am right.

Yes, moron and I brought up two times bush mentioned when i only needed ONE to prove that windbag was wrong when he claimed

Bush actually understood that, and never tried to blame Clinton for the mistakes that were made under his watch, he just accepted the mess was his problem and dealt with it.

Then you chimed in not knowing what was being discussed and decided to try to claim that bush only mentioned a recession twice during his presidency (even though you have failed to prove that he only mentioned it twice) to try and attack me because I called you out for being a hypocrite earlier in this thread.

It doesn't matter that I only brought up two times that W blamed his predecessor for a recession because I only needed one time to prove windbag WRONG.
If you had known what was being discussed then I wouldn't have had to spell that out for you on more than one occasion.

BTW you have shown that your promises are worthless and you were the one that implied that bush only mentioned recession twice during his presidency so you prove it. After all it is your claim and while you are at it, despite your claim that it is not a challenge, why don't you back up your promise and do an actually head to head comparison.
What are you afraid of??
It's kind of pointless to make a promise that you refuse to follwo through on, don't you think?? However that does show how your promises are worthless.

Any fool knows that making a claim doesn't make it true so why is it that you believe it does??



P.S. I just love the fact that I call ollie out for trolling and for being a hypocrite who attacks others for "painting with a broad brush" even as he does the same and the loser bigreb neg reps me for "disrespecting ollie." LOL

I don't know about his neg, but I tend to neg stupidity more than anything else. You are really close to showing stupidity, but I think it's more of a type of ignorance... Do carry on.

Calling you out for your trolling and hypocrisy has no bearing on me.

Thanks for exposing your trolling as in injected yourself into a conversation without knowing what was being discussed, your hypocrisy as you tried to call others out for "painting with a broad brush" even as you did the same, and your empty promises that you couldn't support even if you wanted to.

I made my point that windbag was wrong to claim that bush never blamed his predecessor.

I made my point that you are a hypocrite who holds others to a different standard than he holds himself.

None of your spin will change those FACTS.

 

[SFC Ollie]

 

[Claudette]

Barely in office?? Ruby ridge happened BEFORE clinton was even elected and yet for years the right blamed him for that. On August 21, 1992 (clinton wasn't even elected yet.)

Janet reno hadn't yet been confirmed when waco started and yet the right attacks both her and clinton over that. The Waco siege began on February 28, 1993 (that is "barely in office")

The first WTC bombing occured a little over a month after clinton tookoffice and there are those in this very thread trying to bring that up and blame clinton. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993 (that is "barely in office")

Bush was in office for almost 8 months and yet you guys are so desperate to defend him you willfully forget your previous standards as you try to claim bush was "barely in office" when you refused to apply that standard to a democrat.

BTW how LONG of a cushion should an incoming president get??

Does that apply to ALL presidents or only rightwingers who you wish to give a pass to??

Furthermore, the planning of 9/11 CONTINUED on W's watch so please don't be so blatantly dishonest and claim that it was planned only on clinton's watch.

OH and the new line where ONLY a republican is concerned is that "I'm gonna blame the dirtbags" and yet we have already seen with recent terrorist attempts and attacks how the right has used them to try to blame obama for failing to keep us safe.
So it's hilarious how you choose to blame the perpetrators when a republican is president and yet you rightwingers jump at the chance to blame the president when he is a democrat.

Sorry to burst your bubble there Doc but I am not a Rep.

Facts are indeed facts. Despite all your bloviating Bush did keep this country safe for 7 years. Fact.

OL'BO has also kept this country safe for his tenure in office. How?? He kept what Bush put in place in place for the most part. Also a fact. He now knows exactly what Bush knew.

I do blame the dirtbags. You. However, can blame anyone you wish.

Have a nice day. LMAO.

Thanks for the spin and the typical avoidance that was expected.

You presetned spin, it was countered and the best you have to offer is to pretend it never happened as you refuse to address the actual content of my post by calling it "bloviating" when it is stating the FACTS that show your partisan spin, as you depserately claim bush was "barely in office", for what it is.

Oh so you aren't a rep but let me guess you are right leaning independent? LOL
It's amazing how many of those began popping up after W became a lame duck and the right lost the election in 08 isn't it??

BTW it's funny how for years W railed against the idea of artificial timelines for withdrawal but then adopted them AFTER obama's campaign suggested bascially what W ended up adopting and yet you rightwingers still try to give W credit even though he is out of office and it's wrong for the left to "look back and hold W accountable for anything.

LOL

Your right. I am a right leaning Indi. Have been one my whole life. Long before 2008. Guess that one ain't so true.

AS I said. You can cut it any way you please but Bush did keep this country safe for 7 years. Thats a fact.

He was in office for 8 months when 9/11 happened. Thats a fact as well but as we all know he was in office so he got the blame. Thats a fact also. The Prez always gets the kudos when things go right and they get the blame when things go wrong. Fact.

Wonder if OL'BO would have gotten OBL if not for the intel provided by the Bush administration?? A project that was in the works for years. I kinda seriously doubt that one.

As for PARTISAN spin?? You've got a masters in that one . LOL

Carry on.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fact is I knew exactly what was being discussed. You are the person who brought up 2 times that Bush mentioned a recession. If there were more show them. But I can promise you, you won't find one tenth the examples we can find of Obama blaming Bush....

And No that is not a challenge, I am not even going to bother looking because any thinking adult knows I am right.

Yes, moron and I brought up two times bush mentioned when i only needed ONE to prove that windbag was wrong when he claimed

Bush actually understood that, and never tried to blame Clinton for the mistakes that were made under his watch, he just accepted the mess was his problem and dealt with it.

Then you chimed in not knowing what was being discussed and decided to try to claim that bush only mentioned a recession twice during his presidency (even though you have failed to prove that he only mentioned it twice) to try and attack me because I called you out for being a hypocrite earlier in this thread.

It doesn't matter that I only brought up two times that W blamed his predecessor for a recession because I only needed one time to prove windbag WRONG.
If you had known what was being discussed then I wouldn't have had to spell that out for you on more than one occasion.

BTW you have shown that your promises are worthless and you were the one that implied that bush only mentioned recession twice during his presidency so you prove it. After all it is your claim and while you are at it, despite your claim that it is not a challenge, why don't you back up your promise and do an actually head to head comparison.
What are you afraid of??
It's kind of pointless to make a promise that you refuse to follwo through on, don't you think?? However that does show how your promises are worthless.

Any fool knows that making a claim doesn't make it true so why is it that you believe it does??



P.S. I just love the fact that I call ollie out for trolling and for being a hypocrite who attacks others for "painting with a broad brush" even as he does the same and the loser bigreb neg reps me for "disrespecting ollie." LOL

I don't know about his neg, but I tend to neg stupidity more than anything else. You are really close to showing stupidity, but I think it's more of a type of ignorance... Do carry on.

 

[Claudette]

Yes, moron and I brought up two times bush mentioned when i only needed ONE to prove that windbag was wrong when he claimed



Then you chimed in not knowing what was being discussed and decided to try to claim that bush only mentioned a recession twice during his presidency (even though you have failed to prove that he only mentioned it twice) to try and attack me because I called you out for being a hypocrite earlier in this thread.

It doesn't matter that I only brought up two times that W blamed his predecessor for a recession because I only needed one time to prove windbag WRONG.
If you had known what was being discussed then I wouldn't have had to spell that out for you on more than one occasion.

BTW you have shown that your promises are worthless and you were the one that implied that bush only mentioned recession twice during his presidency so you prove it. After all it is your claim and while you are at it, despite your claim that it is not a challenge, why don't you back up your promise and do an actually head to head comparison.
What are you afraid of??
It's kind of pointless to make a promise that you refuse to follwo through on, don't you think?? However that does show how your promises are worthless.

Any fool knows that making a claim doesn't make it true so why is it that you believe it does??



P.S. I just love the fact that I call ollie out for trolling and for being a hypocrite who attacks others for "painting with a broad brush" even as he does the same and the loser bigreb neg reps me for "disrespecting ollie." LOL

I don't know about his neg, but I tend to neg stupidity more than anything else. You are really close to showing stupidity, but I think it's more of a type of ignorance... Do carry on.

He is rather amusing isn't he??

 

[Cecilie1200]

President Barack Obama’s leadership on national security was attacked by potential Republican challengers in the primary season’s first debate

He kept us safe for four years and caught bin Laden. You should love this guy

Or is there another problem?

Well, first of all, JB, your problem is the story you're using as a source. Not that the story is wrong, such as it is, but I have no idea who told the writer he was a reporter. That was the crappiest reporting job I've seen in ages. Honestly, if you're going to headline a story about 'attacking the President on national security", wouldn't you think you might mention what they SAID on the subject?

So I went to the Internet and looked for more info on what they said concerning national security.

Pawlenty - Pawlenty said, though, that the president has made the wrong calls on other national-security issues including Libya, where he argued that Obama had limited U.S. options for ousting leader Muammar Qaddafi by being overly deferential to other nations.

“He made a decision to subordinate our decision-making to the United Nations,” Pawlenty said. He later called the UN a “pathetic organization.”

Santorum - On national security, Santorum, 52, said Obama’s only successes have piggybacked on his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush.

“If you look at what President Obama has done right in foreign policy, it has always been a continuation of the Bush policies,” Santorum said. “He’s done right by finishing the job in Iraq. He’s done right by trying to win in Afghanistan. Those were existing policies that were in place.”

On other foreign policy matters, Obama has “gotten it wrong” every time, he added.

With the exception of Cain, all of those on the stage said that if they had been in the White House, they would have made the opposite call to Obama’s and released a photo of bin Laden’s corpse.

That help any?

 

[drsmith1072]

Sorry to burst your bubble there Doc but I am not a Rep.

Facts are indeed facts. Despite all your bloviating Bush did keep this country safe for 7 years. Fact.

OL'BO has also kept this country safe for his tenure in office. How?? He kept what Bush put in place in place for the most part. Also a fact. He now knows exactly what Bush knew.

I do blame the dirtbags. You. However, can blame anyone you wish.

Have a nice day. LMAO.

Thanks for the spin and the typical avoidance that was expected.

You presetned spin, it was countered and the best you have to offer is to pretend it never happened as you refuse to address the actual content of my post by calling it "bloviating" when it is stating the FACTS that show your partisan spin, as you depserately claim bush was "barely in office", for what it is.

Oh so you aren't a rep but let me guess you are right leaning independent? LOL
It's amazing how many of those began popping up after W became a lame duck and the right lost the election in 08 isn't it??

BTW it's funny how for years W railed against the idea of artificial timelines for withdrawal but then adopted them AFTER obama's campaign suggested bascially what W ended up adopting and yet you rightwingers still try to give W credit even though he is out of office and it's wrong for the left to "look back and hold W accountable for anything.

LOL

Your right. I am a right leaning Indi. Have been one my whole life. Long before 2008. Guess that one ain't so true.

Claiming you are an independent when it's obvuious that your opinions are nothing but right wing propaganda does nothing to validate your arguments.

AS I said. You can cut it any way you please but Bush did keep this country safe for 7 years. Thats a fact.

Based on the very standard that the right used to apply to clinton and based on the FACT that our embassies were attacked on W's watch he did NOT keep us safe for 7 years.

According to the right, Clinton failed to keep us safe because of the embassy bombings and attacks on our troops overseas so it's hilarious how they now refuse to apply that same standard to W.

However, thanks for your OPINION as you claim it's fact because you believe it to be so. LOL

He was in office for 8 months when 9/11 happened. Thats a fact as well but as we all know he was in office so he got the blame. Thats a fact also. The Prez always gets the kudos when things go right and they get the blame when things go wrong. Fact.

If you take the time to read this board and all of the comments from the right they are still trying to blame clinton for 9/11 even as they make excuses for W. Excuses like "he was barely in office" is a perfect example.

Furthermore, currently a large portion of the rightwing posters on this board are refusing to give obama credit for bin laden because he is just the president and didn't actually get bin laden himself even as other rightwingers try to claim W kept us safe in spite of the fact that he was just the president and didn't actually do anything himself.

Wonder if OL'BO would have gotten OBL if not for the intel provided by the Bush administration?? A project that was in the works for years. I kinda seriously doubt that one.

Nice assumption but even mccain has said it's not true that "enhanced interrogation techniques" (otherwise known as torture) led to the info that gave us bin laden. However, thanks for your partisan SPIN. BTW if you have any proof of this argument I would be glad to see it. Otherwise you would be best to keep your baseless assumptions to yourself.

As for PARTISAN spin?? You've got a masters in that one . LOL

Carry on.

Your entire post is NOTHING but partisan spin but thanks for trying to transfer your flaws onto me.

BTW no comments on how W was against timelines before he was for them??

And still no comments about the statements from my previous post that you avoided by referring them as "bloviating"

I do find it funny how you continue to present your OPINIONS and claim that they are FACT as if to claim it makes it so.

LOL

 

[Liability]

President Barack Obama’s leadership on national security was attacked by potential Republican challengers in the primary season’s first debate

He kept us safe for four years and caught bin Laden. You should love this guy

Or is there another problem?

Is it so difficult to understand that WHILE it is fair to give the President props for those things he has done right(primarily on the issue of fighting some of the terrorist scumbags like bin Laden), it is also fair to criticize him for the things he has done wrong.

He said he would close Gitmo. A stupid idea. I dunno. Does he get props for reluctantly having to back away from his loudmouth ill-considered position?

He tried to make "trying" captured al qaeda scumbags (or suspects) something we should do in American Courts of LAW here on American soil. Stupid ass notion. Does he get props for somewhat backing off the position that was so facially ridiculous, dangerous and ill-considered in the first place?

He has been ABYSMAL on his efforts to secure our border. President Bush had his problems along those lines, too. But President Obama enjoyed a virtually bullet-proof super majority in Congress at the outset and didn't do fucking diddly dog.

President Obama's "immigration policy" (to the extent you can call it a "policy") is driven by cheese-dick political concerns, not by proper concern for our national security.

It is going a little bit far afield to discuss the economy as a national security matter, but the two are nonetheless still clearly and inexorably linked. He SUCKS in terms of his "leadership" on our economy. Issue number one is the ruinous DEBT. The worse that gets, the less we can afford to spend on our military, border protection, intelligence, etc. etc. etc.

I have given props in the past to President Obama on the topic of going after terrorist leadership. Certainly, that has been one of his few strengths. But if all things are considered properly, he still merits genuine and legitimate criticism for even that.

 

[drsmith1072]

Last I checked Obama has been president since 2008, and its only 2001, so not exactlly four yeards. Besides that, Bush kept us safe for eight, after 9/11 happened, even though 9/11 wasn't exactly preventable. And the previous president's have kept us safe their entire presidency. It's not saying much that he's kept us safe, speaking we are easily the strongest country on the face of the planet.

On another note, he didn't catch Osama Bin Laden. Our hard-working troops did. Let us not forget that a month or two ago, Obama was considering whether or not to PAY them for giving up their lives for us. He may have given the order, but thats what any of us would have done. The troops found him, the troops killed him, so far as I'm concerned, Obama gets no credit for it, because Osama just so happened to be found hiding in a mansion during Obama's presidency.

WOW! Yet another hack refusing to give teh CiC credit. Imagine that.

BTW how did W "keep us safe" when our embassies were attacked on his watch and our troops were under constant attack as W used them as human shields so that the "terrorists" could attack them over there instead of us over here??

Tell us again how presidents "keep us safe" when you refuse to give obama credit for the choices that he has made??

Thanks for the hypocrisy.

Instead of taking time to think up insults to attack me personally, why don't you use that time to think.

Says the hack who neg reps me and attacks me personally.

He did not shoot Bin Laden, he did not find Bin Laden, and its debatable whether or not he gave the order to kill him.

No one has claimed that he shot him so that is a moronic argument on your part. Furthermore if you have any evidence to support your spin that he did not give the order then present it or admit that you are just a hack as I previously stated who refused to give credit to the CiC even as others on the right are jumping at the bit to give W credit for "keeping us safe"

Just because these things just so happened during his presidency, doesn't mean he deserves all the credit.

So he doesn't deserve the blame for things that "just so happened during his presidency"? Got it, now if you could be so kind as to inform the other hacks on the right of that, it would greatly appreciated.

It was only a matter of time before we did find him, and It's a wonder it took this long to do it. Instead of just listening to what the media and the government tells you, why not think for yourself, and see that even if Obama should get credit for this, which he shouldn't, he still is one of the worst presidents we've ever had.

and in come the partsan opinions. Thanks for the spin and thanks for proving yourself to be the hack that I called you out for being.

As to your criticism on how the presidents have kept us safe, in case you didn't notice, there is a war over there. Yes its unfortunate that people are dying, and maybe "W" could've made a better decision, what do you suggest he should have done? Abandoned our embassies, let the "terrorists" get away for 9/11, and let other people suffer? The presidents keep us safe, because as many of us can tell, we're still the United States of America, thereby implying that we haven't been attacked and conquered. Citizens are safe, and we are not constantly under attack, except by ourselves. When you say the troops are under attack, I do believe it is in their job description when they joined the military. None of them were forced to join, and they're all there by choice. So when you debate whether or not we're safe, why don't you walk by a government building and check what flag is being flown, because last time I checked, it was the American Flag.

I had no criticsim as to HOW the presidents "keep us safe". My argument is that the right refuses to give obama credit for bin laden as they make lame arguments about how he didn't shoot bin laden himself even as they argue that bush deserves credit for "keeping us safe" even though he didn't DO any of the fighting himself. How can you honestly claim that one president deserves credit for "keeping us safe" even as you refuse to give another credit??

Yes, there is a war but that does NOT change the fact the the right refuses to apply the same standard to W that they applied to clinton. If our embassies counted as US soil where clinton was concerned then that same stnadard chould apply to W. Therefore, based on the right's own standard W did NOT "keep us safe" for 7 years.

The rest of your mindless drivel is just that. Let the terrorists get away with 9/11?? Who suggested that and what does that have to do with anything that I actually said?

The argument about "keeping us safe" has NOTHING to do with us being "conquered" or not. It is an argument meant to claim that W "kept us safe" because we weren't attacked over here in the US even though the right USED to claim that our embassies counted when a democrat was president. However, thanks for being dishonest about it.

As for my comment about the troops my primary point is that bush CHOSE to use them as human targets so that the "terrorists" would attack them as easier targets over there rather than trying to attack us over here. How does sacrificing our soldiers as they are used as human targets "keep us safe"?

So I am beginning to question, are you being intentionally dishonest or are you just too damn stupid to understand what is being discussed as you insert points into the disscussion that don't really apply??

Based on your neg rep personal attack even as you try to call me out for personally attacking you, my guess is that you are being intentionally dishonest.
I seriously doubt that you can be that dumb.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Poor drsmith, everyone neg reps him and no one understands anything but him. What a loon.

 

[Claudette]

Thanks for the spin and the typical avoidance that was expected.

You presetned spin, it was countered and the best you have to offer is to pretend it never happened as you refuse to address the actual content of my post by calling it "bloviating" when it is stating the FACTS that show your partisan spin, as you depserately claim bush was "barely in office", for what it is.

Oh so you aren't a rep but let me guess you are right leaning independent? LOL
It's amazing how many of those began popping up after W became a lame duck and the right lost the election in 08 isn't it??

BTW it's funny how for years W railed against the idea of artificial timelines for withdrawal but then adopted them AFTER obama's campaign suggested bascially what W ended up adopting and yet you rightwingers still try to give W credit even though he is out of office and it's wrong for the left to "look back and hold W accountable for anything.

LOL

Your right. I am a right leaning Indi. Have been one my whole life. Long before 2008. Guess that one ain't so true.

Claiming you are an independent when it's obvuious that your opinions are nothing but right wing propaganda does nothing to validate your arguments.




Based on the very standard that the right used to apply to clinton and based on the FACT that our embassies were attacked on W's watch he did NOT keep us safe for 7 years.

According to the right, Clinton failed to keep us safe because of the embassy bombings and attacks on our troops overseas so it's hilarious how they now refuse to apply that same standard to W.

However, thanks for your OPINION as you claim it's fact because you believe it to be so. LOL



If you take the time to read this board and all of the comments from the right they are still trying to blame clinton for 9/11 even as they make excuses for W. Excuses like "he was barely in office" is a perfect example.

Furthermore, currently a large portion of the rightwing posters on this board are refusing to give obama credit for bin laden because he is just the president and didn't actually get bin laden himself even as other rightwingers try to claim W kept us safe in spite of the fact that he was just the president and didn't actually do anything himself.

Wonder if OL'BO would have gotten OBL if not for the intel provided by the Bush administration?? A project that was in the works for years. I kinda seriously doubt that one.

Nice assumption but even mccain has said it's not true that "enhanced interrogation techniques" (otherwise known as torture) led to the info that gave us bin laden. However, thanks for your partisan SPIN. BTW if you have any proof of this argument I would be glad to see it. Otherwise you would be best to keep your baseless assumptions to yourself.

As for PARTISAN spin?? You've got a masters in that one . LOL

Carry on.

Your entire post is NOTHING but partisan spin but thanks for trying to transfer your flaws onto me.

BTW no comments on how W was against timelines before he was for them??

And still no comments about the statements from my previous post that you avoided by referring them as "bloviating"

I do find it funny how you continue to present your OPINIONS and claim that they are FACT as if to claim it makes it so.

LOL

LMAO there Doc

Funny how anyone who doesn't agree with you on this board is merely giving OPINIONS while you, of course, spout nothing but FACTS.

You claim I'm partisan while ignoring your own partisanship.

You and TDM should be great friends. She never met a RWer she didn't hate or a LW she didn't love.

You remind me of her except that you type better than she does. LOL

 

[Claudette]

Poor drsmith, everyone neg reps him and no one understands anything but him. What a loon.

Yup. He's a legend in his own mind and the smartest guy in the room.

Everyone but him is partisan and dumb as a box of rocks. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Your right. I am a right leaning Indi. Have been one my whole life. Long before 2008. Guess that one ain't so true.

Claiming you are an independent when it's obvuious that your opinions are nothing but right wing propaganda does nothing to validate your arguments.




Based on the very standard that the right used to apply to clinton and based on the FACT that our embassies were attacked on W's watch he did NOT keep us safe for 7 years.

According to the right, Clinton failed to keep us safe because of the embassy bombings and attacks on our troops overseas so it's hilarious how they now refuse to apply that same standard to W.

However, thanks for your OPINION as you claim it's fact because you believe it to be so. LOL



If you take the time to read this board and all of the comments from the right they are still trying to blame clinton for 9/11 even as they make excuses for W. Excuses like "he was barely in office" is a perfect example.

Furthermore, currently a large portion of the rightwing posters on this board are refusing to give obama credit for bin laden because he is just the president and didn't actually get bin laden himself even as other rightwingers try to claim W kept us safe in spite of the fact that he was just the president and didn't actually do anything himself.



Nice assumption but even mccain has said it's not true that "enhanced interrogation techniques" (otherwise known as torture) led to the info that gave us bin laden. However, thanks for your partisan SPIN. BTW if you have any proof of this argument I would be glad to see it. Otherwise you would be best to keep your baseless assumptions to yourself.

As for PARTISAN spin?? You've got a masters in that one . LOL

Carry on.

Your entire post is NOTHING but partisan spin but thanks for trying to transfer your flaws onto me.

BTW no comments on how W was against timelines before he was for them??

And still no comments about the statements from my previous post that you avoided by referring them as "bloviating"

I do find it funny how you continue to present your OPINIONS and claim that they are FACT as if to claim it makes it so.

LOL

LMAO there Doc

Funny how anyone who doesn't agree with you on this board is merely giving OPINIONS while you, of course, spout nothing but FACTS.

Calling YOU out when yopu present YOUR opinons and try to pretend they are fact has NOTHIGN to do with me but thanks for the spin.

You claim I'm partisan while ignoring your own partisanship.

Calling YOU out for your partisanship and rightwing propaganda as you claim to be an inependent in an obvious attempt to give validity to YOUR opinons has NOTHING to do with me.

You and TDM should be great friends. She never met a RWer she didn't hate or a LW she didn't love.

You remind me of her except that you type better than she does. LOL

How does any of your avoidance and attempts to make the discussion about me answer or respond to anything that I have actually written??

Based on the same standard that the right appled to clinton, W did NOT keep us safe.

Furthermore, making claims about how W was "barely in office" when 9/11 occured is nothing but right wing propaganda meant to make excuses for W in spite of the fact that the right tried to hold clinton accountable for allowing the first wtc attack to occur on his watch when it was closer to being "barely in office" than 9/11 was for W.

So you still have nothing about how W was against timelines for withdrawal before he was for them?? LOL